Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Credibility and legitimacy in policy-driven innovation networks: resource dependencies and expectations in Dutch electric vehicle subsidies

  • Published:
The Journal of Technology Transfer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to empirically examine the influence of credibility on the likelihood to grant consortia of collaborating actors an innovation subsidy. Theorizing from the viewpoint of resource dependence theory and the sociology of expectations, we hypothesize that four types of credibility of influence: scientific credibility, market credibility, expectation track record, and generated social capital. We operate on two levels of analysis, the actor and the consortium. We quantitatively analyze the Dutch electric vehicle subsidy program as case. We develop a model that accurately forecasts which consortia are most likely to receive subsidies. We demonstrate that generated social capital and market credibility positively influence the likelihood of receiving innovation subsidies, while scientific credibility sources and expectation track record have a negative influence. Based on these findings we provide policy recommendations and avenues for further research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. In this paper we use the word ‘actor’ as it is used in innovation system literature. By actor we mean an institutional party in the innovation system that plays a role in developing new innovations, we do not refer to individuals. Subsidized consortia consist of multiple actors, collaborating to develop innovations.

  2. Rao et al. (2008) define these sources in terms of legitimacy. To avoid confusion with our dependent variable we refer to these sources as credibility. In our opinion the term credibility also better fits the relationship studied here. Further, Rao et al. also distinguish historical and locational legitimacy. However, since the EVT field is new, historical legitimacy is of less importance. It is partially captured by actor age, but older actors are usually from outside the EVT field. Locational legitimacy was considered as possible concept, but the geographic distances in the Netherlands are relatively small and there are no obvious large EVT clusters yet. Therefore it was not included in the model.

  3. Unfortunately the data does not provide rankings on the criteria.

  4. A value of 1 was added to all observations in order to be able to calculate the natural logarithm for cases with value 0. After the transformation these values were 0 again, since ln(1) = 0.

  5. Other proxies were also tested, such as the sum, the maximum or the natural logarithms of the number of articles published. However, the average number gave the best model results for all types of credibility.

  6. We tested extensively for interaction effects between type and credibility at the actor level, but this yielded no significant results.

  7. Appendices can be found online, these contain technology specific details, but are of no further concern for this study.

References

  • Adler, P. S., & Kwon, S.-W. (2002). Social capital: Prospects for a new concept. The Academy of Management Review, 27, 17–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aguillo, I. F., Bar-Ilan, J., Levene, M., & Ortega, J. L. (2010). Comparing university rankings. Scientometrics, 85, 243–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ahuja, G. (2000). Collaboration networks, structural holes, and innovation: A longitudinal study. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45, 425–455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alkemade, F., & Suurs, R. A. A. (2012). Patterns of expectations for emerging sustainable technologies. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 79, 448–456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, R. C., Narin, F., & McAllister, P. (1978). Publication ratings versus peer ratings of universities. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 29, 91–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bakker, S. (2010). The car industry and the blow-out of the hydrogen hype. Energy Policy, 38, 6540–6544.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bakker, S., & Trip, J. J. (2013). Policy options to support the adoption of electric vehicles in the urban environment. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 25, 18–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bakker, S., Van Lente, H., & Meeus, M. T. H. (2011). Arenas of expectations for hydrogen technologies. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 78, 152–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17, 99–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baruch, Y., & Hall, D. T. (2004). The academic career: A model for future careers in other sectors? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64, 241–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bates, D. M., & Sarkar, D. (2006). The lme4 library. http://lib.stat.cmu.edu/R/CRAN.

  • Berkhout, F. (2006). Normative expectations in systems innovation. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 18, 299–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bornmann, L., Leydesdorff, L., & Van den Besselaar, P. (2010). A meta-evaluation of scientific research proposals: Different ways of comparing rejected to awarded applications. Journal of Informetrics, 4, 211–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borup, M., Brown, N., Konrad, K., & Van Lente, H. (2006). The sociology of expectations in science and technology. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 18, 285–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bozeman, B., Fay, D., & Slade, C. (2013). Research collaboration in universities and academic entrepreneurship: The-state-of-the-art. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 38, 1–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, N., & Michael, M. (2003). A sociology of expectations: Retrospecting prospects and prospecting retrospects. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 15, 3–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burt, R. S. (1999). The social capital of opinion leaders. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 566, 37–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butts, C. T. (2008). Social network analysis with sna. Journal of Statistical Software, 24, 1–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butts, C. T. (2012). Tools for social network analysis. R package version 2. http://stat.ethz.ch/CRAN/web/packages/sna.

  • Carayol, N. (2003). Objectives, agreements and matching in science-industry collaborations: Reassembling the pieces of the puzzle. Research Policy, 32, 887–908.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlsson, B., & Jacobsson, S. (1997). Diversity creation and technological systems: A technology policy perspective. In C. Edquist (Ed.), Systems of innovation: Technologies, institutions and organizations. London: Pinter Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlsson, B., & Stankiewicz, R. (1991). On the nature, function and composition of technological systems. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 1, 93–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chaminade, C., & Edquist, C. (2010). Rationales for public policy intervention in the innovation process: A systems of innovation approach. In R. Smits, S. Kuhlmann, & P. Shapira (Eds.), The theory and practice of innovation policy: An international research handbook. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chandy, R. K., & Tellis, G. J. (2000). The incumbent’s curse? Incumbency, size, and radical product innovation. The Journal of Marketing, 64, 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 128–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, S95–S120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Commission, European. (2003). COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION of 6 May 2003 concerning the definition of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises. Official Journal of the European Union, 124, 36–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Danneels, E. (2002). The dynamics of product innovation and firm competences. Strategic Management Journal, 23, 1095–1121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davidsson, P., & Honig, B. (2003). The role of social and human capital among nascent entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing, 18, 301–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deeds, D. L., Mang, P. Y., & Frandsen, M. L. (2004). The influence of firms’ and industries’ legitimacy on the flow of capital into high-technology ventures. Strategic Organization, 2, 9–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The Iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dutch Court of Audit. (2011). Innovatiebeleid (Innovation Policy). The Hague: Algemene Rekenkamer. Retrieved from http://www.rekenkamer.nl/Publicaties/Onderzoeksrapporten/Introducties/2011/09/Innovatiebeleid.

  • Edquist, C. (1997). Systems of innovation approaches—Their emergence and characteristics. In C. Edquist (Ed.), Systems of innovation. London: Pinter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: From National Systems and “Mode 2” to a Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations. Research Policy, 29, 109–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ewing, G. O., & Sarigöllü, E. (1998). Car fuel-type choice under travel demand management and economic incentives. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 3, 429–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fawcett, T. (2006). An introduction to ROC analysis. Pattern Recognition Letters, 27, 861–874.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fombrun, C. (1996). Reputation: Realizing value from the corporate image. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frenken, K., Hekkert, M., & Godfroij, P. (2004). R&D portfolios in environmentally friendly automotive propulsion: Variety, competition and policy implications. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 71, 485–507.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schawartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greene, W. H. (1997). Econometic analysis (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greve, A., & Salaff, J. W. (2003). Social networks and entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 28, 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gulbrandsen, M., & Smeby, J.-C. (2005). Industry funding and university professors’ research performance. Research Policy, 34, 932–950.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. (1984). Structural inertia and organisational change. American Sociological Review, 49, 149–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. (1989). Organizational ecology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harman, G. (2001). University-industry research partnerships in Australia: Extent, benefits and risks. Higher Education Research & Development, 20, 245–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hekkert, M. P., Suurs, R. A. A., Negro, S. O., Kuhlmann, S., & Smits, R. E. H. M. (2007). Functions of innovation systems: A new approach for analysing technological change. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 74, 413–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, R. M. (1993). Underinvestment and incompetence as responses to radical innovation: Evidence from the photolithographic alignment equipment industry. The Rand Journal of Economics, 24, 248–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, R. M., & Clark, K. B. (1990). Architectural innovation—the reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of established firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 9–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hessels, L. K., & van Lente, H. (2008). Re-thinking new knowledge production: A literature review and a research agenda. Research Policy, 37, 740–760.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hillman, A. J., Withers, M. C., & Collins, B. J. (2009). Resource dependence theory: A review. Journal of Management, 35, 1404–1427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hovland, C. I., & Weiss, W. (1951). The influence of source credibility on communication effectiveness. Public Opinion Quarterly, 15, 635–650.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howells, J. (2002). The response of old technology incumbents to technological competition—Does the sailing ship effect exist? Journal of Management Studies, 39, 887–906.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huétink, F. J., der Vooren, A., & van Alkemade, F. (2010). Initial infrastructure development strategies for the transition to sustainable mobility. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 77, 1270–1281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kleinknecht, A., & Verspagen, B. (1990). Demand and innovation: Schmookler re-examined. Research Policy, 19, 387–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1992). Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organization Science, 3, 383–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laursen, K., & Salter, A. (2006). Open for innovation: The role of openness in explaining innovation performance among UK manufacturing firms. Strategic Management Journal, 27, 131–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, S., & Bozeman, B. (2005). The impact of research collaboration on scientific productivity. Social Studies of Science, 35, 673–702.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lehmann, S., Jackson, A. D., & Lautrup, B. E. (2006). Measures for measures. Nature, 444, 1003–1004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewin, A. Y., Weigelt, C. B., & Emery, J. D. (2004). Adaption and selection in strategy and change: Perspectives on strategic change in organizations. In M. S. Poole & A. H. Van de Ven (Eds.), Handbook of organizational change and innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, T., & Calantone, R. J. (1998). The impact of market knowledge competence on new product advantage: Conceptualization and empirical examination. The Journal of Marketing, 62, 13–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liberman, S., & Wolf, K. B. (1998). Bonding number in scientific disciplines. Social Networks, 20, 239–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lieven, T., Mühlmeier, S., Henkel, S., & Waller, J. F. (2011). Who will buy electric cars? An empirical study in Germany. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 16, 236–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, Z., Yang, H., & Arya, B. (2009). Alliance partners and firm performance: Resource complementarity and status association. Strategic Management Journal, 30, 921–940.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McFadden, D. (1974). Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In P. Zarembka (Ed.), Frontiers in economics (pp. 105–142). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meeus, M. T. H., Oerlemans, L. A. G., & Hage, J. (2004). Industry-public knowledge infrastructure interaction: Intra- and Inter-organizational explanations of interactive learning. Industry and Innovation, 11, 327–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merton, R. K. (1968). The Matthew effect in science. Science, 159, 56–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Minister of Economic Affairs. (2009). Regeling van de Minister van Economische Zaken van 30 oktober 2009, nr. WJZ/9166533, tot wijziging van de Subsidieregeling sterktes in innovatie. Staatscourant 1–8.

  • Ministry of Economic Affairs. (2009). Mobiliteitsbeleid (Mobility Policy).

  • Morrow, K., Karner, D., & Francfort, J. (2008). Plug-in hybrid electric vehicle charging infrastructure review. US Department of Energy-Vehicle Technologies Program.

  • Mowery, D., & Rosenberg, N. (1979). The influence of market demand upon innovation: A critical review of some recent empirical studies. Research Policy, 8, 102–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (1982). An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap of Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nieminen, M., Kaukonen, E. (2001). Universities and R&D networking an a knowledge-based economy. Sitra Reports.

  • Nooteboom, B., & Stam, E. (2008). Micro-foundations of innovation policy. Amsterdam: WRR, Amsterdam University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Penrose, E. T. (1959). The theory of the growth of the firm. White Plains, NY: M. E. Sharpe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. (2003). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. Palo Alto: Stanford Business Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pornpitakpan, C. (2004). The persuasiveness of source credibility: A critical review of five decades’ evidence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34, 243–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Powell, W. W., Koput, K. W., & Smith-Doerr, L. (1996). Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: Networks of learning in biotechnology. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 116–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • R Development Core Team. (2013). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. www.R-project.org.

  • Rao, R. S., Chandy, R. K., & Prabhu, J. C. (2008). The fruits of legitimacy: Why some new ventures gain more from innovation than others. Journal of Marketing, 72, 58–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Renault, C. S. (2006). Academic capitalism and university incentives for faculty entrepreneurship. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 31, 227–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rieh, S. Y., & Danielson, D. R. (2007). Credibility: A multidisciplinary framework. In B. Cronin (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (pp. 307–364). Medford, NJ: Information Today.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rip, A. (1994). The republic of science in the 1990s. Higher Education, 28, 3–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rip, A. (2006). Folk theories of nanotechnologists. Science as Culture, 15, 349–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Santoro, M. D., & Chakrabarti, A. K. (2002). Firm size and technology centrality in industry–university interactions. Research Policy, 31, 1163–1180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schilling, M. A., & Phelps, C. C. (2007). Interfirm collaboration networks: The impact of large-scale network structure on firm innovation. Management Science, 53, 1113–1126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D. A., Atwater, L. E., & Link, A. N. (2003). Commercial knowledge transfers from universities to firms: Improving the effectiveness of university–industry collaboration. The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 14, 111–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sorenson, O., & Fleming, L. (2004). Science and the diffusion of knowledge. Research Policy, 33, 1615–1634.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sternthal, B., Ruby, D., & Leavitt, C. (1978). The persuasive effect of source credibility: Tests of cognitive response. Journal of Consumer Research, 4, 252–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toutkoushian, R. K., Porter, S. R., Danielson, C., & Hollis, P. R. (2003). Using publications counts to measure an institution’s research productivity. Research in Higher Education, 44, 121–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Lente, H. (1993). Promising technology. The dynamics of expectations in technological developments. University of Twente, Enschede.

  • Van Lente, H., & Bakker, S. (2010). Competing expectations: The case of hydrogen storage technologies. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 22, 693–709.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Lente, H., & Rip, A. (1998). The rise of membrane technology from Rhetorics to social reality. Social Studies of Science, 28, 221–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Merkerk, R. O., & Robinson, D. K. R. (2006). Characterizing the emergence of a technological field: Expectations, agendas and networks in Lab-on-a-chip technologies. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 18, 411–428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Rijnsoever, F. J., Farla, J., & Dijst, M. J. (2009). Consumer car preferences and information search channels. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 14, 334–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Rijnsoever, F. J., Hagen, P., & Willems, M. (2013). Preferences for alternative fuel vehicles by Dutch local governments. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 20, 15–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Rijnsoever, F. J., Hessels, L. K., & Vandeberg, R. L. J. (2008). A resource-based view on the interactions of university researchers. Research Policy, 37, 1255–1266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Rijnsoever, F. J., Meeus, M. T. H., & Donders, R. T. (2012). The effects of economic status and recent experience on innovative behavior under environmental variability: An experimental approach. Research Policy, 41, 833–847.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Zambaldi, F., Aranha, F., Lopes, H., & Politi, R. (2011). Credit granting to small firms: A Brazilian case. Journal of Business Research, 64, 309–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, J. (2010). The problems of using social networks in entrepreneurial resource acquisition. International Small Business Journal, 28, 338–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ziegler, A. (2012). Individual characteristics and stated preferences for alternative energy sources and propulsion technologies in vehicles: A discrete choice analysis for Germany. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 46, 1372–1385.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Innovation Studies, Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Utrecht University, P.O. Box 80115, 3508 TC, Utrecht, The Netherlands

    Frank J. van Rijnsoever

  2. Science and Innovation Management, Utrecht University, P.O. Box 80115, 3508 TC, Utrecht, The Netherlands

    Leon Welle

  3. OTB Research Institute, Delft University of Technology, P.O. Box 5030, 2600 GA, Delft, The Netherlands

    Sjoerd Bakker

Authors
  1. Frank J. van Rijnsoever
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Leon Welle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sjoerd Bakker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Frank J. van Rijnsoever.

Appendix 1: Literal translation of the criteria for granting subsidies and explanation [see: Staatscourant (Nr. 16803): 1–8]

Appendix 1: Literal translation of the criteria for granting subsidies and explanation [see: Staatscourant (Nr. 16803): 1–8]

1.1 Added definitions

HTAS-EVT-project: An innovation project consisting of experimental development or a combination of experimental development and industrial research that contributes to and fits within the strategic main goals of the HTAS-program as mentioned in Appendix 6.1Footnote 7 and the theme, the specific goals and focus areas as mentioned in Appendix 6.3.

HTAS-EVT-collaboration: a non-legal personality owning a collaboration consisting of two or more, participating members, not in a single group, of which at least one is a SME-entrepreneur and another party is either an entrepreneur or a research organization, executing a HTAS-EVT-project.

1.2 Article 6.25

  1. 1.

    Criteria to grant subsidies

    1. (a)

      Technological novelty or a substantial novel application of an existing technology

    2. (b)

      Quality of the collaboration at least evident from the complementarity of the participants, the extent to which SMEs are involved and the novelty of the collaboration.

    3. (c)

      Sustainable economic perspectives of the project results, extensiveness of the possibilities for application of the project results.

    4. (d)

      The theme of the program and its specific goals and focus areas.

  2. 2.

    When ranking the proposals all criteria are of equal weight.

1.3 Explanation of 6.25

The minister grants subsidies in according to the ranking of the subsidy proposals. HTAS EVT-projects are judged on four equally important criteria. The novelty of the technology or its applications are central to Part A. This also emphasizes the [62] SMEs in the consortium, possibilities for returns on investments and turnover, distinguishable market trends and the position of competitors in the market play a role. One can also consider the follow-up activities that are required to gain a sustainable perspective. If Criterion C is more often fulfilled this will have a positive impact on employment. The criterion in Part D, relates to the added themes and its specific goals and focus areas described in Appendix 6.3. This is further elaborated upon in Appendix 6.3 under the headings background and theme, HTAS-electric vehicle technology, specific goals, and focus areas.

Appendix 2 Correlation matrix
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

van Rijnsoever, F.J., Welle, L. & Bakker, S. Credibility and legitimacy in policy-driven innovation networks: resource dependencies and expectations in Dutch electric vehicle subsidies. J Technol Transf 39, 635–661 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-013-9326-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-013-9326-7

Keywords

JEL Classification

Search

Navigation