IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cnz/wpaper/942016.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

(English) The Retreat of Public Research and its Adverse Consequences on Innovation (Italiano) I cambiamenti nella ricerca pubblica e le conseguenze avverse sull’innovazione

Author

Listed:
  • Daniele Archibugi
  • Andrea Filippetti

Abstract

(English) Does it matter whether research is conducted by the private business rather than in universities or government research centres? While most of the attention of science and innovation policy in the last decades has explored the relevance of the interconnections between public and business players in enhancing knowledge-based societies, a major trend has been ignored: both the quota of public R&D and its share over the total R&D investment has shrunk in most OECD countries. As a result, a larger fraction of knowledge is today generated in the private sector. We argue that this is a major problem since public research and private research differ along a number of characteristics, e.g. public access, potential for future technological innovations, criteria of resource allocation. This trend can have adverse implications for long-term innovation and economic welfare in our societies. Through the lens of the public goods theory and of the sector of funding and execution of R&D for the period 1981-2012 we try to explain why. (Italiano) E' un problema se l'attività di ricerca è condotta nelle imprese private piuttosto che nelle università e nei centri di ricerca pubblici? Mentre numerosi studi di politica della scienza e dell'innovazione degli ultimi decenni hanno esplorato la rilevanza delle interconnessioni tra soggetti pubblici e privati nel promuovere le società basate sulla conoscenza, una tendenza fondamentale è stata ignorata: sia la quota di R&S pubblica che la sua quota sul totale dell'investimento in R&S sono diminuite nella maggior parte dei paesi OCSE. Di conseguenza una frazione maggiore di conoscenza è oggi generata nell'industria. Viene qui sostenuto che si tratta di un fondamentale problema perché le attività di ricerca pubblica e quella privata hanno sostanziali differenze e specificità, tra le quali: le condizioni di accesso, il potenziale di ulteriori innovazioni tecnologiche, i criteri per l'allocazione delle risorse. Queste tendenze hanno conseguenze nocive per il benessere e l'innovazione nelle nostre società. Tentiamo di spiegare perché attraverso la prospettiva della teoria dei beni pubblici e dei settori di finanziamento e di esecuzione della R&S per il periodo 1981-2012.

Suggested Citation

  • Daniele Archibugi & Andrea Filippetti, 2016. "(English) The Retreat of Public Research and its Adverse Consequences on Innovation (Italiano) I cambiamenti nella ricerca pubblica e le conseguenze avverse sull’innovazione," IRPPS Working Papers 94:2016, National Research Council, Institute for Research on Population and Social Policies.
  • Handle: RePEc:cnz:wpaper:94:2016
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.irpps.cnr.it/e-pub/ojs/files/journals/4/articles/201/public/201-646-1-PB.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. David, P. A., 1997. "From market magic to calypso science policy a review of Terence Kealey's The economic laws of scientific research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 229-255, May.
    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. 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.
    4. Balconi, Margherita & Brusoni, Stefano & Orsenigo, Luigi, 2010. "In defence of the linear model: An essay," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 1-13, February.
    5. David, Paul A. & Hall, Bronwyn H. & Toole, Andrew A., 2000. "Is public R&D a complement or substitute for private R&D? A review of the econometric evidence," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(4-5), pages 497-529, April.
    6. Geuna, Aldo & Rossi, Federica, 2011. "Changes to university IPR regulations in Europe and the impact on academic patenting," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(8), pages 1068-1076, October.
    7. Francesco Lissoni & Patrick Llerena & Maureen McKelvey & Bulat Sanditov, 2008. "Academic patenting in Europe: new evidence from the KEINS database," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 17(2), pages 87-102, June.
    8. Antonelli, Cristiano & Crespi, Francesco & Scellato, Giuseppe, 2012. "Inside innovation persistence: New evidence from Italian micro-data," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 23(4), pages 341-353.
    9. Salter, Ammon J. & Martin, Ben R., 2001. "The economic benefits of publicly funded basic research: a critical review," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 509-532, March.
    10. Rosenberg, Nathan & Nelson, Richard R., 1994. "American universities and technical advance in industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 23(3), pages 323-348, May.
    11. Federica Rossi & Ainurul Rosli, 2013. "Indicators of university-industry knowledge transfer performance and their implications for universities: Evidence from the UK’s HE-BCI survey," Working Papers 13, Birkbeck Centre for Innovation Management Research, revised Aug 2013.
    12. Drazen, Allan & Grilli, Vittorio, 1993. "The Benefit of Crises for Economic Reforms," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 83(3), pages 598-607, June.
    13. Perkmann, Markus & Tartari, Valentina & McKelvey, Maureen & Autio, Erkko & Broström, Anders & D’Este, Pablo & Fini, Riccardo & Geuna, Aldo & Grimaldi, Rosa & Hughes, Alan & Krabel, Stefan & Kitson, Mi, 2013. "Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of the literature on university–industry relations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(2), pages 423-442.
    14. Dominique Guellec & Bruno Van Pottelsberghe De La Potterie, 2003. "The impact of public R&D expenditure on business R&D," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(3), pages 225-243.
    15. Bruno Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, 2008. "Europe's R&D: Missing the Wrong Targets?," Intereconomics: Review of European Economic Policy, Springer;German National Library of Economics;Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS), vol. 43(4), pages 220-225, July.
    16. Wesley M. Cohen & Richard R. Nelson & John P. Walsh, 2000. "Protecting Their Intellectual Assets: Appropriability Conditions and Why U.S. Manufacturing Firms Patent (or Not)," NBER Working Papers 7552, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    17. de Rassenfosse, Gaétan & Dernis, Hélène & Guellec, Dominique & Picci, Lucio & van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, Bruno, 2013. "The worldwide count of priority patents: A new indicator of inventive activity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(3), pages 720-737.
    18. Andrea Filippetti & Antonio Peyrache, 2015. "Labour Productivity and Technology Gap in European Regions: A Conditional Frontier Approach," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 49(4), pages 532-554, April.
    19. Klevorick, Alvin K. & Levin, Richard C. & Nelson, Richard R. & Winter, Sidney G., 1995. "On the sources and significance of interindustry differences in technological opportunities," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 185-205, March.
    20. Filippetti, Andrea & Archibugi, Daniele, 2011. "Innovation in times of crisis: National Systems of Innovation, structure, and demand," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(2), pages 179-192, March.
    21. Cowan, Robin & David, Paul A & Foray, Dominique, 2000. "The Explicit Economics of Knowledge Codification and Tacitness," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, vol. 9(2), pages 211-253, June.
    22. Pablo D'Este & Frederick Guy & Simona Iammarino, 2013. "Shaping the formation of university--industry research collaborations: what type of proximity does really matter?," Journal of Economic Geography, Oxford University Press, vol. 13(4), pages 537-558, July.
    23. Rainer Frietsch & Aris Kaloudis, 2007. "Monitoring sector specialisation of public and private funded business research and development," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 34(6), pages 431-443, July.
    24. Enrico Deiaco & Alan Hughes & Maureen McKelvey, 2012. "Universities as strategic actors in the knowledge economy," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 36(3), pages 525-541.
    25. 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.
    26. Arundel, Anthony, 2001. "The relative effectiveness of patents and secrecy for appropriation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 611-624, April.
    27. Grimaldi, Rosa & Kenney, Martin & Siegel, Donald S. & Wright, Mike, 2011. "30 years after Bayh-Dole: Reassessing academic entrepreneurship," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(8), pages 1045-1057, October.
    28. von Hippel, Eric, 1987. "Cooperation between rivals: Informal know-how trading," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 16(6), pages 291-302, December.
    29. Bozeman, Barry, 2000. "Technology transfer and public policy: a review of research and theory," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(4-5), pages 627-655, April.
    30. Richard C. Levin & Alvin K. Klevorick & Richard R. Nelson & Sidney G. Winter, 1987. "Appropriating the Returns from Industrial Research and Development," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, vol. 18(3, Specia), pages 783-832.
    31. Archibugi, Daniele & Filippetti, Andrea, 2010. "The globalisation of intellectual property rights: four learned lessons and four theses," MPRA Paper 21930, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    32. Filippetti, Andrea & Peyrache, Antonio, 2011. "The Patterns of Technological Capabilities of Countries: A Dual Approach using Composite Indicators and Data Envelopment Analysis," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 39(7), pages 1108-1121, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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:cnz:wpaper:94:2016. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Sveva Avveduto). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/irppsit.html .

    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 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.