IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jscscx/v8y2019i5p153-d231315.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Science and Technology Policy Research in the EU: From Framework Programme to HORIZON 2020

Author

Listed:
  • Junic Kim

    (School of Business, Konkuk University, Seoul 05029, Korea)

  • Jaewook Yoo

    (School of Business, Konkuk University, Seoul 05029, Korea)

Abstract

Science and Technology policy is regarded as an essential factor for future growth in the EU, and Horizon 2020 is the world’s most extensive research and innovation programme created by the European Union to support and encourage research in the European Research Area (ERA). The purpose of this study is to analyse and evaluate the changes to the EU’s science and technology policies from Framework Programme to Horizon 2020 and to provide vital information to research organisations and academia to conceive and conduct future research on international cooperation with the EU. Through a policy analysis, this study summarised the four science and technology policy implications: (1) building ecosystems through mutual complementation among industries, (2) solving social problems through science and technology, (3) strengthening SMEs’ participation, and (4) sharing knowledge and strengthening collaboration with non-EU countries.

Suggested Citation

  • Junic Kim & Jaewook Yoo, 2019. "Science and Technology Policy Research in the EU: From Framework Programme to HORIZON 2020," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 8(5), pages 1-10, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jscscx:v:8:y:2019:i:5:p:153-:d:231315
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/8/5/153/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/8/5/153/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Roberto Camagni & Roberta Capello, 2013. "Regional Innovation Patterns and the EU Regional Policy Reform: Toward Smart Innovation Policies," Growth and Change, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(2), pages 355-389, June.
    2. Thomas Scherngell & Michael J. Barber, 2009. "Spatial interaction modelling of cross‐region R&D collaborations: empirical evidence from the 5th EU framework programme," Papers in Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 88(3), pages 531-546, August.
    3. Luukkonen, Terttu, 2000. "Additionality of EU framework programmes1," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(6), pages 711-724, June.
    4. Luukkonen, Terttu, 1998. "The difficulties in assessing the impact of EU framework programmes," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(6), pages 599-610, September.
    5. John Peterson, 1991. "Technology Policy in Europe: Explaining the Framework Programme and Eureka in Theory and Practice," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(3), pages 269-290, March.
    6. Storey, D. J. & Tether, B. S., 1998. "Public policy measures to support new technology-based firms in the European Union," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(9), pages 1037-1057, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Szücs, Florian, 2020. "Do research subsidies crowd out private R&D of large firms? Evidence from European Framework Programmes," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(3).
    2. Angelou, K. & Maragakis, M. & Kosmidis, K. & Argyrakis, P., 2021. "The evolution of triangular research and innovation collaborations in the European area," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(3).
    3. Koopo Kwon & Sungchan Jun & Yong-Jae Lee & Sanghei Choi & Chulung Lee, 2022. "Logistics Technology Forecasting Framework Using Patent Analysis for Technology Roadmap," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-30, April.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Simen G. Enger & Fulvio Castellacci, 2016. "Who gets Horizon 2020 research grants? Propensity to apply and probability to succeed in a two-step analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(3), pages 1611-1638, December.
    2. Bayona-Sáez, Cristina & García-Marco, Teresa, 2010. "Assessing the effectiveness of the Eureka Program," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(10), pages 1375-1386, December.
    3. Roberta Capello & Camilla Lenzi, 2013. "Territorial Patterns of Innovation and Economic Growth in European Regions," Growth and Change, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(2), pages 195-227, June.
    4. Ascension Barajas & Elena Huergo & Lourdes Moreno, 2012. "Measuring the economic impact of research joint ventures supported by the EU Framework Programme," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 37(6), pages 917-942, December.
    5. Roberto Camagni & Roberta Capello & Camilla Lenzi, 2014. "A Territorial Taxonomy of Innovative Regions and the European Regional Policy Reform: Smart Innovation Policies," SCIENZE REGIONALI, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2014(1), pages 69-105.
    6. James A. Cunningham & Albert N. Link, 2016. "Exploring the effectiveness of research and innovation policies among European Union countries," International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Springer, vol. 12(2), pages 415-425, June.
    7. Daniel Nepelski & Vincent Roy & Annarosa Pesole, 2019. "The organisational and geographic diversity and innovation potential of EU-funded research networks," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 44(2), pages 359-380, April.
    8. Benfratello, Luigi & Sembenelli, Alessandro, 2002. "Research joint ventures and firm level performance," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(4), pages 493-507, May.
    9. Ekin Taş & Erkan Erdil, 2024. "Effectiveness of R&D Tax Incentives in Turkey," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 15(2), pages 6226-6272, June.
    10. Hsu, Fang-Ming & Hsueh, Chao-Chih, 2009. "Measuring relative efficiency of government-sponsored R&D projects: A three-stage approach," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 178-186, May.
    11. Scott W. Hegerty & Arkadiusz M. Kowalski & Małgorzata S. Lewandowska, 2023. "Complementarity of additionalities resulting from European Union funds: Perspective of the users of research infrastructures," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 40(2), pages 307-331, March.
    12. Wanzenböck, Iris & Scherngell, Thomas & Fischer, Manfred M., 2013. "How do firm characteristics affect behavioural additionalities of public R&D subsidies? Evidence for the Austrian transport sector," MPRA Paper 77552, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Luukkonen, Terttu, 2002. "Technology and market orientation in company participation in the EU framework programme," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 437-455, March.
    14. Massimo Colombo & Annalisa Croce & Samuele Murtinu, 2014. "Ownership structure, horizontal agency costs and the performance of high-tech entrepreneurial firms," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 42(2), pages 265-282, February.
    15. Cilem Selin Hazir & Corinne Autant-Bernard, 2012. "Using Affiliation Networks to Study the Determinants of Multilateral Research Cooperation Some empirical evidence from EU Framework Programs in biotechnology," Working Papers 1212, Groupe d'Analyse et de Théorie Economique Lyon St-Étienne (GATE Lyon St-Étienne), Université de Lyon.
    16. Teixeira, Aurora A.C. & Tavares-Lehmann, Ana Teresa, 2014. "Human capital intensity in technology-based firms located in Portugal: Does foreign ownership matter?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(4), pages 737-748.
    17. Catharina Sikow-Magny & Marcel Rommerts, 2005. "Policy Transfer through Research Networks – the Example of Urban Road Pricing," ifo DICE Report, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, vol. 3(03), pages 22-27, November.
    18. Beck, Mathias & Junge, Martin & Kaiser, Ulrich, 2017. "Public Funding and Corporate Innovation," IZA Discussion Papers 11196, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    19. Alberto Albahari & Magnus Klofsten & Juan Carlos Rubio-Romero, 2019. "Science and Technology Parks: a study of value creation for park tenants," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 44(4), pages 1256-1272, August.
    20. repec:rdg:wpaper:em-dp2007-43 is not listed on IDEAS
    21. Antonio Carlos Campos & Luís Lopes & Carlos Carreira, 2024. "Spatial Autocorrelation of Exports and R&D Expenditures in Portugal," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 15(2), pages 8632-8653, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jscscx:v:8:y:2019:i:5:p:153-:d:231315. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.