IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v37y2010i6p413-428.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Business R&D in the ICT sector: examining the European ICT R&D deficit

Author

Listed:
  • Sven Lindmark
  • Geomina Turlea
  • Martin Ulbrich

Abstract

Two data sets are contrasted: country-level data (R&D performed by business in a particular sector and country (BERD) and company-level data (R&D financed by a particular company regardless where R&D investment is performed). About half of the overall EU vs. US R&D gap is in the information and communications technologies (ICT) sector. In turn, this ICT R&D gap has two faces. Country data suggest that the gap is largely intrinsic: the EU displays lower R&D intensities in several sub-sectors, while ICT sector size and composition are quite similar. On the other hand, company data suggest that the gap is instead structural: the sector size and composition of sub-sectors differ greatly, while R&D intensities are similar. One major explanatory factor lies in international flows of R&D and value added. Companies tend to allocate a larger share of their value added and a smaller share of R&D outside their home markets. In the sub-sectors which include much larger and more numerous US companies, these flows are unbalanced, and (BERD) R&D intensities are thus higher in the US than in Europe, everything else being equal. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Suggested Citation

  • Sven Lindmark & Geomina Turlea & Martin Ulbrich, 2010. "Business R&D in the ICT sector: examining the European ICT R&D deficit," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 37(6), pages 413-428, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:37:y:2010:i:6:p:413-428
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.3152/030234210X508624
    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. Castellani, Davide & Piva, Mariacristina & Schubert, Torben & Vivarelli, Marco, 2019. "R&D and productivity in the US and the EU: Sectoral specificities and differences in the crisis," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 279-291.
    2. Pietro Moncada-Paternò-Castello & Nicola Grassano, 2022. "The EU vs US corporate R&D intensity gap: investigating key sectors and firms [A primer on innovation and growth]," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 31(1), pages 19-38.
    3. Pietro Moncada-Paternò-Castello & Sara Amoroso & Michele Cincera, 0. "Corporate R&D intensity decomposition: different data, different results?," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 47(4), pages 458-473.
    4. Yvonne McNulty & Chris Brewster, 2016. "Theorizing the Meaning(s) of 'Expatriate': Establishing Boundary Conditions," John H Dunning Centre for International Business Discussion Papers jhd-dp2016-05, Henley Business School, University of Reading.
    5. Davide Castellani & Mariacristina Piva & Torben Schubert & Marco Vivarelli, 2018. "The source of the US /EU Productivity Gap:Less and less effective R&D," LEM Papers Series 2018/16, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.
    6. Castellani, Davide & Piva, Mariacristina & Schubert, Torben & Vivarelli, Marco, 2016. "The Productivity Impact of R&D Investment: A Comparison between the EU and the US," IZA Discussion Papers 9937, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    7. Federico Biagi & Juraj Stančík, 2012. "Characterizing the evolution of the EU R&D intensity gap using data from top R&D performers," ERSA conference papers ersa12p321, European Regional Science Association.
    8. Raquel Ortega-Argilés, 2012. "The Transatlantic Productivity Gap: A Survey Of The Main Causes," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(3), pages 395-419, July.

    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:37:y:2010:i:6:p:413-428. 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.