IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v37y2010i7p513-526.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Channels of interaction between public research organisations and industry and their benefits: evidence from Mexico

Author

Listed:
  • Gabriela Dutrénit
  • Claudia De Fuentes
  • Arturo Torres

Abstract

The process of knowledge transfer between public research organisations and industry occurs through multiple channels of interaction, however, there are differences in terms of the benefits that the agents perceive. Based on micro-data, this paper explores which channels are the most effective for triggering different benefits perceived by researchers and firms involved in such interactions in Mexico. The results suggest that researchers obtain intellectual benefits from the bi-directional and the traditional channels. Firms obtain benefits related to production activities and innovation strategies from the bi-directional and the services channels, while the traditional channel only provides production-related benefits. These results raise different policy issues. First, fostering the bi-directional channel could contribute to building virtuous circles. Secondly, it is necessary to align the incentives to foster other channels of interaction. Thirdly, a change in the researchers' incentives is required to induce new benefits from interactions. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Suggested Citation

  • Gabriela Dutrénit & Claudia De Fuentes & Arturo Torres, 2010. "Channels of interaction between public research organisations and industry and their benefits: evidence from Mexico," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 37(7), pages 513-526, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:37:y:2010:i:7:p:513-526
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.3152/030234210X512025
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    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:oup:scippl:v:37:y:2010:i:7:p:513-526. 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/spp .

    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.