IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/rif/report/33.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Universities, Funding Systems, and the Renewal of the Industrial Knowledge Base – UNI Project Findings

Author

Listed:
  • Luukkonen, Terttu

Abstract

An important prerequisite for the renewal of Finland’s industrial and economic base is the ability of the universities to promote the renewal of the knowledge base. The UNI project studied ways in which changes in external funding mechanisms and recent governance changes in Finnish universities have changed the framework conditions influencing innovativeness and innovation in university research. Innovation here refers to novel approaches and potentially, breakthrough research, requiring risk-taking. The UK provided a comparative perspective for the study. This report reprints four separate policy briefs and reports that the UNI project has produced and provides an overall concluding chapter for them. A major conclusion of the study is that, so far, there has not been much impact from the recent policy changes on intellectual innovation in research in Finland. University governance influences research content very indirectly and is mediated by multiple other factors, meaning that policy changes are not, at least in the short run, translated into changed research content. As far as research funding organisations are concerned, Finland has not had a funding organisation that encourages risk-taking and intellectual innovation in research. Recent policy changes have not fundamentally altered this situation. In the UK, the established practice of performance measurement of universities seems to narrow notions of appropriate research content and standards of performance and is becoming an ominous factor in reducing variety and risk-taking in university research. This phenomenon is further developed in the UK, but Finland seems now to be ‘catching up’. In industry-university collaboration short-term commissions and most of Tekes’ industrial collaboration support draw on existing knowledge and know-how and are not intended to promote highly innovative and high-risk activities. More flexible and longer-term contracts can in principle promote such research activities provided that the knowledge they produce will be in the public arena since scientific breakthroughs, to bear fruit, require a great deal of further development and wide adoption of the novel concepts, methods etc. by the scientific community.

Suggested Citation

  • Luukkonen, Terttu, 2014. "Universities, Funding Systems, and the Renewal of the Industrial Knowledge Base – UNI Project Findings," ETLA Reports 33, The Research Institute of the Finnish Economy.
  • Handle: RePEc:rif:report:33
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.etla.fi/wp-content/uploads/ETLA-Raportit-Reports-33.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lam, Alice, 2011. "What motivates academic scientists to engage in research commercialization: ‘Gold’, ‘ribbon’ or ‘puzzle’?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(10), pages 1354-1368.
    2. Gustavo Manso, 2011. "Motivating Innovation," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 66(5), pages 1823-1860, October.
    3. Thomas Heinze, 2008. "How to sponsor ground-breaking research: A comparison of funding schemes," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 35(5), pages 302-318, June.
    4. Tian, Xuan, 2011. "The causes and consequences of venture capital stage financing," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 101(1), pages 132-159, July.
    5. Kenney, Martin, 2013. "Commercialization or Engagement: Which Is of More Significance to the U.S. Economy ?," ETLA Working Papers 13, The Research Institute of the Finnish Economy.
    6. Hall, Bronwyn H. & Lerner, Josh, 2010. "The Financing of R&D and Innovation," 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 609-639, Elsevier.
    7. Pierre Azoulay & Joshua S. Graff Zivin & Gustavo Manso, 2011. "Incentives and creativity: evidence from the academic life sciences," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 42(3), pages 527-554, September.
    8. Klingebiel, Ronald & Rammer, Christian, 2011. "Resource allocation flexibility for innovation performance: The effects of breadth, uncertainty, and selectiveness," ZEW Discussion Papers 11-073, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Kok, Holmer & Faems, Dries & de Faria, Pedro, 2022. "Pork Barrel or Barrel of Gold? Examining the performance implications of earmarking in public R&D grants," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(7).
    2. Byungchul Choi & M. V. Shyam Kumar & Fabio Zambuto, 2016. "Capital Structure and Innovation Trajectory: The Role of Debt in Balancing Exploration and Exploitation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(5), pages 1183-1201, October.
    3. Sadler, Evan, 2021. "Dead ends," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    4. Wang, Tao, 2023. "The ownership structure of corporate venture capital financing and innovation," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 123(C).
    5. Yongqiang Chu & Xuan Tian & Wenyu Wang, 2019. "Corporate Innovation Along the Supply Chain," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(6), pages 2445-2466, June.
    6. He, Jie (Jack) & Tian, Xuan, 2013. "The dark side of analyst coverage: The case of innovation," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 109(3), pages 856-878.
    7. Balázs Győrffy & Andrea Magda Nagy & Péter Herman & Ádám Török, 2018. "Factors influencing the scientific performance of Momentum grant holders: an evaluation of the first 117 research groups," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(1), pages 409-426, October.
    8. Su-Yin Cheng & Han Hou, 2022. "Innovation, financial development, and growth: evidences from industrial and emerging countries," Economic Change and Restructuring, Springer, vol. 55(3), pages 1629-1653, August.
    9. Ramana Nanda & William R. Kerr, 2015. "Financing Innovation," Annual Review of Financial Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 7(1), pages 445-462, December.
    10. Ewens, Michael & Nanda, Ramana & Rhodes-Kropf, Matthew, 2018. "Cost of experimentation and the evolution of venture capital," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 128(3), pages 422-442.
    11. Joshua S. Gans & Michael Kearney & Erin L. Scott & Scott Stern, 2021. "Choosing Technology: An Entrepreneurial Strategy Approach," Strategy Science, INFORMS, vol. 6(1), pages 39-53, March.
    12. Nasirov, Shukhrat & Joshi, Amol M., 2023. "Minding the communications gap: How can universities signal the availability and value of their scientific knowledge to commercial organizations?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(9).
    13. Hsu, Po-Hsuan & Tian, Xuan & Xu, Yan, 2014. "Financial development and innovation: Cross-country evidence," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 112(1), pages 116-135.
    14. Xiao, Gang, 2013. "Legal shareholder protection and corporate R&D investment," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 240-266.
    15. Yizhong Wang & Linying Lv & Shanqiao Xia, 2022. "Initial public offering, corporate innovation and total factor productivity: Evidence from China," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 62(5), pages 4695-4726, December.
    16. Wei-Fong Pan, 2019. "Geopolitical Risk and R&D investment," Economics Discussion Papers em-dp2019-11, Department of Economics, University of Reading.
    17. Caroline Flammer & Aleksandra Kacperczyk, 2016. "The Impact of Stakeholder Orientation on Innovation: Evidence from a Natural Experiment," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(7), pages 1982-2001, July.
    18. Florian Ederer & Gustavo Manso, 2013. "Is Pay for Performance Detrimental to Innovation?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 59(7), pages 1496-1513, July.
    19. Poblete, Joaquín & Spulber, Daniel, 2017. "Managing innovation: Optimal incentive contracts for delegated R&D with double moral hazard," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 38-61.
    20. Brown, James R. & Martinsson, Gustav & Petersen, Bruce C., 2012. "Do financing constraints matter for R&D?," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 56(8), pages 1512-1529.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    University research; Research funding; Intellectual innovation in research; University governance;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • O38 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Government Policy
    • O39 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Other

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:rif:report:33. 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: Kaija Hyvönen-Rajecki (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/etlaafi.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.