Abstract
In a recent paper, Soskice et al. have raised the question why Germany, a major force in scientific research, technology, and high technology industry, has systematically failed to gain a leadership position in two important industries- Information Technology and Biotechnology. They show that the broad institutional features of the German economic system are conflicting with fields of technology which are characterized by extremely high risk and volatility, low cumulativity of knowledge, and low loyalty in buyer-supplier relations. They also show how, with intense policy commitment and investment, Germany succeeded in two niches in these industries, which are characterized by somewhat less extreme conditions, namely Business software and Diagnostics.
In a chapter in the same book, however, it is argued that there is not evidence for a systematic relation between institutional features of countries and their innovative performance. By using patents as an indicator of technological performance, the chapter rejects the main claim of the “variety of capitalism” (VoC) thesis.
In this paper, we show that, somewhat paradoxically, both claims are right, but with a qualification. It is not appropriate to study the relations between institutional features of countries and technological performance in a direct way. This relation is not direct, but mediated. An important mediating factor is given by the features of the scientific system. What is missing in their analysis is a specific treatment of the scientific system as an actor in the innovation process in high technology. While the scientific system reflect, by definition, some of the more general features of the institutions of a country, still it takes some specific attribute which must be studied per se. In addition, scientific systems are in constant competition, so that some pressure towards institutional isomorphism may be more powerful than in other sub-systems.
Therefore our suggestion is to apply, mutatis mutandis, the VoC framework to the scientific system, and to explore to what extent its features may be held responsible for variations in scientific performance across countries.
We offer evidence from a case study, namely, the patterns of mobility and performance of top 1,000 scientists in the field of Computer Science, as shown from an extensive analysis of their CVs. This analysis shows that Computer Science has been marked by extremely turbulent dynamics of growth, proliferation of research directions, and new forms of complementarity, mainly with industry. These elements are consistent with the search regime framework. The scientific institutions supporting such a regime of scientific knowledge production have exhibited properties of flexibility and mobility, in all possible dimensions (disciplines, career, geography).
We then build up a framework for comparative institutional analysis of scientific systems, along dimensions that are related to the VoC framework, but are more specific.
The overall VoC is then re-formulated this way: institutional features of scientific systems of States are responsible for differences in cross-country scientific performance; to the extent that scientific performance is a non-substitutable input in technological development and industry production, they also are partially responsible for cross-country differences in technological and industrial performance. The latter qualification is crucial to accommodate macro-evidence, according to which there is not systematic relation between VoC-like features and overall performance.
The comparative framework can be used to examine many other cases, some of which are discussed in the paper.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Abramson, H. N., Encarnacao, J., Reid, P. P., & Schmoch, U. (Eds.). (1997). Technology transfer systems in the United States and Germany. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Aghion, P., Dewatripont, M., Hoxby, C., Mas-Colell, A., & Sapir, A. (2008). Higher aspirations: An agenda for reforming European Universities (Bruegel blueprint series, Vol. V). Brussels: BRUEGEL.
Altbach, P. G. (Ed.). (1996). The International Academic Profession. Portraits of fourteen countries. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Altbach, P. G. (2001). The American academic model in comparative perspective. In P. G. Altbach, P. J. Gumport, & D. B. Johnstone (Eds.), Defense of American higher education (pp. 88–99). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Amable, B. (2009). The diversity of modern capitalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Amable, B., & Petit, P. (1999). On innovation, institutions, and growth. Available at http://www.druid.dk/uploads/tx_picturedb/ds1999-39.pdf. Accessed 10 Jan 2011.
Amable, B., Barré, R., & Boyer, R. (1997). Les systèmes d’innovation à l’ère de la globalisation. Paris: Economica.
Amaral, A., Jones, G. A., & Karseth, B. (Eds.). (2002). Governing higher education: National perspectives on institutional governance (Higher education dynamics, Vol. 2). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Amaral, A., Meek, V. L., & Larsen, I. M. (Eds.). (2003). The higher education managerial revolution? Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Amato, I. (1997). Stuff. The materials the world is made of. New York: Avon Books.
Aoki, M. (2001). Toward a comparative institutional analysis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Balderston, F. E. (1995). Managing today’s university: Strategies for viability, change, and excellence. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Birnbaum, R. (1992). How academic leadership works: Understanding success and failure in the college presidency. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bonaccorsi, A. (2007). On the poor performance of European Science. Institutions vs policies. Science and Public Policy, 34(5), 303–316.
Bonaccorsi, A. (2008). Search regimes and the industrial dynamics of science. Minerva, 46(3), 285–315.
Bonaccorsi, A. (2009). Division of academic labour is limited by the size of the market. Differentiation and performance in postgraduate education. In M. McKelvey & M. Holmen (Eds.), Learning to compete in European universities. From social institution to knowledge business (pp. 90–127). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Bonaccorsi, A. (2010). New forms of complementarity in science. Minerva, 48(4), 355–387.
Bonaccorsi, A., & Daraio, C. (Eds.). (2007). Universities and strategic knowledge creation. Specialization and performance in Europe (PRIME series on research and innovation policy in Europe). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Bonaccorsi, A., & Thoma, G. (2007). Institutional complementarity and inventive performance in Nanoscience and technology. Research Policy, 36(6), 813–831.
Bonaccorsi, A., & Vargas, J. (2010). Proliferation dynamics in new sciences. Research Policy, 39(8), 1034–1050.
Bowen, W. G., & Shapiro, H. T. (1998). Universities and their leadership. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Braun, D. (1998). The role of funding agencies in the cognitive development of science. Research Policy, 27(8), 807–821.
Braun, D. (2003). Lasting tensions in research policy-making – a delegation problem. Science and Public Policy, 30(5), 309–321.
Breneman, D., & Youn, T. I. K. (1988). Academic labor markets and careers. New York: Falmer Press.
Casper, S., Lehrer, M., & Soskice, D. (1999). Can high-technology industries prosper in Germany? Institutional frameworks and the evolution of the German software and biotechnology industries. Industry and Innovation, 6(1), 5–24.
Clark, B. R. (1983). The higher education system: Academic organization in cross-national perspective. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Clark, B. R. (1998). Creating entrepreneurial universities: Organizational pathways of transformation. Surrey: Pergamon Press.
Conti, A., & Gaule, P. (2009). Are the US outperforming Europe in university technology licensing? A new perspective on the European Paradox. CEMI working paper 2009-003.
Crouch, C. (2005). Capitalist diversity and change: Recombinant governance and institutional entrepreneurs. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dahan, A. (2007). Supervision and Schizophrenia: The professional identity of Ph.D. supervisors and the mission of students’ professionalization. European Journal of Education, 42(3), 335–349.
Dasgupta, P., & David, P. A. (1994). Towards a new economics of science. Research Policy, 23(5), 487–521.
David, P. A. (1991). Reputation and agency in the historical emergence of the institutions of “open science” (CEPR Publication No. 261).
de Boer, H. F., Enders, J., & Schimank, U. (2007). On the way towards new public management? The governance of university systems in England, the Netherlands, Austria, and Germany. In D. Jansen (Ed.), New forms of governance in research organizations: Disciplinary approaches, interfaces and integration (pp. 137–154). Dordrecht: Springer.
de Boer, H. F., Enders, J., & Schimank, U. (2008). Comparing higher education governance systems in four European countries. In N. C. Soguel & P. Jaccard (Eds.), Governance and performance of education systems (pp. 35–55). Dordrecht: Springer.
Del Favero, M. (2003). Faculty-administrator relationships as integral to high-performing governance systems. New frameworks for study. The American Behavioural Scientist, 46(7), 902–922.
Ehrenberg, R. G. (2003). Studying ourselves: The academic labor market. Journal of Labor Economics, 21(2), 267–287.
Ehrenberg, R. G. (2004). Econometric studies of higher education. Journal of Econometrics, 121(1–2), 19–37.
Enders, J. (Ed.). (2001). Academic staff in Europe: Changing contexts and conditions. Westport: Greenwood Press.
European Commission. (2009). Expert group on the future of networks of excellence- final report. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
Fauci, A. S. (2008a). Back to basics for HIV vaccine development. Nature, 452(7187), 516.
Fauci, A. S. (2008b). 25 years of HIV. Nature, 453(7193), 289–290.
Ferlie, E., Musselin, C., & Andresani, G. (2009). The governance of higher education systems: A public management perspective. In C. Paradeise, I. Bleiklie, E. Ferlie, & E. Reale (Eds.), University Governance. Western European comparative perspectives. Dordrecht: Springer.
Freeland, R. M. (2001). Academic change and presidential leadership. In P. G. Altbach, P. J. Gumport, & B. B. Johnston (Eds.), Defense of American higher education. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Furubotn, E. G., & Richter, R. (2005). Institutions and economic theory: The contribution of the new institutional economics (2nd ed.). Michigan: University of Michigan Press.
Geiger, R. L. (2004). Knowledge and money. Research universities and the paradox of the marketplace. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Geuna, A. (2001). The changing rationale for European university research funding Are there negative unintended consequences? Journal of Economic Issues, 35(3), 607–632.
Geuna, A., & Martin, B. (2003). University research evaluation and funding: An international comparison. Minerva, 41(4), 277–304.
Godin, B. (1998). Writing performative history. The new Atlantis? Social Studies of Science, 28(3), 465–483.
Goodall, A. H. (2008). Highly cited leaders and the performance of research universities. CHERI working papers no. 111, April 2008.
Goyer, M. (2007). Capital mobility, varieties of institutional investors, and the transforming stability of corporate governance in France and Germany. In B. Hancké, M. Rhodes, & M. Thatcher (Eds.), Beyond varieties of capitalism: Conflict, contradictions, and complementarities in the European economy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Graham, H. D., & Diamond, N. (1997). The rise of American research universities. Elites and challenges in the postwar era. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Grmek, M. (1990). History of AIDS: Emergence and origins of a modern pandemic. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Guston, D. H. (1996). Principal-agent theory and the structure of science policy. Science and Public Policy, 23(4), 229–240.
Hall, P., & Soskice, D. (2001). Varieties of capitalism. The institutional foundations of comparative advantage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hancké, B. (2009). Debating varieties of capitalism. A reader. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hancké, B., Rhodes, M., & Thatcher, M. (2007). Beyond varieties of capitalism: Conflict, contradictions, and complementarities in the European economy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Henkel, M., & Little, B. (1999). Changing relationships between higher education and the State. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Herbst, M. (2009). Financing public universities. The case of performance funding. Dordrecht: Springer.
Hollingsworth, J. R., & Boyer, R. (1997). Coordination of economic actors and social systems of production. In J. R. Hollingsworth & R. Boyer (Eds.), Contemporary capitalism: The embeddedness of institutions (pp. 1–48). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jansen, D. (2007). Governance – an integrated theory. In D. Jansen (Ed.), New forms of governance in research organizations: Disciplinary approaches, interfaces and integration (pp. 107–154). Dordrecht: Springer.
Kehm, B., & Lanzendorf, U. (Eds.). (2006). Reforming university governance. Changing conditions for research in four European countries. Bonn: Lemmens.
Kyvik, S. (2004). Structural changes in higher education systems in Western Europe. Higher Education in Europe, 29(3), 393–409.
Laredo, P., & van den Besselaar, P. (2008). Rate of growth and cognitive recombination in chemical research. Paper presented to the German EU Presidency workshop on research policies. Mimeo.
Lepori, B., van den Besselaar, P., Dinges, M., Potì, B., Reale, E., Slipersaeter, S., Theves, J., & van der Meulen, B. (2007). Convergence versus national specificities in research policies. An empirical study on public project funding. Research Evaluation, 27(2), 83–93.
Lissoni, F., Llerena, P., McKelvey, M., & Sanditov, B. (2008). Academic patenting in Europe: New evidence from the KEINS database. Research Evaluation, 17(2), 87–102.
Mangematin, V. (2000). PhD job market: Professional trajectories and incentives during the PhD. Research Policy, 29(6), 741–756.
Mangematin, V., & Robin, S. (2003). The double face of PhD Students: The example of life sciences in France. Science and Public Policy, 30(6), 405–414.
Merito, M., & Bonaccorsi, A. (2007). Coevolution of physical and social technologies in clinical practice: The case of HIV treatments. Research Policy, 36(7), 1070–1087.
Moguérou, P. (2005a). Brain drain or brain circulation. What we know and what we would like to know. European Institute working paper, Florence. Presented to the workshop on Universities in the knowledge society, June 2005.
Moguérou, P. (2005b). Doctoral and postdoctoral education in science and engineering: Europe in the international competition. European Journal of Education, 40(4), 367–392.
Morgan, G., Whitley, R., & Moen, E. (2005). Changing capitalisms? Internationalization, institutional change, and systems of economic organization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mowery, D. C., Nelson, R. R., Sampat, B. N., & Ziedonis, A. A. (2001). The growth of patenting and licensing by U.S. Universities: An assessment of the effects of the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980. Research Policy, 30, 99–119.
Musselin, C. (2005a). Le marché des universitaires. France, Allemagne, Etats-Unis. Paris: Presses de la Fondation National des Sciences Politiques.
Musselin, C. (2005b). European academic labor markets in transition. Higher Education, 49, 135–154.
Nelson, R. R. (2005). Technology, institutions, and economic growth. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Nelson, R. R., & Sampat, B. (2001). Making sense of institutions as a factor shaping economic performance. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 44(1), 31–54.
North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Ostrom, E. (2005). Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Paradeise, C., Bleiklie, I., Ferlie, E., & Reale, E. (Eds.). (2009). University governance. Western European comparative perspectives. Dordrecht: Springer.
Schimank, U., & Lange, S. (2009). Germany: A latecomer to new public management. In C. Paradeise, I. Bleiklie, E. Ferlie, & E. Reale (Eds.), University governance. Western European comparative perspectives. Dordrecht: Springer.
Schneider, P., Thaller, N., & Sadowski, D. (2010). Success and failure of PhD programmes: An empirical study of the interplay between interests, resources and organisation. In D. Jansen (Ed.), Governance and performance in the German Public Research Sector: Disciplinary differences. Dordrecht: Springer.
Schomburg, H., & Teichler, U. (2006). Higher education and graduate employment in Europe: Results from graduate surveys from twelve countries. Dordrecht: Springer.
Siow, A. (1995). The Organization of the market for professors. Working paper, UT-ECIPA-95-01, University of Toronto.
Slaughter, S., & Leslie, L. L. (1997). Academic capitalism: Politics, policies, and the Entrepreneurial University. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Streeck, W. (1992). Social institutions and economic performance: Studies of industrial relations in advanced industrialised countries. London/Beverly Hills: Sage.
Taylor, M. Z. (2004). Empirical evidence against varieties of capitalism’s theory of technological innovation. International Organization, 58(3), 601–631.
Teichler, U. (2007). Careers of University graduates: Views and experiences in comparative perspectives. Dordrecht: Springer.
Thelen, K. (2004). How institutions evolve: The political economy of skills in Germany, Britain, the United States, and Japan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Thelin, J. R. (2004). A history of American higher education. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Tremblay, K. (2002). Student mobility between and towards OECD countries in 2001: A comparative analysis. In OECD (Ed.), International mobility of the highly skilled (pp. 39–67). Paris: OECD.
van der Meulen, B. (2003). New role and strategies of a research council: Intermediation of the principal-agent relationship. Science and Public Policy, 30(5), 323–336.
van der Meulen, B., & Rip, A. (1998). Mediation in the Dutch science system. Research Policy, 27(8), 757–769.
Vilkas, C. (1996). Evaluations scientifiques et décisions collectives: le Comité national de la recherché scientifique. Sociologie du Travail, 38(3), 331–348.
Whitley, R. (2007). Business systems and organizational capabilities. The institutional structuring of competitive competences. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Youn, T. I. K. (1992). The sociology of academic careers and academic labor markets. Research in Labor Economics, 13, 101–130.
Zhang, L., & Ehrenberg, R. G. (2006). Faculty employment and R&D expenditures at research universities. Working paper 97, Cornell Higher Education Research Institute.
Zysman, J. (1994). How institutions create historically rooted trajectories of growth. Industrial and Corporate Change, 3(1), 243–283.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Bonaccorsi, A. (2015). Institutions of Public Science and New Search Regimes. In: Jansen, D., Pruisken, I. (eds) The Changing Governance of Higher Education and Research. Higher Education Dynamics, vol 43. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-09677-3_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-09677-3_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-09676-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-09677-3
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)