Author
Abstract
The bulk of Germany’s research and development (R&D) activity is concentrated in densely populated areas, urban regions that account for 62 % of the country’s R&D workforce. The regions surrounding Stuttgart, Munich, and Braunschweig have by far the highest R&D intensity - that is, the share of R&D personnel in the total number of employees. Between 2003 and 2013, Munich lost some of its lead over the national average, while Stuttgart and Braunschweig increased their leads. In Germany on the whole, R&D personnel capacities in public research facilities and the higher education sector have expanded more than have those in the business enterprise sector - not least due to the additional expenditure within theframework of certain government initiatives, namely the Pact for Research and Innovation, the German Universities Excellence Initiative, and the University Pact. The areas with the highest R&D intensity in public research (that is, research facilities and institutes of higher education), are Göttingen, Dresden, and Aachen - but only Dresden was able to increase itslead during the observation period. In the private sector, Stuttgart, Braunschweig, Darmstadt, and Ingolstadt have the highest R&D intensities. For private R&D, spatial proximity to manufacturing plays a much stronger role than does proximity to public R&D - hence areas with lower levels of industrial activity should not only promote the transfer of knowledge within the region, but also take advantage of public research conducted elsewhere in order to support the local economy. As well, to make better use of knowledge potential at the locallevel, regional industry should be strengthened - for example, within the framework of industrial development policy. Forschung und Entwicklung (FuE) sind in Deutschland auf die Verdichtungsräume konzentriert, 62 Prozent des FuE-Personals sind dort tätig. Bei der FuE-Intensität – also dem Anteil der FuE-Beschäftigten an allen Erwerbstätigen – führen mit großem Abstand die Regionen Stuttgart, München und Braunschweig. Zwischen den Jahren 2003 und 2013 ist der Vorsprung von München kleiner geworden, während die beiden anderen Regionen den Vorsprung ausgebaut haben. Deutschlandweit sind die Personalkapazitäten in öffentlichen Forschungseinrichtungen und Hochschulen stärker gewachsen als in der privaten Wirtschaft, nicht zuletzt wegen der zusätzlichen Ausgaben im Rahmen der drei Wissenschaftspakte Exzellenzinitiative, Pakt für Forschung und Innovation sowie Hochschulpakt. Bei der FuE-Intensität der öffentlichen Forschung (Forschungseinrichtungen und Hochschulen zusammen) liegen Göttingen, Dresden und Aachen vorne. Nur Dresden konnte jedoch den Vorsprung ausbauen. Bei der Forschung der privaten Wirtschaft weisen Stuttgart, Braunschweig, Darmstadt und Ingolstadt die höchste FuE-Intensität auf. Für die private FuE spielt die räumliche Nähe zur Industrieproduktion eine deutlich stärkere Rolle als die Nähe zur öffentlichen Forschung. Regionen mit einem schwachen Industriebesatz sollten daher nicht allein den Wissenstransfer innerhalb einer Region befördern, sondern die regionale Wirtschaft bei der Erschließung öffentlicher Forschung andernorts unterstützen. Und um die Wissenspotentiale vor Ort besser zu nutzen, sollte die regionale Industrie gestärkt werden, etwa im Rahmen von Ansiedlungs- und Bestandspolitik.
Suggested Citation
Alexander Eickelpasch, 2016.
"Unternehmen forschen nicht immer dort, wo die öffentliche Forschung stark ist,"
DIW Wochenbericht, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research, vol. 83(45), pages 1059-1069.
Handle:
RePEc:diw:diwwob:83-45-1
Download full text from publisher
More about this item
Keywords
Regional innovation systems;
research and development;
universities;
research institutes;
manufacturing;
public expenditure;
All these keywords.
JEL classification:
- O14 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Development - - - Industrialization; Manufacturing and Service Industries; Choice of Technology
- O30 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - General
- O31 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives
- R12 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General Regional Economics - - - Size and Spatial Distributions of Regional Economic Activity; Interregional Trade (economic geography)
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:diw:diwwob:83-45-1. 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: Bibliothek (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/diwbede.html .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.