IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/pfobei/137.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Achieving Lisbon: The EU's R&D challenge. The role of the public sector and implications of US best practice on regional policymaking in Europe

Author

Listed:
  • Neuer, Kim Dobbie

Abstract

In 2000, the European Council set its sights on becoming the world's top knowledge-based economy. To that end, they aimed to achieve a goal of spending 3% of GDP on research and development by 2010. Their Lisbon Strategy recommended a number of efforts on the European Union and national levels, including encouragement of public-private collaboration. Examination at the regional level indicates the need for R&D and innovation policy to help stimulate growth. Current theory turns attention to the effect of system failure in the regions. The Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research developed a typology for the regions of the European Union. Using performance results, this paper identifies US states that correlate to the typology. Comparative analysis of these states based on key industries and actors, major programs and instruments, successes, failures, impact of federal programs, and best practices then informs discussion of the implications on policymaking. If regional variances represent the most important factor influencing the development of an appropriate policy mix, local specializations, along with regionalized institutional factors, must be considered when codifying the main objectives for policymakers, such as stimulating the efficiency of the system, encouraging dynamic connection among the actors, and reducing the risk of lock-in. This, in turn, affects selection of the instruments that may or may not benefit the region and the indicators with which the impact of public action may be measured. Considering this, particularly challenging for the EU is the need to balance decentralization of action in the regions and coordination at the Union level.

Suggested Citation

  • Neuer, Kim Dobbie, 2010. "Achieving Lisbon: The EU's R&D challenge. The role of the public sector and implications of US best practice on regional policymaking in Europe," Beiträge der Hochschule Pforzheim 137, Pforzheim University.
  • Handle: RePEc:zbw:pfobei:137
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/97574/1/786526653.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. David J. TEECE, 2008. "Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: The Transfer And Licensing Of Know-How And Intellectual Property Understanding the Multinational Enterprise in the Modern World, chapter 5, pages 67-87, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    2. Georghiou, Luke, 2001. "Evolving frameworks for European collaboration in research and technology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(6), pages 891-903, June.
    3. Winter, Sidney G., 2006. "The logic of appropriability: From Schumpeter to Arrow to Teece," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(8), pages 1100-1106, October.
    4. 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.
    5. Arthur, W. Brian, 1990. "'Silicon Valley' locational clusters: when do increasing returns imply monopoly?," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 235-251, June.
    6. Dominique Guellec & Bruno Van Pottelsberghe De La Potterie, 2003. "The impact of public R&D expenditure on business R&D," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(3), pages 225-243.
    7. Bruno Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, 2008. "Europe's R&D: Missing the Wrong Targets?," Intereconomics: Review of European Economic Policy, Springer;ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics;Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS), vol. 43(4), pages 220-225, July.
    8. Czarnitzki, Dirk & Hussinger, Katrin, 2004. "The Link Between R&D Subsidies, R&D Spending and Technological Performance," ZEW Discussion Papers 04-56, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    9. Andrés Rodríguez-Pose & Riccardo Crescenzi, 2006. "R&D, Spillovers, Innovation Systems and the Genesis of Regional Growth in Europe," Bruges European Economic Research Papers 5, European Economic Studies Department, College of Europe.
    10. Unknown, 2005. "Forward," 2005 Conference: Slovenia in the EU - Challenges for Agriculture, Food Science and Rural Affairs, November 10-11, 2005, Moravske Toplice, Slovenia 183804, Slovenian Association of Agricultural Economists (DAES).
    11. Mazzoleni, Roberto & Nelson, Richard R., 2007. "Public research institutions and economic catch-up," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(10), pages 1512-1528, December.
    12. Chris Freeman & Luc Soete, 1997. "The Economics of Industrial Innovation, 3rd Edition," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 3, volume 1, number 0262061953, April.
    13. Cleff, Thomas & Fischer, Lena & Sepúlveda, César & Walter, Nadine, 2010. "How global are global brands? An empirical brand equity analysis," Beiträge der Hochschule Pforzheim 136, Pforzheim University.
    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. Gildeggen, Rainer & Willburger, Andreas, 2016. "What constitutes a compensation free regulation of foreign-owned property in international law? Some thoughts on the protection of foreign investment against expropriations, the states' right to regul," Beiträge der Hochschule Pforzheim 160, Pforzheim University.
    2. Müller, Daniel Wyn, 2012. "Titanschäume als Knochenimplantat," Beiträge der Hochschule Pforzheim 142, Pforzheim University.

    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. Dosi, Giovanni & Nelson, Richard R., 2010. "Technical Change and Industrial Dynamics as Evolutionary Processes," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 51-127, Elsevier.
    2. Beck, Mathias & Junge, Martin & Kaiser, Ulrich, 2017. "Public Funding and Corporate Innovation," IZA Discussion Papers 11196, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    3. Chang, Yuan-Chieh & Chen, Min-Nan, 2016. "Service regime and innovation clusters: An empirical study from service firms in Taiwan," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(9), pages 1845-1857.
    4. Hualde, Alfredo & Micheli, Jordy, 2016. "The evolution of call centres and the implications for service quality and workforce management in Mexico," Coediciones, Naciones Unidas Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL), number 43205.
    5. Marius Constantin PROFIROIU & Septimiu Rares SZABO, 2016. "Outsourcing vs decentralisation: A comparative analysis in Central and Eastern Europe," Eco-Economics Review, Ecological University of Bucharest, Economics Faculty and Ecology and Environmental Protection Faculty, vol. 2(2), pages 3-26, December.
    6. Murmann, Johann Peter & Frenken, Koen, 2006. "Toward a systematic framework for research on dominant designs, technological innovations, and industrial change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(7), pages 925-952, September.
    7. Freeman, Christopher & Soete, Luc, 2009. "Developing science, technology and innovation indicators: What we can learn from the past," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(4), pages 583-589, May.
    8. Würmseher, Martin, 2017. "To each his own: Matching different entrepreneurial models to the academic scientist's individual needs," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 1-17.
    9. Giovanni Dosi & Richard Nelson, 2013. "The Evolution of Technologies: An Assessment of the State-of-the-Art," Eurasian Business Review, Springer;Eurasia Business and Economics Society, vol. 3(1), pages 3-46, June.
    10. Gambardella, Alfonso & Giuri, Paola & Luzzi, Alessandra, 2007. "The market for patents in Europe," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(8), pages 1163-1183, October.
    11. Ugur, Mehmet & Trushin, Eshref, 2018. "Asymmetric information and heterogeneous effects of R&D subsidies: evidence on R&D investment and employment of R&D personel," Greenwich Papers in Political Economy 21943, University of Greenwich, Greenwich Political Economy Research Centre.
    12. Rodríguez, Luisa, 2016. "Innovation in services and the internationalization of services SMEs: challenges and the policy spheres in which they can be overcome," Coediciones, Naciones Unidas Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL), number 43204.
    13. Nishimura, Junichi & Okamuro, Hiroyuki, 2011. "Subsidy and networking: The effects of direct and indirect support programs of the cluster policy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(5), pages 714-727, June.
    14. Zhao, Chuanmin & Qu, Xi & Luo, Shougui, 2019. "Impact of the InnoCom program on corporate innovation performance in China: Evidence from Shanghai," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 103-118.
    15. Wonsang Ryu & Thomas H. Brush & Joonhyung Bae, 2023. "How agglomeration affects alliance governance and innovation performance: The role of cluster size," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 44(1), pages 297-310, January.
    16. Woojin Yoon & Suyeon Kwon, 2023. "The Impact of Technological and Non-technological Innovative Activities on Technological Competitiveness," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 14(1), pages 1-19, March.
    17. Dezhina, I. & Simachev, Yu., 2013. "Matching Grants for Stimulating Partnerships between Companies and Universities in Innovation Area: Initial Effects in Russia," Journal of the New Economic Association, New Economic Association, vol. 19(3), pages 99-122.
    18. Bayona-Sáez, Cristina & García-Marco, Teresa, 2010. "Assessing the effectiveness of the Eureka Program," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(10), pages 1375-1386, December.
    19. Fagerberg, Jan & Verspagen, Bart, 2009. "Innovation studies--The emerging structure of a new scientific field," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 218-233, March.
    20. Gérard Ballot & Fathi Fakhfakh & Fabrice Galia & Ammon Salter, 2011. "The Fateful Triangle Complementarities between product, process and organizational innovation in the UK and France," Working Papers halshs-00812141, HAL.

    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:zbw:pfobei:137. 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/fwpfode.html .

    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.