IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/vua/wpaper/2008-23.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Thematic research prioritization in the EU and the Netherlands: an assessment on the basis of content analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Hemert, P. van

    (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Faculteit der Economische Wetenschappen en Econometrie (Free University Amsterdam, Faculty of Economics Sciences, Business Administration and Economitrics)

  • Nijkamp, P.

Abstract

With the upsurge of the knowledge economy, a balanced and professional setting of science and technology research priorities is becoming increasingly important. Priority setting in general - and in the European Union Framework Programmes (FP) in particular - has often been criticized by many academics, who tend to describe them as ‘Loch Ness monsters of bureaucracy’: new granting rules and funding terminologies tend to appear almost every five years; the procedures involved in granting awards are often considered as impregnable and unclear; and the decision-making process is sometimes rather different from classical, quality-controlled peer-review systems. In practice, researchers often prefer small-scale transparant national research programmes over the European FPs, provided they are based on quality criteria. This paper aims to provide: (i) a critical overview of mechanisms for establishing priorities in research programmes (or themes); and (ii) an assessment approach to the current practices of setting research priorities in the EU and the Netherlands in particular, by means of counting procedures based on statistical content analysis. Our investigation of the EU and Dutch national theme priority-setting experiences shows that the two mechanisms are largely complementary and, as such, can prove an important stimulus for further excellence, collaboration and connectivity in the complex world of science policy.

Suggested Citation

  • Hemert, P. van & Nijkamp, P., 2008. "Thematic research prioritization in the EU and the Netherlands: an assessment on the basis of content analysis," Serie Research Memoranda 0023, VU University Amsterdam, Faculty of Economics, Business Administration and Econometrics.
  • Handle: RePEc:vua:wpaper:2008-23
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://degree.ubvu.vu.nl/repec/vua/wpaper/pdf/20080023.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    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. Etzkowitz, Henry & Leydesdorff, Loet, 2000. "The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and "Mode 2" to a Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 109-123, February.
    3. Beesley, Lisa G. A., 2003. "Science policy in changing times: are governments poised to take full advantage of an institution in transition?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(8), pages 1519-1531, September.
    4. Erik Arnold & John Clark & Alessandro Muscio, 2005. "What the evaluation record tells us about European Union Framework Programme performance," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 32(5), pages 385-397, October.
    5. Zoltan J. Acs & Henri L. F. Groot & Peter Nijkamp (ed.), 2002. "The Emergence of the Knowledge Economy," Advances in Spatial Science, Springer, number 978-3-540-24823-1, Fall.
    6. Faulkner, Wendy & Senker, Jacqueline, 1994. "Making sense of diversity: public-private sector research linkage in three technologies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 23(6), pages 673-695, November.
    7. Nijkamp, Peter, 1986. "Infrastructure and Regional Development: A Multidimensional Policy Analysis," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 11(1), pages 1-21.
    8. Mowery, David C. & Ziedonis, Arvids A., 2002. "Academic patent quality and quantity before and after the Bayh-Dole act in the United States," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 399-418, March.
    9. van der Meulen, Barend & Rip, Arie, 1998. "Mediation in the Dutch science system," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(8), pages 757-769, December.
    10. Loet Leydesdorff & Henry Etzkowitz, 1996. "Emergence of a Triple Helix of university—industry—government relations," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 23(5), pages 279-286, October.
    11. Laurence Chalip, 1985. "Policy Research As Social Science: Outflanking The Value Dilemma," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 5(2), pages 287-308, November.
    12. Sorenson, Olav & Fleming, Lee, 2004. "Science and the diffusion of knowledge," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(10), pages 1615-1634, December.
    13. Maskell, Peter & Malmberg, Anders, 1999. "Localised Learning and Industrial Competitiveness," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 23(2), pages 167-185, March.
    14. Gambardella,Alfonso, 1995. "Science and Innovation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521451185.
    15. Nelson, Richard R & Winter, Sidney G, 1975. "Growth Theory from an Evolutionary Perspective: The Differential Productivity Puzzle," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 65(2), pages 338-344, May.
    16. Stewart, Jenny, 1995. "Models of priority-setting for public sector research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(1), pages 115-126, January.
    17. Sveikauskas, Leo, 1981. "Technological Inputs and Multifactor Productivity Growth," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 63(2), pages 275-282, May.
    18. Callon, M. & Laredo, P. & Rabeharisoa, V. & Gonard, T. & Leray, T., 1992. "The management and evaluation of technological programs and the dynamics of techno-economic networks: The case of the AFME," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 21(3), pages 215-236, June.
    19. Chris Benner, 2003. "Learning Communities in a Learning Region: The Soft Infrastructure of Cross-Firm Learning Networks in Silicon Valley," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 35(10), pages 1809-1830, October.
    20. Rebecca Henderson & Iain Cockburn, 1994. "Measuring Competence? Exploring Firm Effects in Pharmaceutical Research," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(S1), pages 63-84, December.
    21. Peter Nijkamp & Jacques Poot & Gabriella Vindigni, 2001. "Spatial Dynamics and Government Policy: An Artificial Intelligence Approach to Comparing Complex Systems," Advances in Spatial Science, in: Manfred M. Fischer & Josef Fröhlich (ed.), Knowledge, Complexity and Innovation Systems, chapter 18, pages 369-401, Springer.
    22. Adams, James D, 1990. "Fundamental Stocks of Knowledge and Productivity Growth," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 98(4), pages 673-702, August.
    23. Manfred M. Fischer & Josef Fröhlich (ed.), 2001. "Knowledge, Complexity and Innovation Systems," Advances in Spatial Science, Springer, number 978-3-662-04546-6, Fall.
    24. Kevin Morgan, 2002. "The New Regeneration Narrative - Local Development in the Multi-Level Polity," Local Economy, London South Bank University, vol. 17(3), pages 191-199, August.
    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. Ugo Rizzo & Nicolò Barbieri & Laura Ramaciotti & Demian Iannantuono, 2020. "The division of labour between academia and industry for the generation of radical inventions," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 45(2), pages 393-413, April.
    2. Manuel Hermosilla & Jorge Lemus, 2018. "Therapeutic Translation of Genomic Science: Opportunities and Limitations of GWAS," NBER Chapters, in: Economic Dimensions of Personalized and Precision Medicine, pages 21-52, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Sorenson, Olav & Fleming, Lee, 2004. "Science and the diffusion of knowledge," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(10), pages 1615-1634, December.
    4. Christoph Meister & Bart Verspagen & Guntram B. Wolff, 2006. "European Productivity Gaps: Is R&D the Solution?," Chapters, in: Susanne Mundschenk & Michael H. Stierle & Ulrike Stierle-von Schütz & Iulia Traistaru-Siedschlag (ed.), Competitiveness and Growth in Europe, chapter 8, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    5. Lee Branstetter & Kwon Hyeog Ug, 2004. "The Restructuring Of Japanese Research And Development: The Increasing Impact Of Science On Japanese R&D," Discussion papers 04021, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).
    6. Roberta CAPELLO, 2012. "Regional economics: theoretical achievements and challenges," Timisoara Journal of Economics, West University of Timisoara, Romania, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, vol. 5(18), pages 313-335.
    7. G Cameron, 1996. "Innovation and Economic Growth," CEP Discussion Papers dp0277, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    8. Qiu, Shumin & Liu, Xielin & Gao, Taishan, 2017. "Do emerging countries prefer local knowledge or distant knowledge? Spillover effect of university collaborations on local firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(7), pages 1299-1311.
    9. Subramanian, Annapoornima M. & Lim, Kwanghui & Soh, Pek-Hooi, 2013. "When birds of a feather don’t flock together: Different scientists and the roles they play in biotech R&D alliances," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(3), pages 595-612.
    10. G. Medda & C. Piga, 2004. "R&S e spillover industriali: un'analisi sulle imprese italiane," Working Paper CRENoS 200406, Centre for North South Economic Research, University of Cagliari and Sassari, Sardinia.
    11. Hsu, David W.L. & Shen, Yung-Chi & Yuan, Benjamin J.C. & Chou, Chiyan James, 2015. "Toward successful commercialization of university technology: Performance drivers of university technology transfer in Taiwan," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 25-39.
    12. Roberta Capello, 2008. "Regional economics in its 1950s: recent theoretical directions and future challenges," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 42(4), pages 747-767, December.
    13. Iain M. Cockburn & Rebecca M. Henderson, 2001. "Publicly Funded Science and the Productivity of the Pharmaceutical Industry," NBER Chapters, in: Innovation Policy and the Economy, Volume 1, pages 1-34, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    14. Yuan-Cheih Chang & Phil Yihsing Yang & Tung-Fei Tsai-Lin & Hui-Ru Chi, 2011. "How University Departmens respond to the Rise of Academic Entrepreneurship? The Pasteur's Quadrant Explanation," DRUID Working Papers 11-07, DRUID, Copenhagen Business School, Department of Industrial Economics and Strategy/Aalborg University, Department of Business Studies.
    15. Lee Branstetter & Reiko Aoki, 2005. "Is Academic Science Raising Innovative Productivity? Theory and Evidence from Firm-Level Data," Hi-Stat Discussion Paper Series d05-86, Institute of Economic Research, Hitotsubashi University.
    16. Robert Stimson & Roger R. Stough & Peter Nijkamp (ed.), 2011. "Endogenous Regional Development," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 14154.
    17. Hong, Wei, 2008. "Decline of the center: The decentralizing process of knowledge transfer of Chinese universities from 1985 to 2004," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(4), pages 580-595, May.
    18. Soh, Pek-Hooi & Subramanian, Annapoornima M., 2014. "When do firms benefit from university–industry R&D collaborations? The implications of firm R&D focus on scientific research and technological recombination," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 29(6), pages 807-821.
    19. Johansson, Börje, 2004. "Parsing the Menagerie of Agglomeration and Network Externalities," Working Paper Series in Economics and Institutions of Innovation 2, Royal Institute of Technology, CESIS - Centre of Excellence for Science and Innovation Studies.
    20. Edward J. Malecki, 2010. "Everywhere? The Geography Of Knowledge," Journal of Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 50(1), pages 493-513, February.

    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:vua:wpaper:2008-23. 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: R. Dam (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/fewvunl.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.