IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/rseval/v7y1998i1p17-30.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Measuring the economic benefits of research and development: The current state of the art

Author

Listed:
  • Douglas Williams
  • A Dennis Rank

Abstract

The methodology for measuring the economic benefits of R&D has been considerably refined since the mid-1980s. Recently, increasing attention has been paid to the indirect benefits of R&D, in particular, the measurement of competency benefits. This paper shows that it is now possible to provide defensible estimates of both direct benefits (those arising from the use of the research results) and benefits which arise from the use of the competencies that are developed in the R&D process. A number of specific methodological advances are also discussed, such as the refinement of the notions of incrementality and attribution. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Suggested Citation

  • Douglas Williams & A Dennis Rank, 1998. "Measuring the economic benefits of research and development: The current state of the art," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 7(1), pages 17-30, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:7:y:1998:i:1:p:17-30
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/rev/7.1.17
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Vincett, P.S., 2010. "The economic impacts of academic spin-off companies, and their implications for public policy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 736-747, July.
    2. Andrés Barge-Gil & Aurelia Modrego, 2011. "The impact of research and technology organizations on firm competitiveness. Measurement and determinants," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 36(1), pages 61-83, February.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:oup:rseval:v:7:y:1998:i:1:p:17-30. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/rev .

    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.