Publication: Relaciones industria-ciencia: importancia, conceptos básicos y factores de éxito.
Loading...
Official URL
Full text at PDC
Publication Date
2010
Advisors (or tutors)
Editors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Empresariales. Instituto de Análisis Industrial y Financiero (IAIF)
Citations
Exportar
Abstract
En los últimos veinte años, la convocatoria de "valor por dinero" en la política de investigación es cada vez mayor. Hoy en día -especialmente en el contexto de la crisis económica- el proceso de tomar de decisiones sobre las inversiones públicas en investigación científica sobre la utilidad económica y los "resultados comerciales" son factores importantes. Por lo tanto, las Relaciones Ciencia Industria (SIRE en inglés) juegan un papel importante y creciente. Este artículo ofrece un análisis del concepto y la importancia de este tipo de relaciones seguidas de una revisión de los factores críticos de éxito. El capítulo 2 ofrece una aproximación sobre el papel de la ciencia en el desarrollo económico, la importancia de la relación entre ciencia e industria, taxonomía para clasificar a los SIRES y la importancia y utilidad de estos mecanismos. Del capítulo 3 al 7 se analiza los factores críticos de éxito para la transferencia de tecnología y las relaciones entre ciencia e industria. El análisis de estos factores en relación con las condiciones generales del marco contextual de la estructura económica y con las características del sistema de innovación. Además analizamos las barreras y los factores críticos de éxito que impiden o promueven el éxito de la relación ciencia industrial (SIRE), basado en el micro comportamiento de los agentes implicados en este tipo de relaciones basadas en el rendimiento a nivel de micro de las universidades y los institutos de investigación públicos y de las Empresas.
In the last twenty years the call for “value for money” in research policy is increasing. Nowadays –especially in the context of the economic crisis- during the decision making process about public investments in scientific research the economic utility and “commercial results” are an important factor. Therefore Science Industrial Relationships (SIRE) play an important and growing role. This paper offers an analysis of the concept and importance of such relationships followed by a review of their critical success factors. Chapter 2 offers an approximation about the role of science in economic development; the importance of the science industrial relationships; taxonomy to classify the SIREs and the importance and usefulness of those mechanisms. Chapters 3 to 7 analyse the critical success factors for technology transfer and science-industry relationships. Analysing those factors in relation with the broad contextual framework conditions of the economic structure and with the characteristics of the Innovation system. Moreover we analyse the barriers and critical success factors that impede or promote the success of the science industrial relationships (SIRE) based on the micro behaviour of the agents implied in such relationships based on the micro level performance of the universities and the public research institutes and of Enterprises.
In the last twenty years the call for “value for money” in research policy is increasing. Nowadays –especially in the context of the economic crisis- during the decision making process about public investments in scientific research the economic utility and “commercial results” are an important factor. Therefore Science Industrial Relationships (SIRE) play an important and growing role. This paper offers an analysis of the concept and importance of such relationships followed by a review of their critical success factors. Chapter 2 offers an approximation about the role of science in economic development; the importance of the science industrial relationships; taxonomy to classify the SIREs and the importance and usefulness of those mechanisms. Chapters 3 to 7 analyse the critical success factors for technology transfer and science-industry relationships. Analysing those factors in relation with the broad contextual framework conditions of the economic structure and with the characteristics of the Innovation system. Moreover we analyse the barriers and critical success factors that impede or promote the success of the science industrial relationships (SIRE) based on the micro behaviour of the agents implied in such relationships based on the micro level performance of the universities and the public research institutes and of Enterprises.
Description
UCM subjects
Keywords
Citation
Acosta, J. y Modrego, A. (2001): Public Financing of Cooperative R&D Projects in Spain: The Concerted Projects under the National R&D Plan. Research Policy, Vol. 30, p. 625-641.
Adams, J. D., Chiang, E. P. and Starkey, K. (2001), ‘Industry–University Cooperative Research Centers’, Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(1–2), 73–86.
Adams, J.D. (2001) Comparative Localization of Academic and Tndustrial Spillovers. NBER Working Paper Series 8292. NBER: Cambridge.
Almus, M. y Czarnitzki, D. (2003): The Effects of Public R&D Subsidies on Firms’ Innovation Activities: The Case of Eastern Germany. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, Vol. 21, No.2, p. 226-236.
Antonelli, Cristiano 2003: The economics of innovation, new technologies and structural change. Studies in global competition 14. London–New York: Routledge.
Antonelli C., (2008), The new economics of the university: a knowledge governance approach, Journal of Technology Transfer 33: 1–22.
Antonelli, C. (1989): A Failure-Inducement Model of Research and Development Expenditure, Italian Evidence from the Early 1980's. Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organisation, Vol. 12, No. 2, p.159-180.
Arnold, E., Rush, H., Bessan, J., Hobday, M. (1998): Strategic planning in Research and Technology Institutes. R&D Management 28(2): 89-100.
Arnold, H. M. (2010): Applied technology and innovation management: insights and experiences from an industry-leading innovation centre. Berlin [etc.], Springer.
Arnold, J., R. Bradbury, et al. (2007): Vinieron del espacio. Madrid, distribuido en España por Universal Pictures Iberia.
Arundal, A., Geuna, A. (2004): Proximity and the use of the public science by innovative European firms, Economics of Innovation and New Technology Taylor and Francis Journals.13 (6): 559- 580.
Arvanitis, S et al. (2002): Microeconometric Approaches to the Evaluation on RTD Policies: A Non-technical summary of the State of the Art. Working Paper: Swiss Institute for Business Cycle Research, No. 55, p. 1-14.
Audretsch, D. B. S., Paula E. (1996): Company-Scientist Locational Links: The Case of Biotechnology. The American Economic Review (AER): 86(3): 641 - 652.
Audretsch, D. B., M. P. Feldman, et al. (1994): Knowledge spillovers and the geography of innovation and production. London, Center for Economic Policy Research.
Audretsch, D.B., Stephan, P. (1996): Company–scientist locational linkages: the case of biotechnology. American Economic Review 86, 641–652.
Azzone, G., Maccarrone, P. (1997): The emerging role of lean infrastructures in technology transfer: the case of Innovation Plaza Project. Technovation.
Barge-Gil, A., Santamaría, L. Modrego, A. (2011): Complementarities between universities and technology institutes: New empirical lessons andperspectives. European Planning Studies. Forthcoming.
Baumol, W. J. (1993): Entrepreneurship, management, and the structure of payoffs. Cambridge, Mass. [etc.], The MIT press.
Bekker, R., Verspagen, B. (2006): The different channels of university-industry knowledge transfer: Empirical evidence from Biomedical Engineering.
Bercovitz, J., Feldman, F. (2006): Entrepreneurial Universities and Technology Transfer: A Conceptual Framework for Understanding Knowledge Based Economic Development. Journal of Technology Transfer 31: 175–188.
Bercovitz, J., Feldman, M. (2007): Fishing upstream: Firm innovation Strategy and university research alliances, Research Policy 36, 930-948.
Bercovitz/Feldman 2006Bercovitz, J., Feldman, M. (2007) Fishing upstream: Firm innovation Startegy and univeristy research alliances, Research Policy 36, 930-948.Bercovitz, J., Feldman, M. (2004) Academic entrepreneurs: Social learning and participation in university technology transfer. Durham, The Fuqua School of Business and Rootman School of Management, Durham University.
Beugelsdijk, S. (2007): A multi level analysis of social capital and innovation in economic geography. Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen Nijmegen School of Management Business Administration.
Blumenthal, D., E.G. Campbell, M.S. Anderson, N. Causino and K.S. Louis, 1997, Withholding research results in academic life science: Evidence from a national survey of faculty, Journal of the American Medical Association, vol. 277, pp. 1224-1228.
Boschma R. A. (2005): Proximity and innovation: a critical assessment, Regional Studies 39 , 61-74.
Boschma, R. A., R. C. Kloosterman, et al. (2005): Learning from Clusters A Critical Assessment from an Economic-Geographical Perspective. The GeoJournal Library. Dordrecht, Springer.
Brennenaedts, R., R. Bekkers y B. Verspagen. 2006. The Different Channels of University–industry Knowledge Transfer: Empirical Evidence from Biomedical Engineering. Eindhoven Centre for Innovation Studies. Holanda. Working paper 06.04.
Brennenraedts, R. R. B. B. V. (2006). "The different channels of university-industry knowledge transfer: Empirical evidence from Biomedical Engineering." Working Paper 06.04.
Breschi, S. L., Francesco (2001): Knowledge Spillovers and Local Innovation Systems: A Critical Survey. KITeS Working Papers.
Breschi, S., and F. Lissoni. (2001): Knowledge spillovers and local innovation systems: a critical survey. Industrial and Corporate Change 10, no 4: 975-1005.
Bruce, K. and Zander, U. (1993): Knowledge of the firm and the evolutionary theory of the multinational corporation. International Business Studies 34: 495-497.
Buesa, M. and Heijs. J. (coord.) (2007): Sistema regional de innovación: nuevas formas de análisis y medición; FUNCAS, Madrid.
Buesa, M.; Barge. A. (coordinators) Heijs, J; Baanante, I. y Moya, E. (2011): The role of technology centres for science industrial relationships Work package 4 - Report 3 of the CIA4OPM project. www.cia4opm.com
Buesa, M.; Molero, J. (1998): Tamaño Empresarial e Innovación Tecnológica en la Economía Española. Información Comercial Española, No. 773.
Buiseret, T.; Cameron, H. M.; Georgiou, L. (1995) What Differences Does it Make? additionality in the Public Support of R&D in Large Firms. International Journal of Technology Management, Vol. 10, Nos. 4/5/6: 587-600.
Bush, V. (1946). Endless Horizons. Washington, D.C.: Public Affairs Press. Bush, V. (1967). Science is Not Enough. New York: Morrow.
Busom, I. (2000): An Empirical Evaluation of the Effects of R&D Subsidies. Economic Innovation and New Technology, Vol. 9, p. 111-148.
Canton,E., Lanser, D., Noailly, J., Rensman, M., van de Ven, J. (2005): Crossing borders: when science meets industry.
Capron and van Pottelsbergh, 1997
Capron, H. (1992), Economic and Quantitative Methods for the Evaluation of the Impact of R&D Programs: A state of art. EUR 14864 EN, Commission European. Brussels.
Capron, H. (Ed.): (1992): Proceedings of the Workshops on Quantitative Evaluation of the Impact of R&D Programmes. Unión Europea.
Carmicheal, J. (1981): The Effects of Mission Orientated Public R&D Spending on Private Industry. Journal of Finance, Vol. 36, No. 3, p. 617-627.
Carrincazeaux, C. L., Yannick & Rallet, Alain (2001): Proximity and localization of corporate R&D activities,. Research Policy 30(5): 777-789.
Casal Barge, S. I., P. Donellan, et al. (2009): Development of the Risk and safety assessment of engineering laboratories in a University School of Engineering, mechanical laboratories. Vigo, [s.n.].
Clark, B. (1998): Creating Entrepreneurial Universities: Organizational Pathways of Transformation, IAU Press.
Clark, J. Freeman, C. Soete, L. (1983): Long Waves, Inventions and Innovation, in: C. Freeman, Long Waves in the World Economy, Gower Publishing Ltd, Aldershot.
Cohen W., R.R. Nelson and J.P. Walsh (2002), Links and impacts: The Influence of public research on industrial R&D, Management Science 48(1): 1–23.
Cohen, W.M. and D.A. Levinthal, (1989): Innovation and learning: The two faces of R&D, The Economic Journal, vol. 99, pp. 569-596.
Czarnitzki, D. y Fier, A. (2002), “Do Innovation Subsidies Crowd Out Private Investment? Evidence from the German Service Sector”. Applied Economics Quaterly, Vol. 48, No. 1, p 1-25.
Dasgupta, A. K. and D. W. Pearce (1992): Cost-benefit analysis: theory and practice. London, Macmillan.
Dasgupta, P. and P.A. David,(1994, Towards a new economics of science, Research Policy, vol. 23, no.5, pp. 487-521.
Dasgupta, S., H. Hettige, et al. (1998): What improves environmental performance?: Evidence from Mexican industry. Washington, DC, World Bank,
Development Research Group.
David et al., 1992
David P.A. (2004) Can ‘Open Science’ be Protected from the Evolving Regime of Intellectual Property Rights Protections? Journal of Theoretical and Instiutional Economics 160: 1-26.
David, P., Mowery, D., & Steinmueller W. (1992): Analyzing the Economic Payoffs from Basic Research. Economics of Innovation and New Technology 2: 73-90.
Davidsson, P. 1995. Culture, structure and regional levels of entrepreneurship, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development 7, 41-62.
den Hertog, P. (Dec 2000), Knowledge-intensive business services as co-producers of innovation, 4, International Journal of Innovation Management,
DEST (2002) Report: Best Practice Processes for University Research & Commercialisation Diamond, A. (1998): Does Federal Funding Crowd Out Private Funding of Science? Presentation at the American Economics Association Meetings, Chicago.
Dosi, G. (1982): Technical paradigms and technological trajectories - a suggested interpretation of the determinants and directions of technological change. Research Policy, 11 (3): pp.147-62.
Dosi, G. (1984): Technical change and industrial transformation: the theory and an application to the semiconductor industry. London, Macmillan.
Dosi, G. Picole e medie imprese e innovazione in Italia.
Dosi, G., C. Freeman, R.R. Nelson, G. Silverberg, & L. Soete. (1988): Technical Change and Economic Theory. London: Pinter Publishers.
Duguet, E. (2003): Are R&D Subsidies a Substitute or a Complement to Privately Funded R&D? Evidence from France using Propensity Score Methods for Non-experimental data. Working Paper: Maison des Sciences Économiques, Université de Paris I. ftp://mse.univ- paris1.fr/pub/mse/cahiers2003/V03075.pdf
Echeverria, I, J. (1998): Compiten las naciones?: dos enfoques. Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú Departamento de Economía.
Etzkowitz H. (1991), Academic – Industry Relations: A Sociological Paradigm for Economic Development, Department of Computer Science, Columbia University, New York.
Etzkowitz, H., Webster, A., Gebhart, C., & Terra, B. R. C. (2000). The future of the university and the university of the future: Evolution of ivory tower to entreprenenurial paradigm. Research Policy, 29(2), 313–330.
Etzkowitz, H. (2008): The triple helix university-industry-government innovation in action. New York, N.Y. ; London, Routledge: 164 p.
Etzkowitz, H., Leydesdorff, L. (2000) The dynamics of innovation: from national systems and Mode 2 to a Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations, Research Policy 20, 109-123.
Etzkowitz, H.; Leydesdorff L. (eds.) (1997). Universities in the Global Economy: A Triple Helix of University-Industry-Government Relations. London: Cassell Academic.
Fagerberg, J. (1994) Technology and International Differences in Growth Rates. Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. XXXII, (September)
Feldman, B. J. a. M. (2007): Fishing upstream: Firm innovation strategy and university reserch alliances, . Research Policy 36: 930-948.
Georgellis, Y. and Wall, H. 2000. What makes a region entrepreneurial? Evidence from Britain, The Annals of Regional Science 34, 385-403.
Georghiou, L. (1994) Impact of the Framework Programme on European Industry. Comision Europea Geuna A. and L. Nesta (2006), University patenting and its effects on academic research: The emerging European evidence, Research Policy 35, 790-807.
Geuna, A, 1998, ‘Resource Allocation and Knowledge Production: Studies in the Economics of University. Research,’ Manuscript Universiteit Masstricht. Forthcoming as The Economics of Knowledge Production: Funding and the Structure of University Research from Edward Elgar.
Geuna, A. (1999): The economics of knowledge production: funding and the structure of university research. Cheltenham England ; Northampton, MA, E. Elgar.
Geuna, A. and Muscio, A. (2009) The Governance of University Knowledge Transfer: A Critical Review of the Literature, Minerva, 47, 93-114.
Geuna, A., A. J. Salter, et al. (2003): Science and innovation: rethinking the rationales for funding and governance. Northampton, MA, Edward Elgar Pub.
Geuna, A., Muscio, A., (2009) The governance of University knowledge transfer.
Geuna, Aldo. 1999. The Changing Rationale for University Research Funding: Are there Negative Unintended Consequences. Paper no. 33 of SPRU Electronic Working Papers Series, Sussex University, Falmer, Brighton.
Griliches, Z. (1979): Issues in Assessing the Contribution of Research and Development to Productivity Growth. Bell Journal of Economics, Vol. 10, No.1, p. 92-116.
Griliches, Z. (1986): Productivity, R&D and Basic Research at Firm Level, Is there still a relationship?. American Economic Review, Vol. 76, No. 1, p. 141-154.
Griliches, Z.; Lichtenberg, F. (1984): R&D and Productivity Growth at the Industry Level, is there Still a Relationship. En: Griliches, Z. (Ed.): 1984.
Guellec and van Pottelsberg, 2000.
Guellec, D. And Van Pottelsberghe, B. (2003): “The impact of public R&D expenditure on Business R&D”; Economics of Innovation and New Technology, vol. 12, pp. 225-243.
Hall, B.H. (2002): “The financing of research and development”, Oxford Review of Economic Policy, vol. 18, págs. 35-51.
Heijs, J (Coordinator); Baanante, I. y Moya, E. (2010): An inventory of obstacles, challenges, weaknesses of the innovation system and of the objectives and trends of R&D and innovation policies and their evaluation in selected European countries. Work package 4 - Report 1 of the CIA4OPM project. www.cia4opm.com
Heijs, J (Coordinator); Baanante, I. y Moya, E. (2011): Critical success factors of science–industry relationships and best practices for the evaluation of the policies to promote such relationships. Work package 4 - Report 2 of the CIA4OPM project. www.cia4opm.com
Heijs, J. (2003): Free rider Behaviour and the Public Finance of R&D Activities in Enterprises: The Case of the Spanish Low Interest Credits for R&D. Research Policy, Vol. 32, No. 3, p. 445-461.
Heijs,J. (2000b) Financiación Pública de la I+D Empresarial: Evaluación de los Creditos Blandos para Proyectos de I+D. Tesis Doctoral, Universidad Complutense de Madrid
Helfat CE. 1997. Know-how and asset complementarity and dynamic capability accumulation: the case of R&D. StrategicManagement Journal 18(5): 339–360.
Herbig, P. and Dunphy, S. (1998) ‘Culture and Innovation’, in: Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, 5(4): 13-21.
Herrera L, Nieto M (2008), “The national innovation policy effect according to firm location”, Technovation, Vol. 28, pp. 540-550.
Herrera L, Nieto M (2010),”Los efectos diferenciados de la política nacional de innovación en las regiones”, Informe anual sobre el estado de la investigación y la innovación en España, FECYT, in press.
Herrera, L (2008), La política de innovación y la empresa: Efecto y distribución de las políticas de innovación, Colección de Estudios, Consejo Económico y Social, Madrid.
Herrera, L. and M. Nieto (2008), “The national innovation policy effect according to firm location”, Technovation, 28 (8), 540-550.
Hippel, V. (1998). "Economics of Product Development by Users: The Impact of “Sticky." Management Science 44: 629-644.
Jacob, M., M. Lundqvist and H. Hellsmark, H. (2003): ‘Entrepreneurial transformations in the Swedish University system: the case of Chalmers University of Technology’, Research Policy, 32, 1555- 1568.
Jaffe, A. B. (1989): Characterizing the technological position of firms, with application to quantifying technological opportunity and research spillovers. [S.l.], [s.n.].
Jaffe, A.,(1989): Real effects of academic research, American Economic Review, vol. 79, pp.957-970.
Jaffe, V. (1998): The Internet Searcher's Handbook: Locating Information, People, and Software. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 49(6): 567-567.
Jensen, R., Thursby, M., 2001. Proofs and prototypes for sale: the licensing of university inventions. American Economic Review 91 (1), 240–259.
Julien, P.A. (2007) A Theory of Local Entrepreneurship in the Knowledge Economy. Cheltanham, UK: Edward
Kangasharju, A. 2000. Regional variation in firm formation: Panel and cross-section data evidence from Finland, Papers in Regional Science 79, 355-373.
Klette, T.J. y Moen, J. (1998): R&D Investment responses to R&D subsidies: a theoretical analysis and econometric evidence, Presentation to the NBER Summer Institute, July.
Klevorick, A. K. (1995): On the sources and significance of interindustry differences in technological opportunities. Research Policy 24(2): 185–205.
Kline, S. J., Rosenberg, N. (1986): An Overview of Innovation; in: Landau, R., Rosenberg, N. (eds.): The Positive Sum Strategy: Harnessing Technology for Economic Growth, Washington: National Academy Press: 275-305.
Laredo, P., Mustar, P. (2004); Public Sector Research: a Growing Role in Innovation Systems. Minerva 42(1): 11-27.
Lerner, J. (1999): The Government as Venture Capitalist: The Long-run Impact of the SBIR program. Journal of Business, Vol. 72, No.3, p. 285-318.
Levinthal, C. a. (1989): A novel approach to national technological accumulation and absorptive capacity. Maastricht Economic Research Institute on Innovation and Technology in its series 018.
Levy, D. y Terlecky. N. (1983): Effects of Government Funding on Private R&D Investment and Productivity: A Macro Economic Analysis. Bell Journal of Economics. Vol. 14, p. 1551 – 1561.
Leydesdorff, H. E. a. L. (1997): The dynamics of innovation: from national systems and mode 2 to a triple helix of university industry government relations. Ciencias y Política Pública 25: 195-203.
Lichtenberg (1987)
Lichtenberg, F., 1988. The private R&D investment response to federal design and technical competitions. The American Economic Review 78 (3), 550–559.
Lissoni, B. S. a. F. (2001): Knowledge spillovers and local innovations systems: a critical survey. Industrial and Corporate Change 10(4).
Louis, K. S., Jones, L. M., Anderson, M. S., Blumenthal, D., and Campbell, E. G. (2001), ‘Entrepreneurship. Secrecy, and Productivity: A Comparison of Clinical and Non-clinical Faculty’, Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(3), 233–45.
Louis, K.S., D. Blumenthal, M.E. Gluck and M.A. Stoto, 1989, Entrepreneurs in academe: An exploration of behaviors among life scientists, Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 110-131.
Lundvall, B. A. (1992). National Systems of Innovation: Towards a Theory of Innovation and Interactive learning; London, Pinters.
Lundvall, B.-Å. (1988): Innovation as an Interactive Process: from User Producer Interaction to the National System of Innovation. Technical Change and Economic Theory, London: Pinter. Dosi, G., Freeman, C., Nelson, R., Silverberg, G., Soete, L. (eds.): 349-369.
Malerba, F., Orsenigo, L. (1996) Schumpeterian patterns of innovation are technology specific. Research Policy, Vol. 25, pp.451-478, 1996.
Malerba, G. D. a. F. (2002): Interpreting industrial dynamics twenty years after Nelson and Winter's Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change: a preface. Industrial and Corporate Change 11: 619- 622.
Mansfield, E. (1968) Industrial Research and Technological Innovation. Norton, New York. Mansfield, E. (1984): R&D and Innovation Some Empirical Findings. En: R&D, Patents and Productivity, Chicago, University of Chicago Press.
Mansfield, E. (1991), Academic Research and Industrial Innovations. Research Policy 26, 773-776.
Mansfield, E. (1995), Academic Research Underlying Industrial Innovations: Sources, Characteristics, and Financing. Review of Economics and Statistics (Feb.), 55-65.
Mansfield, E. (1995): Innovation, technology and the economy: the selected essays of Edwin Mansfield. Aldershot (UK); Brookfield (USA): Edward Elgar.
Mansfield, E., (1995): Academic research underlying industrial innovations: Sources, characteristics, and financing, Review of Economics and Statistics, vol. 77, no. 1, pp. 55-65.
Marra, M.A. (2007), Tamaño, restricciones financieras e inversión en I+D, Revista de Economía Aplicada Revista de Economía Aplicada Número 45 (vol. XV), 2007, págs. 99 a 123
Marsili, O., Verspagen, B. (2002): Technology and the dynamics of industrial structures: an empirical mapping of Dutch manufacturing. Industrial and Corporate Change 11: 791- 815.
Martin, B., Salter, A., Hicks, D., Pavitt, K., Senker, J., Sharp, M., von Tunzelmann, N. (1996), The relationship between publicly funded basic research and economic performance. SPRU Report prepared for HM Treasury.
Meyer-Krahmer, F. (1989) Der Einfluss Staatlicher Tecnologiepolitiek Auf Industrielle Innovationen. Nomos Verlag.
Meyer-Krahmer, F. y. S., U (1998): Science-based technologies: university industry interactions in four fields. Research Policy 27: 835-851.
Meyer-Krahmer, F., Schmoch, U. (1998): Science-based Technologies: University-Industry Interactions in Four Fields, Research Policy 27, 835-851.
Mowery, D. and N. Rosenberg, 1989, Technology and the Pursuit of Economic Growth, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mowery, D. C.-R., Nathan Rosenberg (1989): Technology and the pursuit of economic growth, Cambridge University Press.
Mowery, D.C. and A. Ziedonis, 2002, Academic patent quality and quantity before and after the Bayh-Dole Act in the United States, Research Policy, vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 399-418.
Muller, E. and W. Zenker (1981). "Enzyme-histochemistry of the juxtaoral organ in man ("organ of Chievitz")." Histochemistry 71(2): 279-290.
Muller, E. and Zenker, A. (2001): Business services as actors of knowledge transformation: the role of KIBS in regional and national innovation systems Research Policy, vol. 30, No. 9, pp.1501-1516.
Murray F. (2005), Exchange relationships & cumulative innovation: Standing on the Shoulders of the Oncomouse, MIT Economic Sociology Seminar Toronto, University of Toronto.
Muscio, A. G.-A. (2008): The governance of University Knowledge Transfer. SPRU Electronic Working Paper Series 173.
Myrdal, Gunnar. 1957. Economic Theory and Under-Developed Regions. London: Gerald Duckworth & Co. Ltd.
Narin, F., Hamilton, K.S. and Olivastro, D. (1997) The Tncreasing Linkage between U.S. Technology and Public Science. Research Policy, 26, 317–320.
Narin, F., K. Hamilton, and D. Olivastro. 1997. The increasing linkage between U.S. Technology and public science. Research Policy 26: 317-30.
Nelson R.R. (2004), The Market Economy, and the Scientific Commons, Research Policy, Vol. 33, pp.455.471.
Nelson, R. (1959), The Simple Economics of Basic Scientific Research, Journal of Political Economy 67(2) 297-306.
Nelson, R. (1984): High-Technology Policies, a Five Nation Comparison.
Nelson, R. a. S. W. (1982): An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press Cambridge MA.
Nelson, R. R. (2001), ‘Observations on the Post-Bayh–Dole Rise of Patenting at American Universities’, Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(1–2), 13–19.
Nelson, R.; Winter, S. (1982): An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. New York, N.Y., Florida International University
Nonaka, I. (1994): A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science 5: 14-37.
Núñez-Sánchez, R., Barge-Gil, A., Modrego, A (2011): Performance of knowledge interactions between public research centres and industrial firms in Spain: a project-level analysis. Technology Transfer 36.
OCDE (1994); Manual de Frascati. OECD, Paris
OECD (1998), Main science and technology indicators, OECD, Paris OECD (1999): Managing National Innovation Systems. Paris.
OECD (2002b): The Measurement of Scientific and Technological Activities (Frascati Manual); Paris.
OECD (2005) Report on Scientific Publishing, Paris.
OECD European Commission, E. D. (2001): Benchmarking Industry Science Relations - The Role of Framework Conditions. Research Project.
OECD, 2002, STI Outlook 2002, Paris.
Papaconstantinou, G.; Polt, W. (1997); Policy Evaluation in Innovation and Technology: An overview. OECD Conference Policy Evaluation in Innovation and Technology: Towards Best Practices.
Pavitt [1991] Pavitt, N. (1991). Samburu. London, K. Cathie.
Pavitt, K. (1993): What do firms learn from basic research? Technology and the Wealth of Nations. D. Foray and C. Freeman. London and New York, Pinter Publishers: 29-40.
Pavitt, K., (1984): Sectoral patterns of technical change: towards a taxonomy and a theory. Research Policy 13, 343–373.
Pearce, D. G. and R. Butler (1999): Contemporary issues in tourism development. London ; New York, Routledge.
Pearce, D., B. Porter, et al. (1999): State of the Economy Forum, February 9 (1999, 8:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., Centennial Hall, Juneau, Alaska. Juneau, State of Alaska, Office of the Governor.
Penrose, E. 1959. The theory of the growth of the firm. Blackwe ll, Oxford. Polanyi, M. (1967): The Tacit Dimension. New York: Anchor.
Polanyi, M. (1969). "Knowing and Being. Edited with an introduction by Marjorie Grene." Chicago Chicago Pres.
Porter M. E. (1990). The Competitive Advantage of Nations, Macmillan, London Porter, M., 1980, Competitive Strategy, The Free Press, New York.
Poyago-Theotoky, J.; Beath; J; Siegel, S.; (2002): UNIVERSITIES AND FUNDAMENTAL RESEARCH: REFLECTIONS ON THE GROWTH OF UNIVERSITY–INDUSTRY PARTNERSHIPS OXFORD REVIEW OF ECONOMIC POLICY, VOL. 18, NO. 1
Rey Huerga, N., A. M. C. Verdú, et al. (2007): Estudi del creixement i la producció de Pleurotus ostreatus H9 en diversos substrats.
Rosenberg, M. (1991): The Changing hemispheric trade environment: opportunities and obstacles. Miami, Fla.
Rosenberg, N. (1990), “Why do firms do basic research (with their own money)?” Research Policy, 19:165–174.
Rosenberg, N., Nelson, R.R. (1994), American Universities and Technical Advance in Industry. Research Policy 23, 323-348.
Rothwell, R. (1983): Evaluating the Effectiveness of Government Innovation Policies.
Saiz Briones, J. (2010) Factores determinantes de la inversión financiera en innovación. Tesis doctoral, Universidad Complutense Madrid
Sánchez, M.; (2008) El sistema de I+D+I español. Quo vadis?, Economía del crecimiento y la innovación Nuevas aproximaciones a una relación compleja. Capitulo 6.
Schmoch (2001), Interaction of Universities and Industrial Enterprises in Germany and the United States – a Comparison, Industry and Innovation 6 (1), 51-68.Schmoch, U., Licht, G., Reinhard, M. (eds.) (2000), Wissens- und Technologietransfer in Deutschland, Stuttgart:IRB-Verlag.
Schmoch, U. (1999): Interaction of Universities and Industrial Enterprises in Germany and the United States – a Comparison, Industry and Innovation 6 (1): 51-68.
Schmoch, U. (2000): The Viewpoint of Policy Analysis: Key Elements of Successful Science-Industry Relationships. Paper Presented at the Joint German-OECD Conference Benchmarking Industry- Science Relations, Berlin, 16-17 October 2000.
Schmoch, U. and Comisión de las Comunidades Europeas (1994): Indicators of the scientific base of European patents: December 1993. Luxembourg, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
Schmoch, U., H. Legler, et al. (2006): National Systems of Innovation in Comparison Structure and Performance Indicators for Knowledge Societies. Dordrecht, Springer.
Schmoch, U., Licht, G., Reinhard, M. (eds.) (2000): Wissens- und Technologietransfer in Deutschland, Stuttgart: IRB-Verlag.
Schumpeter, J. A. (1939): Business cycles: a theoretical, historical, and statistical analysis of the capitalist process. New York; London, McGraw-Hill.
Scott, J. (1984): Firms Versus Industry Variability in R&D Intensity. En: R&D, Patents and Productivity, Chicago, University of Chicago Press.
Senker, J. (1995) Tacit Knowledge and Models of Tnnovation. Industrial and Corporate Change, 2, 425– 447.
Senker, J., Joly, P.B. and Reinhard, M. (1996) Overseas Biotechnology Research by Europe’s Chemical/ Pharmaceuticals Multinationals: Rationale and Implications. STEEP Working Paper No. 33. Brighton: SPRU.
Siegel, S.;Waldman, D.; Link, A.;(2003) „Assessing the impact of organizational practices on the relative productivity of university technology transfer offices: an exploratory study”
Simonin, B. (1999a): Transfer of Marketing know-how in international strategic alliances: an empirical investigation of the role and antecedents of knowledge ambiguity. International Business Studies 30: 463-490.
Stephan, P.E. (1996). “The Economics of Science.” Journal of Economic Literature, 34: 1199-1235
Stephan, P. E. (2001), ‘Educational Implications of University–Industry Technology Transfer’, Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(3), 199–205.
Switzer, L. (1984): The Determinants of Industrial R&D: A Funds Flow Simultaneous Equation Approach. Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 66, No. 1, p. 163-168.
Teece DJ, Pisano G, Shuen A. 1997. Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal 18(7): 509–533
Teece, D. J. (1985): Transactions cost economics and the multinational enterprise: an assessment. Berkeley (California): University of California Press.
Teece, D., and G. Pisano (1994), “The dynamic capabilities of firms: an introduction”, Industrial and Corporate Change, 3, pp 537-556
Thursby, J.G. and M.C. Thursby, 2000, Who is selling the ivory tower? Sources of growth in university licensing, Cambridge, MA, NBER Working Paper 7718.
Thursby, J.G. S. K. (2002). "Growth and productive efficiency of university intellectual property licensing." Research Policy 31: 109-124.
Toivanen, O. y Niininen, P. (1998). “Investment, R&D, Subsidies, and Credit Constraints. Working Paper, Department of Economics MIT and Helsinki School of Economics.
Van Pottelsberghe (1997), Issues in Assessing the Effect of Interindustry R&D Spillovers, Economic
Systems Research, 9 (4), 331-356.
Von Hippel, E. (1986), Lead Users: A Source of Novel Product Concepts. Management Science 32, 791-804.
Von Hippel, E. (1998): Economics of Product Development by Users: The Impact of “Sticky“ Local Information. Management Science, 44 (5), 629-644.
Wallsten, S. (2000): The Effects of Government-Industry R&D Programs on Private R&D: The Case of the Small Business Innovation Research program. RAND Journal of Economics, Vol. 13, No. 1. p. 82-100.
Whited, T.M. (1992): “Debt, liquidity constraints and corporate investment: Evidence form panel data”, Journal of Finance, vol. 47(4), págs. 1425-1460.
Zucker, L.G., Darby, M.R.. (2001), Capturing technological opportunity via Japan's star scientists: from Japanese firms' biotech patents and products, The Journal of Technology Transfer 26, 37-58.