Advertisement

Twenty Years of Evaluation with the BETA Method: Some Insights on Current Collaborative ST&I Policy Issues

  • Laurent Bach
  • Mireille Matt

Keywords

Indirect Effect Technology Transfer European Space Agency Prime Partner Technological Artefact 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

9.7 References

  1. Audretsch DB (2002) The dynamic role of small firms: evidence from the US. Small Business Economics 18: 13–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bach L, Cohendet P, Lambert G, Ledoux MJ (1992) Measuring and managing spinoffs: the case of the spinoffs generated by ESA Programs. In: Greenberg JS, Hertzfeld HR (eds) Space economics. Progress in Astronautics & Aeronautics, New York, US, p. 144.Google Scholar
  3. Bach L, Condé-Molist N, Ledoux MJ, Matt M, Schaeffer V (1995) Evaluation of the economic effects of Brite-Euram Programmes on the European industry. Scientometrics. 34: 325–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bach L, Cohendet P, Schenk E (2002) Technological transfers from the European space programmes: a dynamic view and a comparison with other R&D projects. Journal of Technology Transfer 27(4): 321–338.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bach L, Ledoux MJ, Matt M (2003) Evaluation of the Brite-Euram Programme. In: Learning from science and technology policy evaluation: experiences from the United States and Europe. Shapira P and Kuhlmann S (eds.) Edward Elgar, Cheltenham (UK) and Northampton, Massachusetts (USA), pp. 154–173.Google Scholar
  6. BETA (1980) The economic effects from the ESA contracts. Final report for the European Space Agency (4 volumes), ESA, Paris.Google Scholar
  7. BETA (1987) The indirect economic impact of ESAs contracts on the Danish Economy. Final report for the Danish Research Administration, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  8. BETA (1988) Study on the economic effects of European space expenditures, Results (Vol. 1) and Report on investigation theory and methodology (Vol. 2). Prepared for the European Space Agency, Paris, October.Google Scholar
  9. BETA/ HEC Montréal (1989) Indirect economic effects of ESA contracts on the Canadian economy. Final Report for the Canadian Space Agency, Montreal. BETA (1989) Analyse des mécanismes de transfert de technologies spatiales: le rôle de l’Agence Spatiale Européenne. Final report for ESA, ESA, Paris.Google Scholar
  10. BETA (1990) Mesure des impacts des centres techniques: un essai méthodologique. Report for the AFME, Agence Francaise de la Maîtrise de l’Energie, Paris.Google Scholar
  11. BETA (1993) Economic evaluation of the effects of the Brite-Euram programmes on the European Industry. Final Report, EUR 15171. CEC, Luxembourg.Google Scholar
  12. BETA (1995a) Évaluation de limpact de laide à linnovation dans les PME soute-nues par l’ANVAR. Étude de la region Alsace. Final report for ANVAR, Strasbourg.Google Scholar
  13. BETA (1995b) Evaluation of the economic effects generated by R&D services provided to industry by Materials Ireland. Final report for Materials Ireland-Forbairt, Dublin (Ireland).Google Scholar
  14. BETA (1996a) Transfert de technologie entre lespace et les sciences de la vie en Europe. Final report for the European Space Agency, Paris.Google Scholar
  15. BETA (1996b) Evaluation of the economic effects of the programmes EURAM, BRITE, and BRITE-EURAM I-Portugal, Ireland, Greece, Spain and SMEs. EUR 16877 EN, EC-Directorate-General Science, Research and Development, Brussels.Google Scholar
  16. BETA (1997a) Evaluation and analysis of the techological transfers generated by the programmes EURAM, BRITE and BRITE-EURAM, EUR 16878 EN. Final Report for the DG XII-C EC, Brussels.Google Scholar
  17. BETA (1997b, Pilot economic evaluation of Esprit HPCN results. Final report for the DG Ill-Industrie Fl, Brussels.Google Scholar
  18. BETA/ NOVESPACE (2000) Study on transfers of technology and spin-offs realised in framework of Space Station and Microgravity Programmes. Final report for the European Space Agency, Paris.Google Scholar
  19. Beise M, Stahl H (1999) Public research and industrial innovation in Germany. Research Policy 28: 397–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Blumenthal D, Campbell EG, Anderson MS, Causino N, Louis KS (1997) With-holding research results in academic life science: evidence from a national survey of faculty. Journal of the American Medical Association 277: 1224–1228.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Bianchi-Streit M, Blackburne N, Budde R, Reitz H, Sagnell B, Schmied H, Schorr B, (1985) Utilité économique des contrats du CERN (deuxième étude). Rapport Final pour le CERN, Geneve.Google Scholar
  22. Breschi S, Lissoni F (2001) Knowledge spillovers and local innovation systems: a critical survey. Industrial and Corporate Change 10: 975–1005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Brooks H (1994) The relationship between science and technology policy. Research Policy 25: 477–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Cohen WM, Nelson RR, Walsh J (2002) Links and impacts: the influence of public research on industrial R&D. Management Science 48: 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Comité Richelieu (2003) Livre blanc des PME innovantes-Vers un small business act Europeen? Paris.Google Scholar
  26. Dasgupta P, David, PA (1994) Towards a new economics of science. Research Policy 23: 487–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Dodgson M, Rothwell R, (1994) Innovation in small firms. In: The handbook of industrial innovation. Dodgson M, Rothwell R (eds.) Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp. 310–324.Google Scholar
  28. European Commission (2002a) High-tech SMEs in Europe, Observatory of European SMEs, 2002/No6. Enterprise publications, Luxembourg.Google Scholar
  29. European Commission (2002b) Sixth Report-Observatory of European SMEs 2002/No2-data 2000. European Commission, Luxembourg.Google Scholar
  30. Fahrenkrog G, Polt W, Rojo J, Tubke A, Zinöcker K (eds.) (2002) RTD evaluation toolbox assessing the socio-economic impact of RTD policies. Report of EC Strata Project HPV 1 CT 1999-00005, EUR 20382 EN. IPTS and Joanneum Research. Manchester.Google Scholar
  31. Feldman MP (1999) The new economics of innovation, spillovers and agglomeration: a review of empirical studies. Economics of Innovation and New Technology 8: 5–25.Google Scholar
  32. Fontana R, Geuna A, Matt M (2004) Firm size and openness: the driving forces of university-industry collaboration. In Caloghirou Y, Constantelou A, Vonortas N (eds.) Knowledge flows in European industry: mechanisms and policy implications, Routledge, London, forthcoming.Google Scholar
  33. Furtado A, Suslick S, Pereira N, De Freitas A, and Bach L (1999) Economic evaluation of large technological programmes: The case of Petrobras Deepwater Programme in Brazil — Procap 1000. Research Evaluation: 8(3): 155–163.Google Scholar
  34. Furtado A, Costa Filho E J (2001) Avaliação dos impactos econômicos do programa CBERS: Um estudo dos fornecedores do INPE. Final Report, DPCT/IG/UNICAMP, Campinas, November.Google Scholar
  35. Garcia A, Amesse F, Silva M (1996) The indirect economic effects of Ecopetrols contracting strategy for informatics development. Technovation 16: 469–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Georghiou L, Meyer-Krahmer F (1992) Evaluation of socio-economic effects of European Community R&D programmes in the SPEAR network. Research Evaluation 2(1): 5–15.Google Scholar
  37. Georghiou L, Rigby J, Cameron H (eds.) (2002) Assessing the socio-economic effects of the EC RTD Framework Programme —ASIF project. Final Report for CE DG Research PREST in collaboration with BETA, ISI, AUEB, Joanneum Research, IE HAS and Wise Guys.Google Scholar
  38. GREPME (1997) Les PME-bilan et perspectives, 2e ed., sous la direction de Pierre-André Jullien. Les Presses Inter-Universitaires Québec/Economica, Paris.Google Scholar
  39. HEC Montréal (1994) Les effets économiques indirects des contrats de 1ASE sur léconomie canadienne-deuxième étude, 1988–1997. Rapport préliminaire final pour l’Agence Spatiale Canadienne (in collaboration with BETA).Google Scholar
  40. Hoffman K, Parejo M, Bessant J, Perren. (1998) Small firms, R&D, technology and innovation in the UK: a literature review. Technovation 18(1): 39–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Jaffe A (1989) Real effects of academic research. American Economic Review 79: 957–970.Google Scholar
  42. Julien P-A (1994) PME, Bilan et perspectives, GREPME ed. Economica, Paris.Google Scholar
  43. Kline SJ, Rosenberg N (1986) Innovation: an overview. In: Landau R, Rosenberg N (eds), The positive sum strategy. Academy of Engineering Press, Washington, pp. 275–305.Google Scholar
  44. Lanoux B (2001) L’adoption par les PME/PMI des systèmes de gestion par processus. Thèse de Doctorat ès Sciences de gestion, BETA, Strasbourg.Google Scholar
  45. Louis KS, Jones LM, Anderson MS, Blumenthal D, Campbell EG (2001) Entrepreneurship, secrecy, and productivity: a comparison of clinical and non-clinical faculty. Journal of Technology Transfer 26: 233–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Lundvall B-Å (ed.) (1992) National systems of innovation: towards a theory of innovation and interactive learning. Pinter Publishers, London.Google Scholar
  47. Mansfield E (1991) Academic research and industrial innovation. Research Policy 26: 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Mansfield E, Lee JY (1996) The modern university: contributor to industrial innovation and recipient of industrial R&D support. Research Policy 25(7): 1047–1058.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Meyer-Krahmer F, Schmoch U (1998) Science-based technologies: university-industry interactions in four fields. Research Policy 27: 835–852.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Mohnen P, Hoareau C (2002) What type of enterprise forges close linkswith universities and government labs? Evidence from CIS 2. Managerial and Decision Economics 24: 133–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Mothe C, Quelin BV (2001) Resource creation and partnership in R&D consortia. Journal of High Technology Management Research 112: 113–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Munier F (1999) Taille des firmes et innovation, thèse de Doctorat ès Sciences économiques. BETA, Strasbourg.Google Scholar
  53. Narin F, Hamilton K, Olivastro D (1997) The increasing linkage between US technology and public science. Research Policy 26: 317–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Nelson RR (2001) Observations on the Post-Bayh-Dole rise of patenting at American universities. Journal of Technology Transfer 26: 13–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. North D, Smallbone D, Vickers I (2001) Public sector support for innovating SMEs. Small Business Economics 16(4): 303–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. OECD (1997) Policy evaluation in innovation and technology-towards best practices. Proceedings of the Conference organized by OECD’s Diectorate of Science, Technology and Industry. OECD, Paris.Google Scholar
  57. OECD (1998) Best practice policies for SME-1997 edition, OECD, Paris.Google Scholar
  58. OECD (2000) The OECD SME Outlook. OECD, Paris.Google Scholar
  59. OECD (2001) Enhancing SME competitiveness. The OECD Bologna Ministerial Conference. OECD, Paris.Google Scholar
  60. Poyago-Theotoky J, Beath J, Siegel DS (2002) Universities and fundamental research: reflections on the growth of university-industry partnerships. Oxford Review of Economic Policy 18(1): 10–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. PREST (2003) The evaluation of the national research development program for Medical and Welfare Apparatus. Final report for the Ministry of Industry and Trade (METI) Mitsubishi Research Institute, Manchester.Google Scholar
  62. Richardson GB (1972) The organization of industry. Economic Journal 82: 883–896.Google Scholar
  63. Rizzoni A (1991) Technological innovation and small firms: a taxonomy, International Small Business Journal 9(3): 31–42.Google Scholar
  64. Sakai K (2002) Industry issues-Global industrial restructuring: implications for small firms, STI Working Papers 2002/4. OECD, Paris.Google Scholar
  65. Sakakibara M (1997) Heterogeneity of firm capabilities and cooperative research and development: an empirical examination of motives. Strategic Management Journal 18: 143–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Salter AJ, Martin BR (2001) The economic benefits of publicly funded basic research: a critical review. Research Policy 30: 509–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Schmied H (1975) Etude de l’utilité économique des contrats du CERN, Rapport Final pour le CERN, Geneve.Google Scholar
  68. Siegel DS, Waldman D, Link A (2002) Assessing the impact of organizational practices on the productivity of university technology transfer offices: an exploratory study. Research Policy 31: 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Stephan PE (2001) Educational implications of university-industry technology transfer. Journal of Technology Transfer 26: 199–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Teece DJ (1986) Profiting from technological innovation: implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy. Research Policy 15: 285–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Torres O (ed.) (1998) PME-De Nouvelles Approches. Economica-série Recherche en Gestion, Paris.Google Scholar
  72. Welsh JA, White JF (1981) A small business is not a little big business. Harvard Business Review 59(4): 18–32.Google Scholar
  73. Zuscovitch E, Shachar Y (1990) Learning patterns within a technological network. In: Dankbaar Groenewegen B, Schenk H (eds.) Advances in industrial organization, Kluwer, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  74. Zuscovitch E, Cohen G (1994) Network characteristics of technological learning: the case of the European space program. Economic Innovation and New technology 3: 139–160.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Laurent Bach
    • 1
  • Mireille Matt
    • 1
  1. 1.BETAStrasbourg

Personalised recommendations