IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-01594309.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

How do firms perceive policy rationales behind the variety of instruments supporting collaborative R&D? Lessons from the European Framework Programs

Author

Listed:
  • Laurent Bach

    (CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, BETA - Bureau d'Économie Théorique et Appliquée - INRA - Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique - UNISTRA - Université de Strasbourg - UL - Université de Lorraine - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

  • Mireille Matt

    (GAEL - Laboratoire d'Economie Appliquée = Grenoble Applied Economics Laboratory - UPMF - Université Pierre Mendès France - Grenoble 2 - INRA - Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

  • Sandrine Wolff

    (CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, BETA - Bureau d'Économie Théorique et Appliquée - INRA - Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique - UNISTRA - Université de Strasbourg - UL - Université de Lorraine - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

Abstract

The main objective of the paper is to analyze to which extent participation in public programs supporting collaborative R&D meets the goals pursued by policy makers when setting up such instruments. Theoretically, these policy instruments are designed to overcome a set of failures (market and systemic failures) impeding the innovation process. We use as an example in the empirical part the European Framework Programs (FP) 5 and 6, which include a large and representative range of instruments. Each of these FP instruments is characterized according to the set of failures it is supposed to solve, its objectives and characteristics, and we discuss how these aspects are perceived and exploited by participating companies. Using data collected in the Innoimpact survey, involving thousands of FP5 and FP6 project participants, we compare the motivations of firms in choosing these instruments with our theoretical predictions. We find that the motivation to participate in a FP project does not differ greatly from one instrument to the other and the characteristics of the projects do not exhibit major differences. The paper concludes with some policy recommendations. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Suggested Citation

  • Laurent Bach & Mireille Matt & Sandrine Wolff, 2014. "How do firms perceive policy rationales behind the variety of instruments supporting collaborative R&D? Lessons from the European Framework Programs," Post-Print hal-01594309, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-01594309
    DOI: 10.1016/j.technovation.2014.02.008
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Roy Cerqueti & Daniele Marazzina & Marco Ventura, 2016. "Optimal Investment in Research and Development Under Uncertainty," Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, Springer, vol. 168(1), pages 296-309, January.
    2. Azam Sazvar & Mahmood Yahyazadehfar & Meisam Shirkhodaei, 2020. "Understanding the Policy Instruments Mix in Higher Education R&D: A Policy Scale Development," European Research Studies Journal, European Research Studies Journal, vol. 0(1), pages 305-317.
    3. Massimo FLORIO & Aleksandra PARTEKA & Emanuela SIRTORI, 2016. "The Role of EU Policy in Supporting Technological Innovation in SMEs - a Bayesian Network Analysis of Firm-Level Data from Poland," Departmental Working Papers 2016-13, Department of Economics, Management and Quantitative Methods at Università degli Studi di Milano.
    4. Kwangsoo Shin & Minkyung Choy & Chul Lee & Gunno Park, 2019. "Government R&D Subsidy and Additionality of Biotechnology Firms: The Case of the South Korean Biotechnology Industry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-22, March.
    5. Harry Jeong & Kwangsoo Shin, 2020. "Exploring Factors Affecting Sustainable Innovation Performance of Food Firms. A Case of Korean Food Industry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-16, December.
    6. Ainurul Rosli & Federica Rossi, 2014. "Explaining the gap between policy aspirations and implementation: The case of university knowledge transfer policy in the United Kingdom," Working Papers 20, Birkbeck Centre for Innovation Management Research, revised Dec 2014.
    7. Chen, Guanghua & Yang, Guoliang & He, Feng & Chen, Kaihua, 2019. "Exploring the effect of political borders on university-industry collaborative research performance: Evidence from China’s Guangdong province," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 82, pages 58-69.
    8. repec:ces:ifofor:v:19:y:2018:i:1:p:16-23 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Andrea Caragliu & Michele Coletti & Paolo Landoni & Alessandro Sala, 2022. "Why and How Innovation Vouchers Work: Disentangling the Roles of Serendipity and Funding," Journal of Urban Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 29(3), pages 159-182, July.
    10. Harry Jeong & Kwangsoo Shin & Seunghyun Kim & Eungdo Kim, 2021. "What Types of Government Support on Food SMEs Improve Innovation Performance?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-23, August.

    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:hal:journl:hal-01594309. 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: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.