Abstract
Traditionally, the U.S. and Western Europe have chosen different policies to foster commercial innovation. Whereas (federal) government intervention in the U.S. has required strict justifications and has been mainly indirect, most governments on the other side of the Atlantic have played an explicit and more active role in the economy. However, recent developments indicate a convergence between Europe and America, both in type of policy measures and their legitimation. Within a framework of risk profiles and a typology of justifications, we examine several U.S. and European programs (Etzkowitz, 1997). We find that the main reason for convergence in policy agendas and measures seems to be an incorporation of perceived missing links in the innovation systems in response to reciprocal competitive pressures. Hence, the federal government is aiming to play a more direct role in the U.S., while the university sector and technology transfer becomes increasingly integrated in European innovation policies.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Arrow, K. J., 1962, ‘Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention,’ in R. Nelson ed., The Rate and Direction of Inventve Activity, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, pp. 609–625. Reprinted in N. Rosenberg ed., The Economics of Technical Change, Harmondsworth: Pelican, pp. 164–181.
Atkinson, J. and D. Storey eds., 1994, Employment, the Small Firm, and the Labour Market, London: Routledge.
Cowen, T. ed., 1992, Public Goods and Market Failures. A Critical Examination, New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.
Danielmeyer, Hans G., 1997, ‘Science Policy Making at the EC Level,’ paper presented at the “Linking Theory and Practice” Conference, Cologne, Nov. 24–26.
Dasgupta, P. and P. A. David, 1994, ‘Toward a New Economics of Science,’ Research Policy 23, 487–521.
David, P. A., A. Geuna and W. E. Steinmueller, 1995, Additionality as a Principle of European R&D Funding, Maastricht: MERIT, 2/95–012.
Dobbins, F., 1994, Forging Industrial Policy: The United States, Britain and France in the Railway Age, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Etzkowitz, H., 1997, ‘From Zero Sum to Value Added Strategies: The Emergence of Knowledge-Based Industrial Policy in the States of the United States,’ Policy Studies Journal 25 3, 412–424.
Etzkowitz H., C. Gebhardt, S. Giesecke and K. Baird, 1998, The ATP Health Informatics Focused Program: A Qualitatie Evaluation, Technical Report, Science Policy Institute, State University of New York.
Etzkowitz, H., M. Gulbrandsen and J. Levitt, 1999, Goernment Funding Sources for Technology Entrepreneurs and Inno¨ati¨e Firms, New York: Harcourt Brace.
Findlay, Geoffrey, 1998, Head of Corporate Affairs Division, Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council, UK, Seminar in Oslo, Aug. 27.
Gibb, Allan, 1986, ‘Reviewing the Services Comparative Analysis and the Scope for Transfer of Ideas,’ in Haskins, Gay ed., A Guide to Small Firms Assistance in Europe. Aldershot: Gower, pp. 8–28.
Gibbons, M., C. Limoges, H. Nowotny, S. Schartzman, P. Scott and M. Trow, 1994, The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies, London: Sage Publications.
Gorman, Darryl and Ritchie Corryell, 1997, Program Manager and Program Director, SBIR/STTR program, NSF: Interview with Magnus Gulbrandsen, Nov. 12.
Grande, Edgar and Anke Peschke, 1997, ‘Missing Links: Transnational Cooperation and Policy Networks in European Science Policy-Making,’ paper presented at the “Linking Theory and Practice” conference, Cologne, Nov. 24–26.
Griliches, Z., 1998, ‘Issues in Assessing the Contribution of R&D to Productivity Growth,’ Bell Journal of Economics, 10, 92–116.
Gulbrandsen, Magnus, 1997, ‘Universities and Industrial Competitive Advantage,’ in H. Etzkowitz, and L. Leydesdorff: Uni¨ersities and the Global Knowledge Economy. A Triple Helix of University-Industry-Go¨ernment Relations, London: Pinter, pp. 121–131.
Guston, D. and K. Kenniston, 1994, The Fragile Contract: Uni¨ersity Science and the Federal Go¨ernment, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Haskins, Gay ed., 1986, A Guide to Small Firms Assistance in Europe, Aldershot: Gower.
Hughes, Thomas P., 1987, ‘The Evolution of Large Technological Systems,’ in Wiebe E, Bijker, Thomas P. Hughes and Trevor Pinch eds., The Social Construction of Technological Systems. New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, pp. 51–82.
Jaffee, A., 1986, ‘Technological Opportunities and Spillovers of R&D: Evidence from Firmsr Patents, Profits and Market Value,’ American Economic Review, 76 4, 984–1001.
Jennings, John 1997, Program Manager Dual Use Applications Program, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency: Interview with Magnus Gulbrandsen, Nov. 12.
Kline, S. and N. Rosenberg, 1986, ‘An overview of innovation,’ in R. Landau and N. Rosenberg eds., The Positive Sum Strategy: Harnessing Technology for Economic Growth, Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, pp. 275–306.
Lake, Gordon, 1998, Principal Administrator, Secretariat, Committee on Research, Technological Development and Energy, European Parliament, seminar in Oslo, March 23.
Latker, Norman, 1998, former NIH Patent Counsel: Interview with Henry Etzkowitz, Jan. 23.
Leshowitz, Martin, 1978, ‘Transfer of Medical Technology form the Laboratory to the Marketplace,’ unpublished manuscript.
Melman, Seymour, 1970, Pentagon Capitalism: The Political Economy of War, New York: McGraw-Hill.
Nelson, Richard, 1959, ‘The Simple Economics of Basic Scientific Research,’ Journal of Political Economy, 67, 297–306.
Nester, William R., 1997, American Industrial Policy: Free or Managed Markets? New York: St. Martin's Press.
Pavitt, K., 1991, ‘What Makes Basic Research Economically Useful?’ Research Policy, 20, 109–119.
Peterson, John, 1996, ‘Research and Development Policy,’ in Hussein Kassim, and Anand Menon eds., The European Union and National Industrial Policy, London/New York: Routledge, pp. 226–246.
Quintas, P. and K. Guy, 1995, ‘Collaborative, Pre-Competitive R&D and the Firm,’ Research Policy, 24, 325–348.
Restpor, 1996, Regional Innovation Policy Conference, Brussels.
Rosenberg, 1990, ‘Why Do Firms Do Basic Research with Their Own Money?’ Research Policy, 19, 165–174.
Rossiter, M., 1976, The Emergence of Agricultural Science in the U.S., New Haven: Yale University Press.
Rothwell, R., 1989, ‘Technology Policy and Cooperative Research in Europe,’ in A. N. Link, and G. Tassey, eds., Cooperative Research and Development: The Industry-University-Government Relationship, Boston: Kluwer.
Spender, J., 1997, ‘Publicly Supported Non-Defense R&D: The USA's Advanced Technology Program,’ Science and Public Policy, February, pp. 25–52.
Teece, D., 1986, ‘Profiting from Technological Innovation: Implications for Integration, Collaboration, Licensing and Public Policy,’ Research Policy, 15, 285–305.
Thatcher, Mark, 1996, ‘High Technology.’ In Hussein, Kassim and Anand Menon eds., The European Union and National Industrial Policy, London/New York: Routledge, pp. 178–203.
Tibbets, Roland, 1997, Founding Director of SBIR, NSF: Interview with Magnus Gulbrandsen Nov. 12.
U.S. Senate, 1979, University and Small Business Patent Procedures Act: Report of the Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Gulbrandsen, M., Etzkowitz, H. Convergence Between Europe and America: The Transition from Industrial to Innovation Policy. The Journal of Technology Transfer 24, 223–233 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007859523314
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007859523314