Abstract
Taking advantage of both “vertical” evaluations (of the JOULE and MHR programmes) and of the “transversal” study of the effects of all shared-cost programmes in France, the paper argues that such actions have already built large, heterogeneous, trans-border networks, out of which most are nearly stabilized but still in a learning process about collaborative research practices. It also shows that most networks fall under a limited set of collaborative patterns which focus on different outcomes and, in turn, have different structural effects. It, in turn, questions both the articulation and implementation mechanisms of the present framework programme.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
SeeG. Bogghio, ‘Conclusions and Recommendations’ in Evaluation of Research and Development, Proceedings of the seminar held in Brussels, October 1983, Reidel, Dordrecht 1984.
M. Callon, ‘Is science a public good?’,Science, Technology & Human Values, 19 (1994) 395.
T. A. Watkins, A technological communications cost model of R&D Consortia as public policy,Research Policy, 20 (1991) 87.
The recent state of the art on evaluation practices published in France demonstrates it clearly.M. Callon, P. Larédo, P. Mustar (Eds.),La Gestion Stratégique de la Recherche et de la Technologie: l'Evalaution des Programmes Technologiques, Economica, Paris, 1995.
J. Hagedoorn, J. Schakenraad, Leading companies and networks of strategic alliances in information technologies,Research Policy, 21 (1992) 163.
See for instance for FranceP. Mustar ‘La politique d'Innovation en France: le Colbertisme Entamé’, In:F. Sachwald (Ed.),Les Défis de la Mondialisation, Masson, Paris, 1994.
SeeM. Callon, Réseaux technico-économiques et irréversibilité, In:R. Boyer (Ed.),Figures de l'Irréversibilité en Economie, EHESS, Paris, 1991.
Undertaken in 1993, it has consisted in four main steps: a) the identification of participating units (by using the individual databases of each specific programme, we went from some 2500 participations mentioned for France in the CREST evaluation to some 4500!); b) the building and test of a questionnaire which enabled comparisons both with other national studies and with the previous one done in France in 1989, and dealt specifically with partnerships, collaborative arrangements and the circulation and use of the “main result” for the participant; c) an ad hoc process for gathering one questionnaire per research unit (and especially for insuring a satisfying return rate from SMEs); d) a multidimensional treatment to enable analyses by type of participant, by programme but also by type of collaborative patterns. SeeP. Larédo,The Impact of Community Research Programmes in France, Presses de L'Ecole des Mines, Paris, 1995.
G. Reger, S. Kuhlmann,European Technology Policy in Germany, Physica Verlag, Heidelberg, 1995.
SeeOrmala et al., ‘Evaluation of EUREKA Industrial and Economic Effects’, Paris, 1993.
We even spoke of programmes (with the exception of Science) as „war machines to foster new encounters”. SeeP. Larédo, M. Callon, L'Impact des Programmes Communautaires sur le Tissu Scientifique et Technique Français, La Documentation Française, Paris, 1990.
Of course not in all areas of S & T and not equally in those covered by the FP: these are clearly aspects which require more in depth analyses.
P. Larédo, B. Kahane, J. B. Meyer, D. Vinck, The Research Networks built by the MHR Programme’, CCE, Bruxelles, 1992:D. Vinck, P. Larédo, ‘The Networks Promoted by the JOULE programme’, CCE, Bruxelles, 1993. See also for a preliminary synthesis:P. Larédo, ‘EC and EUREKA Promoted Networks: Towards a Redefinition of European Public Interventions’, Colloquium ‘Management of Collaborative European Programmes and Projects in Research, Education and Training’, Oxford, April 11–13th, 1994.
SeeP. Larédo, P. Mustar, ‘The techno-economic networks, a socio-economic approach to state intervention in innovation’, In:R. Coombs, P. Saviotti, A. Richards, V. Walsh (Eds),Technological Collaboration, Edward Elgar, London, 1995.
SeeW. M. Cohen, D. A. Levinthal, Innovation and learning: the two faces of R & D,The Economic Journal, 99 (1989) 569.
The evaluation of the EUREKA initiative in France highlighted the fact that, in areas not yet covered by the FP, EUREKA promoted similar networks which represented during its first phase (up to 1990), the third of all supported networks. See:P. Larédo, A. Breitenstein, Les effets industriels de l'initiative EUREKA en France, CSI, Paris, 1993.
SeeP. David, ‘Understanding the economics of QWERTY: the necessity of history’, In:W. N. Parker (Ed.),Economic History and the Modern Economist, Basil Blackwell, Oxford, 1986.
M. J. Ledoux, L. Bach, ‘L'Evaluation Economique des Effets des Programmes BRITE-EURAM sur l'Industrie Européenne’, CEE-BETA, Strasbourg, 1993.
SeeE. Von Hippel,The Sources of Innovation, Oxford University Press, New York, 1988.
Quite often though there were “collective industrial research centres”.
SeeB. Latour, Joliot, L'histoire et la physique mélées, In:M. Serres (Ed.),Eléments d'Histoire des Sciences, Bordas, Paris, 1989.
See CSRT 1993 annual report which proposes to replace the notion of pre-competitive research by “recherche partenariale”.
See for instance the process adopted by the US Advanced technology Programme with the white papers and the focus groups.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Larédo, P. Structural effects of EC RT & D programmes. Scientometrics 34, 473–487 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02018014
Received:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02018014