IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/jknowl/v13y2022i1d10.1007_s13132-020-00709-2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Economic Footprint of a Large French Research and Technology Organisation in Europe: Deciphering a Simplified Model and Appraising the Results

Author

Listed:
  • Nathalie Taverdet-Popiolek

    (University of Paris-Saclay)

Abstract

Europe has seen the importance of Research and Technology Organisations (RTOs) grow in recent years. This is hardly surprising given that their main mission is to harness science and technology to foster innovation that can improve the quality of life and boost economic competitiveness. In the current economic context, it is key to demonstrate the positive impact of their activities on the economy and society, i.e. spin-offs, considering that they receive public subsidies. Accordingly, the European Association of Research and Technology Organisations (EARTO) published a report in March 2018 that details the economic footprint of 9 of its members, which includes the French Alternative Energies and Atomic Energy Commission (CEA). This French organisation, whose budget represents 60% of the total budget from all 9 RTOs, was the subject of a separate calculation in the framework of the research carried out for the paper: data was provided by the CEA and simulation was performed on the basis of the model provided by IDEA Consult. This article deals with the provision of empirical results about the CEA and makes a comparison with the results obtained for the 9 RTOs using the same methodology. This case study highlights information that can be used to provide a more accurate assessment of the CEA’s economic impact based on its specificities compared with its European counterparts. In addition to estimating the economic spin-offs of technology transfers, it is equally important to take into account value creation associated with the procurement of high technology—the impact of “big science”—which is substantial in the CEA’s defence sector and undervalued in the economic model used by IDEA Consult. Thanks to a literature review summarising the advantages and limitations of the different impact assessment approaches and thanks to interviews at CEA management level—that helped us to better understand the impact-generating mechanisms—the paper opens new avenues of research to improve the methodology for measuring the impact of research organisations that are very diverse in their duties. The new methodology proposed takes into account the spillovers of their activities, as well as offering useful approaches for governments and the European Commission. More specifically, it proposes to apply the same methodology—in the opposite direction—to measure the spin-offs of the contract research activities (with a multiplier as in the methodology used by IDEA Consult) and to estimate the science market characterised by very specific calls for tender that generate innovation. Using the same model, we therefore propose to couple an estimate of the footprint of jobs and standard purchases, with an estimate of the spin-offs linked to both technology transfers (RTO to industry) and to high-tech purchases (industry to RTO).

Suggested Citation

  • Nathalie Taverdet-Popiolek, 2022. "Economic Footprint of a Large French Research and Technology Organisation in Europe: Deciphering a Simplified Model and Appraising the Results," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 13(1), pages 44-69, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:jknowl:v:13:y:2022:i:1:d:10.1007_s13132-020-00709-2
    DOI: 10.1007/s13132-020-00709-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s13132-020-00709-2
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s13132-020-00709-2?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

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

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Romer, Paul M, 1986. "Increasing Returns and Long-run Growth," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 94(5), pages 1002-1037, October.
    2. Nicholas Bloom & Charles I. Jones & John Van Reenen & Michael Webb, 2020. "Are Ideas Getting Harder to Find?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 110(4), pages 1104-1144, April.
    3. Prettner, Klaus & Werner, Katharina, 2016. "Why it pays off to pay us well: The impact of basic research on economic growth and welfare," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(5), pages 1075-1090.
    4. Raffaele Trequattrini & Rosa Lombardi & Alessandra Lardo & Benedetta Cuozzo, 2018. "The Impact of Entrepreneurial Universities on Regional Growth: a Local Intellectual Capital Perspective," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 9(1), pages 199-211, March.
    5. Andrea Conte, 2006. "The Evolution of the Literature on Technological Change over time: A Survey," Papers on Entrepreneurship, Growth and Public Policy 2007-01, Max Planck Institute of Economics, Entrepreneurship, Growth and Public Policy Group.
    6. Joly, P.B. & Gaunand, A. & Colinet, L. & Larédo, P. & Lemarié, S. & Matt, M., 2015. "ASIRPA: a comprehensive theory-based approach to assessing the societal impacts of a research organization," Working Papers 2015-04, Grenoble Applied Economics Laboratory (GAEL).
    7. Czarnitzki, Dirk & Hanel, Petr & Rosa, Julio Miguel, 2011. "Evaluating the impact of R&D tax credits on innovation: A microeconometric study on Canadian firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(2), pages 217-229, March.
    8. Autio, Erkko & Hameri, Ari-Pekka & Vuola, Olli, 2004. "A framework of industrial knowledge spillovers in big-science centers," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 107-126, January.
    9. Kenneth Arrow, 1962. "Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention," NBER Chapters, in: The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors, pages 609-626, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    10. Philippe Aghion, 2006. "A primer on innovation and growth," Policy Briefs 233, Bruegel.
    11. Austin, David & Macauley, Molly, 1998. "A Quality-Adjusted Cost Index for Estimating Future Consumer Surplus from Innovation," RFF Working Paper Series dp-98-45, Resources for the Future.
    12. Vincent Van Roy & Daniel Nepelski, 2016. "Assessment of Framework Conditions for the Creation and Growth of Firms in Europe," JRC Research Reports JRC103350, Joint Research Centre.
    13. Lutz Bornmann, 2013. "What is societal impact of research and how can it be assessed? a literature survey," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(2), pages 217-233, February.
    14. Bach, L & Cohendet, P & Schenk, E, 2002. "Technological Transfers from the European Space Programs: A Dynamic View and Comparison with Other R&D Projects," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 27(4), pages 321-338, December.
    15. Romer, Paul M, 1990. "Endogenous Technological Change," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 98(5), pages 71-102, October.
    16. 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.
    17. Brecard, Dorothee & Fougeyrollas, Arnaud & Le Mouel, Pierre & Lemiale, Lionel & Zagame, Paul, 2006. "Macro-economic consequences of European research policy: Prospects of the Nemesis model in the year 2030," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(7), pages 910-924, September.
    18. Austin, David & Macauley, Molly, 2000. "Estimating Future Consumer Welfare Gains from Innovation: The Case of Digital Data Storage," RFF Working Paper Series dp-00-13, Resources for the Future.
    19. Reinhilde Veugelers, 2016. "Getting the most from public R&D spending in times of budgetary austerity," Working Papers 13004, Bruegel.
    20. Bresnahan, Timothy F, 1986. "Measuring the Spillovers from Technical Advance: Mainframe Computers inFinancial Services," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 76(4), pages 742-755, September.
    21. Oecd, 2019. "Reference framework for assessing the scientific and socio-economic impact of research infrastructures," OECD Science, Technology and Industry Policy Papers 65, OECD Publishing.
    22. Laurent Bach & Sandrine Wolff, 2017. "The BETA-EvaRIO impact evaluation method: towards a bridging approach?," Post-Print hal-02167827, HAL.
    23. Georghiou, Luke & Roessner, David, 2000. "Evaluating technology programs: tools and methods," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(4-5), pages 657-678, April.
    24. Hauknes, Johan & Knell, Mark, 2009. "Embodied knowledge and sectoral linkages: An input-output approach to the interaction of high- and low-tech industries," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(3), pages 459-469, April.
    25. Roel van Elk & Bas ter Weel & Karen van der Wiel & Bram Wouterse, 2019. "Estimating the Returns to Public R&D Investments: Evidence from Production Function Models," De Economist, Springer, vol. 167(1), pages 45-87, March.
    26. Lucas, Robert Jr., 1988. "On the mechanics of economic development," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 3-42, July.
    27. Waltman, Ludo, 2016. "A review of the literature on citation impact indicators," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 365-391.
    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. Paloma Bernal-Turnes & Ricardo Ernst, 2024. "More Bang for Your Buck: Best-Practice Recommendations for Designing, Implementing, and Evaluating Job Creation Studies," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 15(1), pages 1889-1912, March.
    2. Mahdi Khelfaoui & Luc Bernier, 2023. "Research and technology organizations as entrepreneurship instruments: the case of the Institut National d’Optique in the Canadian optics and photonics industry," Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Springer, vol. 12(1), pages 1-21, December.
    3. Laura Baituova & Manatzhan Tleuzhanova & Bakey Agipar, 2024. "Issues Related to Human Resources Development in the Conditions of Industrial and Innovative Economy in the Republic of Kazakhstan," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 15(1), pages 1571-1591, March.

    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. Brautzsch, Hans-Ulrich & Günther, Jutta & Loose, Brigitte & Ludwig, Udo & Nulsch, Nicole, 2015. "Can R&D subsidies counteract the economic crisis? – Macroeconomic effects in Germany," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(3), pages 623-633.
    2. Matthias Firgo & Peter Mayerhofer, 2015. "Wissens-Spillovers und regionale Entwicklung - welche strukturpolitische Ausrichtung optimiert des Wachstum?," Working Paper Reihe der AK Wien - Materialien zu Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft 144, Kammer für Arbeiter und Angestellte für Wien, Abteilung Wirtschaftswissenschaft und Statistik.
    3. Diemer, Andreas & Regan, Tanner, 2022. "No inventor is an island: Social connectedness and the geography of knowledge flows in the US," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(2).
    4. Quatraro, Francesco, 2008. "Regional Knowledge Base and Productivity Growth: The Evidence of Italian Manufacturing," Department of Economics and Statistics Cognetti de Martiis LEI & BRICK - Laboratory of Economics of Innovation "Franco Momigliano", Bureau of Research in Innovation, Complexity and Knowledge, Collegio 200810, University of Turin.
    5. Zoltán J. Ács & Pontus Braunerhjelm & David B. Audretsch & Bo Carlsson, 2015. "The knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship," Chapters, in: Global Entrepreneurship, Institutions and Incentives, chapter 7, pages 129-144, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    6. Osiris Jorge Parcero & James Christopher Ryan, 2017. "Becoming a Knowledge Economy: the Case of Qatar, UAE, and 17 Benchmark Countries," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 8(4), pages 1146-1173, December.
    7. Gene M. Grossman & Elhanan Helpman, 1994. "Endogenous Innovation in the Theory of Growth," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(1), pages 23-44, Winter.
    8. Maha Kalai & Nahed Zghidi, 2019. "Foreign Direct Investment, Trade, and Economic Growth in MENA Countries: Empirical Analysis Using ARDL Bounds Testing Approach," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 10(1), pages 397-421, March.
    9. Karlsson, Charlie & Johansson, Börje, 2006. "Regional Development and Knowledge," Working Paper Series in Economics and Institutions of Innovation 76, Royal Institute of Technology, CESIS - Centre of Excellence for Science and Innovation Studies.
    10. David B. Audretsch, 2020. "Entrepreneurship and culture," Eurasian Economic Review, Springer;Eurasia Business and Economics Society, vol. 10(1), pages 1-8, March.
    11. Boldrin, Michele & Levine, David K., 2008. "Perfectly competitive innovation," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(3), pages 435-453, April.
    12. Rosina Moreno & Jordi Suriñach, 2014. "Innovation adoption and productivity growth: evidence for Europe," EKONOMIAZ. Revista vasca de Economía, Gobierno Vasco / Eusko Jaurlaritza / Basque Government, vol. 86(02), pages 62-87.
    13. Antonio Rodríguez Andrés & Abraham Otero & Voxi Heinrich Amavilah, 2022. "Knowledge economy classification in African countries: A model-based clustering approach," Information Technology for Development, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 28(2), pages 372-396, April.
    14. Iritié, B. G. Jean-Jacques, 2014. "Enjeux des politiques industrielles basées sur les clusters d'innovation: cas des pôles de compétitivité [Issues of Innovative Clusters-based Industrial Policy: Case of Pole of Competitiveness]," MPRA Paper 54429, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    15. Guridi, Jose A. & Pertuze, Julio A. & Pfotenhauer, Sebastian M., 2020. "Natural laboratories as policy instruments for technological learning and institutional capacity building: The case of Chile's astronomy cluster," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(2).
    16. Parteka, Aleksandra & Kordalska, Aleksandra, 2023. "Artificial intelligence and productivity: global evidence from AI patent and bibliometric data," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 125(C).
    17. de la Fuente, Angel & Marin, JoseMaria, 1996. "Innovation, bank monitoring, and endogenous financial development," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 269-301, October.
    18. Baltzopoulos, Apostolos, 2009. "Agglomeration Externalities and Entrepreneurship - micro-level evidence from Sweden," Working Paper Series in Economics and Institutions of Innovation 190, Royal Institute of Technology, CESIS - Centre of Excellence for Science and Innovation Studies.
    19. Zuzanna Helena Zarach & Aleksandra Parteka, 2023. "Productivity effects of trade in natural resources—comparison with mechanisms of technological specialisation," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(9), pages 2684-2706, September.
    20. Niccolò Ghio & Massimiliano Guerini & Erik Lehmann & Cristina Rossi-Lamastra, 2015. "The emergence of the knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 44(1), pages 1-18, January.

    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:spr:jknowl:v:13:y:2022:i:1:d:10.1007_s13132-020-00709-2. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.