IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/efisdi/152012.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Ökonomische Bewertung von staatlichen Investitionen in Forschung und Innovation

Author

Listed:
  • Peters, Bettina
  • Hud, Martin
  • Köhler, Christian
  • Licht, Georg

Abstract

Um die Wettbewerbsfähigkeit ihrer Volkswirtschaften zu stärken, investieren viele Länder jährlich große Summen in Forschungs- und Entwicklungsaktivitäten. Begründet werden staatliche Förderungen von FuE-und Innovationsaktivitäten (F&I) in der Wirtschaft und direkte staatliche Forschungsaktivitäten vor allem im Bereich der Grundlagenforschung mit dem Vorliegen von Marktversagen und damit verbunden einer Unterinvestition in FuE. Insbesondere die unvollständige Aneigenbarkeit der Erträge aus Forschungsaktivitäten führt zu einem Marktversagen, denn von neuen Forschungsergebnissen profitiert vielfach nicht nur das forschende Unternehmen selbst, sondern auch Dritte. Daneben schränken im Allgemeinen das hohe technologische Risiko und die Marktunsicherheit über die Art und Höhe des Erfolgs von FuE-Projekten sowie Informationsasymmetrien zwischen Unternehmen und Kapitalgeber die Finanzierung von Forschungsvorhaben über den Kapitalmarkt ein. Aktuell werden in Deutschland rund 28 % der gesamten FuE-Ausgaben von staatlicher Seite finanziert. Dabei schwankt der staatliche Finanzierungsanteil zwischen 4.5 % im Wirtschaftssektor, 85 % im universitären Bereich und 91 % in der außeruniversitären Forschung. ... Im Rahmen dieser Studie wurde der aktuelle Stand der Literatur hinsichtlich der Quantifizierung der volkswirtschaftlichen Effekte der staatlichen Forschungsförderung zusammengefasst und einer Bewertung unterzogen. Angesichts zahlreicher Politikmaßnahmen, verschiedener Adressaten der Förderung und ihrer Interaktionen und alternativen Bewertungskriterien ist die Bewertung staatlicher Forschungsförderung ein sehr weites Feld, das differenziert betrachtet werden muss. Es sei jedoch ausdrücklich darauf hingewiesen, dass im Rahmen dieser Studie keine systematische Evaluation einzelner Förderprogramme vorgenommen werden konnte.

Suggested Citation

  • Peters, Bettina & Hud, Martin & Köhler, Christian & Licht, Georg, 2012. "Ökonomische Bewertung von staatlichen Investitionen in Forschung und Innovation," Studien zum deutschen Innovationssystem 15-2012, Expertenkommission Forschung und Innovation (EFI) - Commission of Experts for Research and Innovation, Berlin.
  • Handle: RePEc:zbw:efisdi:152012
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/156578/1/StuDIS_2012-15.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Zellner, Christian, 2003. "The economic effects of basic research: evidence for embodied knowledge transfer via scientists' migration," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(10), pages 1881-1895, December.
    2. Mike Wright & Sue Birley & Simon Mosey, 2004. "Entrepreneurship and University Technology Transfer," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 29(3_4), pages 235-246, August.
    3. Wolff, Guntram B. & Reinthaler, Volker, 2008. "The effectiveness of subsidies revisited: Accounting for wage and employment effects in business R&D," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 1403-1412, September.
    4. Nadiri, M. Ishaq & Wolff, Edward N., 1987. "Spillover Effects, Linkage Structure, Technical Change and Research and Development," Working Papers 87-43, C.V. Starr Center for Applied Economics, New York University.
    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. Nilsen, Vetle & Anelli, Giovanni, 2016. "Knowledge transfer at CERN," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 113-120.
    2. Gersbach, Hans & Schneider, Maik & Schneller, Olivier, 2010. "Optimal Mix of Applied and Basic Research, Distance to Frontier, and Openness," CEPR Discussion Papers 7795, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    3. Anne Casati & Corine Genet, 2014. "Principal investigators as scientific entrepreneurs," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 39(1), pages 11-32, February.
    4. Aiello, Francesco & Albanese, Giuseppe & Piselli, Paolo, 2019. "Good value for public money? The case of R&D policy," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 41(6), pages 1057-1076.
    5. Sergio Afcha & Jose García-Quevedo, 2016. "The impact of R&D subsidies on R&D employment composition," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 25(6), pages 955-975.
    6. Hottenrott, Hanna & Lawson, Cornelia, 2014. "Flying the nest: How the home department shapes researchers’ career paths," Department of Economics and Statistics Cognetti de Martiis LEI & BRICK - Laboratory of Economics of Innovation "Franco Momigliano", Bureau of Research in Innovation, Complexity and Knowledge, Collegio 201409, University of Turin.
    7. Mark J. O. Bagley, 2019. "Networks, geography and the survival of the firm," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 29(4), pages 1173-1209, September.
    8. Ricardo Moutinho & Manuel Au-Yong-Oliveira & Arnaldo Coelho & José Pires Manso, 2016. "Determinants of knowledge-based entrepreneurship: an exploratory approach," International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Springer, vol. 12(1), pages 171-197, March.
    9. Centobelli, Piera & Cerchione, Roberto & Esposito, Emilio & Shashi,, 2019. "Exploration and exploitation in the development of more entrepreneurial universities: A twisting learning path model of ambidexterity," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 172-194.
    10. Jacques Mairesse & Pierre Mohnen, 1990. "Recherche-Développement et productivité : un survol de la littérature économétrique," Économie et Statistique, Programme National Persée, vol. 237(1), pages 99-108.
    11. Michael Fritsch & Stefan Krabel, 2012. "Ready to leave the ivory tower?: Academic scientists’ appeal to work in the private sector," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 37(3), pages 271-296, June.
    12. Gersbach, Hans & Sorger, Gerhard & Amon, Christian, 2018. "Hierarchical growth: Basic and applied research," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 434-459.
    13. Fadiran, Gideon & Fadiran, David & Ibn-Mohammed, Taofeeq, 2017. "Macroeconomic Policy effects on development transition – Views from Agent based model," MPRA Paper 103197, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised Dec 2018.
    14. Klofsten, Magnus & Fayolle, Alain & Guerrero, Maribel & Mian, Sarfraz & Urbano, David & Wright, Mike, 2019. "The entrepreneurial university as driver for economic growth and social change - Key strategic challenges," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 149-158.
    15. Rajeev Goel & Devrim Göktepe-Hultén, 2013. "Nascent entrepreneurship and inventive activity: a somewhat new perspective," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 38(4), pages 471-485, August.
    16. Erik Lehmann & Thorsten Braun & Sebastian Krispin, 2012. "Entrepreneurial human capital, complementary assets, and takeover probability," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 37(5), pages 589-608, October.
    17. Barge-Gil, Andres & D'Este, Pablo & Herrera, Liliana, 2018. "Corporate scientists as the triggers of transitions towards firms' exploration research strategies," MPRA Paper 85415, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    18. Gustavo Crespi & Aldo Geuna & Lionel Nesta, 2007. "The mobility of university inventors in Europe," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 32(3), pages 195-215, June.
    19. Alessandra Colombelli & Elettra D’Amico & Emilio Paolucci, 2023. "When computer science is not enough: universities knowledge specializations behind artificial intelligence startups in Italy," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 48(5), pages 1599-1627, October.
    20. Huang, Cui & Yang, Chao & Su, Jun, 2021. "Identifying core policy instruments based on structural holes: A case study of China’s nuclear energy policy," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(2).

    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:efisdi:152012. 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: http://www.e-fi.de/index.php?id=1&L=1 .

    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.