IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v34y2007i6p431-443.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Monitoring sector specialisation of public and private funded business research and development

Author

Listed:
  • Rainer Frietsch
  • Aris Kaloudis

Abstract

This article investigates whether sector-specific research and development (R&D) specialisation indices are a useful device for R&D policy analysis. We first conceptualise R&D specialisation, and then discuss the usability and limitations of a quantitative benchmarking approach by displaying specialisation indices for Austria, Germany and Norway. We show that the extent of correlation between public and private R&D funding specialisation in firms varies considerably between countries. Reasons for specific specialisation patterns are to be found in government funding decisions and strategies, such as the role of bottom-up research funding or the relevance of defence R&D. Limitations in data availability and lack of appropriate classifications require a combination of quantitative and qualitative measures in order to understand better existing R&D specialisation patterns. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Suggested Citation

  • Rainer Frietsch & Aris Kaloudis, 2007. "Monitoring sector specialisation of public and private funded business research and development," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 34(6), pages 431-443, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:34:y:2007:i:6:p:431-443
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.3152/030234207X234587
    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. Archibugi, Daniele & Filippetti, Andrea, 2018. "The retreat of public research and its adverse consequences on innovation," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 97-111.
    2. Abramo, Giovanni & D'Angelo, Ciriaco Andrea & Di Costa, Flavia, 2022. "Revealing the scientific comparative advantage of nations: Common and distinctive features," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(1).
    3. Makkonen, Teemu, 2013. "Government science and technology budgets in times of crisis," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(3), pages 817-822.
    4. Daniele Archibugi & Andrea Filippetti, 2016. "(English) The Retreat of Public Research and its Adverse Consequences on Innovation (Italiano) I cambiamenti nella ricerca pubblica e le conseguenze avverse sull’innovazione," IRPPS Working Papers 94:2016, National Research Council, Institute for Research on Population and Social Policies.
    5. Azagra-Caro,Joaquín M. & Consoli,Davide, 2013. "Knowledge Flows and Public-Private Cooperation across National Contexts," INGENIO (CSIC-UPV) Working Paper Series 201304, INGENIO (CSIC-UPV), revised 17 Dec 2014.
    6. Polt, Wolfgang & Berger, Martin & Boekholt, Patries & Cremers, Katrin & Egeln, Jürgen & Gassler, Helmut & Hofer, Reinhold & Rammer, Christian & Deuten, Jasper & Good, Barbara & Warta, Katharina, 2010. "Das deutsche Forschungs- und Innovationssystem: Ein internationaler Sytemvergleich zur Rolle von Wissenschaft, Interaktionen und Governance für die technologische Leistungsfähigkeit," Studien zum deutschen Innovationssystem 11-2010, Expertenkommission Forschung und Innovation (EFI) - Commission of Experts for Research and Innovation, Berlin.

    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:scippl:v:34:y:2007:i:6:p:431-443. 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/spp .

    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.