Project no: CIT5-028519

Project acronym: U-Know

Project title: Understanding the Relationship between Knowledge and Competitiveness in the Enlarging European Union

Instrument: Specific Targeted Research Project (STREP)

Thematic Priority: CITIZENS-2004-1.2.2 Understanding knowledge

PUBLISHABLE FINAL ACTIVITY REPORT (36 MONTHS)

Period covered: from 1 March 2006 to 28 February 2009

Date of preparation: 13 April 2009 Duration: 36 months

Project coordinator name: Johannes Stephan

Project coordinator organisation name: Halle Institute for Economic Research (IWH)

Revision: First draft

2

CIT5-028519

Contents

PROJECT OBJECTIVES ................................................................................................................................... 3

THE CONSORTIUM........................................................................................................................................... 4

PROJECT EXECUTION ..................................................................................................................................... 5

Preparatory Section Paradigms, Knowledge Concepts, and the Network Alignment Approach ......... 5

Section 1 Innovation and Technological Change in the Firm ............................................. 5

Section 2 Learning, Human Capital Formation, and Government .................................... 11

Section 3 Relationship between institutional arrangements and organisational conditions for knowledge generation ................................................................ 17

DISSEMINATION AND USE ............................................................................................................................ 24

PUBLISHABLE RESULTS ............................................................................................................................... 34

3

U-KNOW

PROJECT OBJECTIVES

The overarching research question, underlying the U-Know project, is to what extent are factors such as specific types of knowledge, institutional arrangements, organisational conditions, incentive systems, cognitive flexibility, as well as network alignment:

a source of the public and private good properties of knowledge, fostering or hindering knowledge creation and use drivers or barriers to knowledge transfer and innovation and finally shaping new understandings of knowledge itself

The project focuses on the interrelatedness of the enterprise, public science/higher education, and governmental spheres. We apply the ‘Network Alignment’ approach as a tool to understand the role of knowledge for European competitiveness. Network alignment has arguably been a key ingredient for economic growth in some East Asian countries. Building on this experience, the research team undertakes comparative studies to identify missing, anti-developmental or mis-aligned networks in selected European economies as well as South Africa. Thereby, we take sectoral, regional, as well as economy wide perspectives. This constitutes a key underpinning for extensive policy development.

Preparatory Section The Concept of a Knowledge Based Society

Section 3 Relationship between institutional arrangements and organisational conditions for knowledge generation

Section 1 Innovation and Tech-nological Change in theKnowledge Based Firm

Section 2 Learning, Human Capital Formation, and Government

Mar

kets

Synthesis“Network Alignment”

The overall structure of the project

The research is implemented by a three-year project (March 2006 to February 2009) involving thirteen participants from the EU and South Africa. The project is organised in three sections and twelve interdependent workpackages.

4

CIT5-028519

THE CONSORTIUM

Halle Institute for Economic Research - IWH (as coordinator)

Birkeck College – BC

Zentrum für Bildung und Wirtschaft, Forschungs- und Beratungsgesellschaft mbH – CEE

Grupul de Economie Aplicata – GEA

Institute for Economic Research – IER

NIFU STEP – NIFU STEP

Science and Technology Policy Research, University of Sussex – SPRU

University of Tartu – UoT

Human Sciences Research Council – HSRC

University of Cape Town – UCT

The Council for Scientific and Industrial Research – CSIR

Western Cape Provincial Treasury – PGWC

5

U-KNOW

PROJECT EXECUTION

PREPARATORY SECTION PARADIGMS, KNOWLEDGE CONCEPTS, AND THE NETWORK ALIGNMENT APPROACH

With respect to the analytical framework for the project, the first objective was to map the variety of existing knowledge concepts and their underlying rationalities, as well as their limitations and potential impacts on policy making. This aimed to demonstrate how the ‘network alignment’ approach could be applied as a tool to understand ‘knowledge’ in its varieties across the enlarging EU in a context of its growing complexity. With respect to the management of the project, the objective was to target the academic community proactively.

The primary objective was to provide all researchers with a common intellectual starting point to enter into collaborative research (D1). This task was achieved by preparing outline papers and presentations for the theoretical framework that formed the philosophical basis of the U-Know project. Those were presented and discussed at the project kick-off meeting. Following the discussion of the presentations of the theoretical framework, Dietmar Paier coordinated the finalisation of those outline papers (D2).

In the third year of the project, Nick von Tunzelmann gave a series of presentations both to members of the project team and to policy-makers (in Oslo, Cape Town and Brussels) explaining the concept, its contributions and its limitations for practical policy. The final meeting in Brussels included an overview of what the various work-packages of the project collectively contributed to the analytical framework. The conclusion was that, even though the concept was not utilised formally in the summaries of every workpackage, the implicit contribution was substantive, especially from a practical, empirical point of view. Secondly, the concept acted as an explicit ‘vision’ across the various diverse workpackages, which in turn augmented the degree of cohesion to the project. Thirdly, these practical and conceptual contributions were – partly as a result of the shared ‘vision’ – coherent with one another, so in effect greatly strengthening the argument for implementing the approach as a useful tool both for analytical thinking on the subject, and even for policy-making purposes.

However the latter adoption is constrained by the availability of data in some key countries, like South Africa. It is worth observing that a country such as Canada, which has more enthusiastically espoused the collection of data pertaining to ‘network alignment’, has more effectively implemented some of its implications for policy and policy-making.

SECTION 1 INNOVATION AND TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE IN THE FIRM

(April 06 – February 09)

In section 1, the first objective was to increase our understanding of the relative impact of internal and external determinants on knowledge creation in the enterprise sphere and the effects of knowledge creation on firms’ competitiveness. Knowledge creation is here exemplified by the innovation process at the firm level and represents the interface between the firms’ own creativity, their contacts with externally structured networks, and their ‘absorptive capacity’. The factors underlying these innovation processes are scope, intensity, and knowledge content/character

Objectives

Achievements during the project duration

Objectives of section 1 in the project

6

CIT5-028519

and are mapped from a sectoral as well as country perspective as a prologue to the differentiation of networks. The second objective of section 1 was to generate a better understanding of mechanisms/channels, determinants, and intensities of knowledge flows between firms. Knowledge flows are exemplified by the international transfer of knowledge and technology via foreign direct investment (FDI). Particular emphasis is placed on FDI activity involving the new EU member states as confronting hierarchical power relationships with embedded networks. Research linked to the first and second objective can contribute towards policy development at the crossroads of national/regional FDI, R&D, and innovation policy. The third objective was to establish how market structures are determined by market-specific knowledge processes, and in particular, what market structures are typically found in knowledge-intensive product markets. This provides the necessary information to discuss the political implications of interventions with a view to social gains and losses from oligopolistic / monopolistic market structures.

During the first year the primary aim of section 1 across all three objectives was to: (i) to review the available empirical and theoretical literature on the functioning and organisation of knowledge creation at the level of the firm to develop state-of-the-art reports; and (ii) to determine in the terms of reference (TORs) how best to organise the planned empirical research. The TORs for the deliverables D4, D7, D10, and D11 and their respective sub-units were developed and then presented and discussed at the kick-off meeting in Halle. Following this discussion, the terms of cooperation were agreed upon and the complete TORs readily delivered.

The first objective of section 1 concerned with the innovation process at the firm level was implemented in workpackage 1.1 under the guidance of M. Knell (NIFU-Step). This workpackage looked in principal at three different aspects: innovation determinants, the link between innovation and firm performance, as well as country and sector specific particularities of the innovation process.

The participant IER addressed the question of innovation determinants (D4b). The authors employed Slovenian firm-level data and found that firms’ own R&D expenditures as well as external knowledge spillovers, such as national and international public R&D subsidies, foreign ownership and intra-sectoral innovation spillovers fostered the ability of firms to innovate. The partners HSRC and UCT jointly implemented the research into the determinants and sectoral differences in firms’ innovation activity in South Africa (D4TTC_1b/1b). Key results from the first part of the analysis pointed to the fact that foreign firms negatively affect the propensity to innovate (both product and process), while domestic firms with foreign plants (domestic multinationals) positively affect both probabilities. The participant IWH examined the role of formal education and actual occupation for product innovation performance in manufacturing firms German firm level micro data set. They found significant differences of the human capital endowment between sectors differentiated according to the Pavitt classification. Sectors with a high share of highly skilled employees were above average engaged in product innovation. Surprisingly, within these sectors the share of highly skilled employees, however, does not substantially increase the probability to innovate. Research from NIFU-Step looked at determinants of innovation collaboration between firms and other organizations in a cross-section of thirteen countries (D4b1). The results show that firms that carried out their own R&D activities and collaborate internationally were more likely to collaborate locally. Foreign ownership increased the likelihood of international collaboration but decreased the likelihood of local collaboration. The results,

Achievements of section 1 during project

Workpackage 1.1

7

U-KNOW

therefore, suggested that locally-owned firms that collaborate internationally are important mediators of technical knowledge from abroad.

The participant IER addressed the question of WP 1.1 namely the impact of innovation on firms’ performance using Slovenian firm-level data (D4d) . Using a matching technique and propensity score as well as asymptotic least squares on a system of simultaneous equations describing research activities, innovation and productivity, the authors found a strong correlation between innovation and productivity levels, but no support for the importance of innovation for productivity growth. In contrast, work from NIFU-Step confirmed the link between innovation and productivity growth for the Czech Republic. The study applied propensity score matching to a large sample of micro data from the Czech Republic. The results indicated that labour productivity grew annually by two percentage points faster in innovative firms as compared with their non-innovative counterparts (D4b2). The IER team also attempted to tackle firm heterogeneity with regard to the impact of innovation on firms’ performance. They find surprisingly that innovation does not benefit all firms. In fact only manufacturing firms with below average productivity growth are likely to experience significant benefits from successful innovation, while faster growing firms do not extract any additional benefits from innovation. This evidence demonstrates how innovation can affect the observed convergence of firms in terms of productivity in the manufacturing sector (D4d4).

Workpackage participants dedicated resources in order to understand better country and sector specificities of the innovation process. Participant NIFU-STEP worked on the novelty of innovation using a large European cross-country dataset. The study shows that the more advanced European countries are much more likely to introduce product innovations both new to the firm and new to the global market than firms in those countries behind the technology frontier. Furthermore, foreign ownership tends to be more important in countries further behind the frontier, which creates some potential for knowledge diffusion. Finally, enterprises in countries behind the frontier tend to bring novelty in their products through process innovation instead of focusing on the product itself. Similarly patents become less important in countries below the technology frontier (D4d_3). The participant UoT carried out the research that analysed whether the innovativeness of Estonian manufacturing firms is sector-specific. The authors found sector specificities sectors with high labour intensity, low value-added production, and high importance of subcontracting activities tend to be associated with low potential and propensity to innovate. By contrast, the most successful industries in terms of innovation propensity were mainly those with enterprises focusing on business-to-business segments. The partners HSRC and UCT show that the technological intensity of manufacturing activities are key to understanding the innovative behaviour of firms in South Africa (D4TTC_1b/1b). Participant HSRC looked at “Absorptive capacities and technological trajectories” (D4TTC_2a). This was a theory paper that discussed the question of whether technological learning in latecomer countries was substantively different from innovation in advanced economies. Its objective was to assess firm learning in the context of economic history, evolutionary economics, and microeconomic arguments about firm strategy. The paper concluded with a number of observations about the kind of future research that would help shed light on the transition to the technological frontier by firms from latecomer countries.

Participants of WP 1.1 placed considerable effort on the policy dissemination of research results. The participants NIFUSTEP and SPRU developed a policy paper

8

CIT5-028519

that addresses the importance of micro level innovation data for understanding knowledge processes and innovation (D05). The authors argue that innovation surveys based on the Oslo Manual guidelines have added significantly to our understanding of innovation processes. However, there remain considerable challenges that expose some of the shortcomings in how innovation, knowledge and learning are conceptualized and understood, as well as how core concepts are operationalized and measured. The participant IWH organised a series of three policy workshops that addressed innovation determinants, placed particular emphasis on the role of internationalisation. The workshop series targeted policy makers at different levels (federal, regional) from different policy arenas (innovation, research, science, investment) in order to reflect the importance of horizontalisation in innovation policy.

The second objective of section 1 was to deal with international transfer of knowledge and technology via foreign direct investment (FDI). This research has been conducted in the framework of workpackage 1.2 led by M. Rojec (IER). This workpackage looked in principal at three different aspects: the relative importance of knowledge transfer and spillovers through FDI, MNE strategies, and the appropriateness of the FDI policy regime.

Looking at FDI knowledge transfer and spillovers, the participant IER analysed the effects of own R&D and external knowledge spillovers on firms’ innovation and productivity at the example of Slovenia (D7b). The research showed that inward FDI, as one of the external sources of knowledge, significantly increased the ability of firms to innovate. On the other hand, foreign-owned firms showed lower average levels of R&D expenditures than local firms, suggesting that innovation activity in foreign-owned firms must be driven by other factors such as knowledge transfer and technology spillovers. It was also found that foreign ownership had, similarly to R&D, a dual impact on the firm’s productivity growth - it enhanced the firm’s ability to absorb knowledge and innovate, but then also contributed additionally to the firm’s productivity growth via superior organization techniques and other channels of knowledge diffusion. Furthermore, the participant IER addressed the impact of firm heterogeneity on direct and spillover effects of FDI (D07c). The authors provide a comparative study of the importance of direct technology transfer and spillovers through FDI on a set of ten transition countries, using a common methodology and taking into account various sources of firm heterogeneity. This research differentiates between the direct effects of FDI from the parent firm to local affiliates as well as between horizontal and vertical spillovers from foreign affiliates to domestically owned local firms. The importance of these different channels of technology transfer via FDI for firm performance is estimated in the framework of a growth-accounting approach controlling for selection and simultaneity bias. The main novelty of the research is the explicit control for firm heterogeneity when accounting for different effects of FDI on firm performance. This results in some contrasting findings in comparison to the previous empirical work in the field. The authors find, in contrast to existing evidence, that horizontal FDI spillovers have become increasingly important over the last decade and might become even be more important than vertical spillovers. The findings suggest that both direct effects from foreign ownership as well as the spillovers from foreign firms do substantially depend on the absorptive capacity and productivity level of individual firms.

Workpackage 1.2

9

U-KNOW

In order to implement analysed knowledge transfer in the context of multinational companies’ (MNCs) strategies. The work package participants (IER, GEA, IWH) gathered a unique database of foreign subsidiaries in Slovenia, Croatia, Romania, Poland, and East Germany. This FDI micro database includes now 809 subsidiaries and is going to be further developed by the participant IWH. On basis of this new data source, participant IER analysed the innovation activity of foreign subsidiaries in five new EU-member states (D07e_3). The authors find that foreign subsidiaries that have access to foreign parent companies R&D, are more autonomous, and benefit from responsibility transfer are more tend to be more innovative. Participant IWH looked at the extent of technological capability of foreign subsidiaries located in East Germany and their technological sourcing behaviour (D07e_5). The paper finds that foreign subsidiaries are above average technologically active in comparison to the whole East German manufacturing. However, only a limited share of foreign subsidiaries with R&D and/or innovation activity source technological knowledge from the East German innovation system, which could indicate a certain degree of network mis-alignment. The participant IWH looked also at the role of absorptive capacity in technology transfer processes (D7f). The results suggest that only foreign subsidiaries in East German have significant potential for a two-way technology transfer; Slovenian and Croatian subsidiaries are rather over-autonomous without matching levels of adaptive capacities; while Romanian and Polish subsidiaries mainly lack adaptive capacities. In addition research (D7g) paid attention to the question of whether foreign investors prefer particular close ties with their subsidiaries, where intellectual property rights (IPR) regimes do not offer sufficient protection of knowledge-based assets. The analysis confirms that there is a positive relationship between foreign subsidiaries’ own knowledge-based assets and the intensity of control exercised by the foreign parent via equity and direct control over business functions. This relationship seems to be particularly significant for Poland and Romania, countries that are typically associated with weaker IPR protection

Finally, researchers from IER, SPRU and IWH jointly worked on the appropriateness of the current approach to FDI policy in transition economies (D8). The research argues that policy needs to provide simultaneously incentives to large multinational groups to locate innovation and R&D related functions in the host economy, in order to stimulate domestic – in particular private – innovation and R&D, as well as to align foreign and domestic technological accumulation. This requires a horizontal policy approach that cuts across FDI, innovation, and regional as well as labour and product market policies. The authors note reservations about exaggerating the importance of high-tech industries and technoparks in the economic development. As it is one thing to foster high-tech activities, but quite another to ensure that these are properly aligned with the developmental needs. Industrial, technological, or science parks could be a promising ways of stimulating knowledge transfer. However, many such parks in reality are either poorly aligned with the real technological needs of the host economy. The research findings were disseminated in a series of policy workshops in cooperation with WP 1.1 (see above).

The third objective of section 1 has been concerned with the relationship between market structures and knowledge intensity. This research has been conducted in the framework of workpackage 1.3 led by U. Blum (IWH). This workpackage looked in principal at three different aspects: the link between market structures and

Workpackage 1.3

10

CIT5-028519

knowledge-intensity, the role of knowledge properties, and implications for competition policy.

An empirical analysis was implemented to map European sectors with respect to knowledge intensity and market structure (D10b). The analysis suggested an inverted U-shape of market concentration initially increasing with intensifying knowledge intensity – yet very high knowledge intensity then appears to relate to moderating levels of concentration. Further regression analysis controlled for other determinants of market structure that may well be latent in the descriptive analysis. The results showed that lower skill-intensities tend to be negatively related to concentration and higher skill-intensities positively. Further, our results consistently found that market concentration tended to fall with increasing levels of vertical integration (highly specialised products do not lend themselves to economies of scale in production) and with increasing openness to foreign (European) markets (import competition). Finally, testing for country differences suggested that at the same levels of other independent variables, market concentration would tend to be higher in post-transition countries relative to the Western mature market economies.

Subsequently, the researchers considered the influence of public or private characteristics of knowledge on the relationship between market concentration and knowledge intensity. In a first step, this was measured by using industry and country-specific patent data, signifying the influence of IPR regimes on the basic relationship. We concluded from this analysis that where firms preferred not to use patents, market structures became increasingly concentrated. Patents may hence have a counterbalancing effect on the concentration tendency towards increasing knowledge intensity, at least where the new knowledge generated is published by use of patents – not, however, where secrecy prevails as a corporate strategy to protect firm-owned knowledge, as might be the case in particularly narrow or oligopolistic markets (see D10b). The Romanian partner GEA and the IWH produced an analysis that established that the behaviour of foreign direct investment affiliates in Central East Europe and East Germany, carrying new or advanced knowledge into transition economies or regions, differed between affiliates operating in concentrated and in less concentrated markets. The results show that foreign investment subsidiaries in concentrated markets have a higher share of exports to their own foreign investor network, do more research and development, use more of the existing technology already incorporated in the products of their own foreign investor network, do less process innovation, and acquire less knowledge from abroad ( D10x).

Finally, participants IWH and GEA reviewed the implications of these results for competition policy. In particular, the authors raised the question as to how competition policy should treat concentration and cooperation between firms in knowledge-intensive sectors (D11). In addition, the partner GEA held a policy briefing with the Romanian competition authority to discuss the results generated in U-Know and their policy-implications (D12). In the meeting, some 20 employees of the competition authority including its president Gheorghe Oprescu participated in a very fruitful discussion.

11

U-KNOW

SECTION 2 LEARNING, HUMAN CAPITAL FORMATION, AND GOVERNMENT

(April 06 – February 09)

In section two, the first objective has been to increase our understanding of the link between the publicly funded science systems and industry, and to develop a characterisation of such a link in a knowledge-based society. Hereby, the EU may learn from the South African experience with special reference to the newly acceding countries. Moreover, South Africa expects to gain insights into its own experience by analyzing the situation from a different perspective. The second objective in this sphere was to explore the supply of entrepreneurial education and other specific skills in selected European higher education institutions, as well as the demand for entrepreneurial skills in the industries of selected European countries. The final objective of this section relates to the government sphere. The aim here has been to assess the interrelatedness of policy-making in the fields of research, education and innovation, with different understandings of what knowledge is and how knowledge is functioning in economies.

The most important objectives for the first year included: (i) the development of state-of-the-art reports; and (ii) to develop and agree upon the TORs for deliverables and sub-units of deliverables. The TORs for the deliverables D13, D14, D15, D16, D17, D18, D19 and D20 and their respective sub-units were presented and discussed at the kick-off meeting in Halle. Following this discussion, the terms of cooperation were agreed upon and the complete TORs readily delivered.

The first objective of this section aims at increasing our understanding of the link between the publicly funded science systems and industry and has been implemented in the framework of workpackage 2.1 coordinated by A. Klitkou (NIFU-STEP). This workpackage looked in principal at funding, organisational conditions, attitudes, and characteristics of outcomes of science-industry linkages in the enlarging EU and South Africa.

The participants NIFU-Step and SPRU compiled a summary research report on “Science-Industry links in selected EU countries” (D13c). The broad research questions of the workpackage could only be addressed by employing a mix of available information from EUROSTAT, EraWatch, TrendChart, Community Innovation Survey as well as bibliometric and patent data. This exploitation of existing data was complemented by original research of 13 case studies of technical universities across the enlarging EU with a particular emphasis on Cnetral and East European countries (CEECs). The case study approach entailed an analysis of the adopted strategies, web based survey of faculty deans, as well as supplementary telephone interviews with deans and researchers involved in collaborative research. In addition the South African team develop a corresponding research report on the network mis-alignment in science-industry linkages (D13_TTC3).

The research shows that science-industry co-publishing below EU-15 average for most of the technical universities in the Central and East European countries (CEECs) analysed. This is related to a in general low R&D intensity of the economies, limited innovativeness of SMEs, and the design of public R&D initiatives. In general science-industry co-publishing is more common in fields of engineering than in basic sciences such as mathematics or physics, where many CEECs are rather strong. In addition the analysis (D13d) shows due to changes in the patent

Objectives of section 2 of the project

Achievements of section 2 during the project

Workpackage 2.1

12

CIT5-028519

legislation some of the universities only started to patent recently. Both, patent data and interviews indicate that technical universities in transition countries restrict their patent activity mainly to the domestic system. University patenting is highly influenced by technology specialisation and location specific and frameworks factors. The frequency of co-patenting is low. The research shows all universities have established technology transfer offices (TTOs) and developed own IPR regulations to enhance the patenting and licensing of research results. However, IPR regimes underwent a fundamental transformation in CEECs. National patent organisations have been established in the Baltic countries in the 1990s and since 2002 more and more CEECs joined the EPO. The IPR protection in these countries has been improved by joining the EPO and by development of technology transfer infrastructure, but universities still suffer under a lack of IPR competencies, high costs for international patenting, lack of research personnel and a high work load with teaching obligations which does not allow additional engagement in the field of patenting or licensing.

The participant HSRC compiled research on “Science-industry relationships in South Africa (D13_TTC3). The analysis demonstrates that strong forms of interactive capability and network alignment exist unevenly and only in parts of the South African university system. The differentiated and segmented system that has evolved historically provides limited conditions to support innovation. Strong reputational competition and limited flexibility militate against collaboration on the part of universities with research competence. Better internal organizational arrangements could support a larger number of academics to develop interactive capability. The strong financial imperatives driving universities to interact with industry may also be detrimental in the long term. The network misalignment that results within and across large parts of the system places a potential constraint on the extent to which the university system is a resource for innovation. In addition the South African team looked at the conditions for sustaining competitive university spin-off firms in the ICT sub-sector. The case studies show that the intellectual capacity to develop cutting edge high technology products exists within South African universities, and there is a degree of entrepreneurial and interactive capability that can create spin-off firms. However, despite the capacity for novelty, the degree of network alignment within and between the sub-systems of the national technological system and the ICT sub-sector in South Africa is currently fragile, so that it is extremely challenging for knowledge intensive university spin-off firms to sustain themselves competitively.

In terms of policy implications the participant NIFUSTEP and SPRU argue that the general starting-point for political initiatives to improve science-industry linkages should be in balance with the other fundamental roles of the universities namely: education, research as well as development and diffusion of knowledge. Universities sities have an important role for the improvement of the national and regional economy by providing new candidates, developing new research results, collaborating with industry and other public research organisations (PROs) for new R&D and finally giving impulses for the creation of new R&D based companies – either directly with spin-offs or indirectly with start-ups. However, the creation of university spin-offs should not be a goal in itself, but should serve the traditional strategic aims of the university i.e. education and research. Therefore, it is important that the measurement of research outcomes in terms of spin-offs or patent intensity does not lead to a shift of strategic goals. Framework conditions should target the

13

U-KNOW

complete chain of the commercialisation process. Universities should be encouraged to develop strategic R&D priorities and to concentrate spin-off activities in these fields. This facilitates synergies between universities’ portfolios of patents, licenses and spin-off companies. National policies for the for the promotion of university spin-offs should take allow for very different specialisation of universities, and thus, different approaches to research commercialisation and spin-offs. Barriers for successful commercialisation and spin-off creation should be further addressed by providing better conditions for financial support, improving the support facilities in the TTIs of the universities, and the enhancement of entrepreneurial education of researchers. The requirement to obtain external research funding is a main driver of industry collaboration. Funding schemes designed to foster university-industry collaboration should be investigated more in thoroughly to look into the impact of such measures. With regard to regulatory changes, the “teachers’ privilege” should be abolished in all European countries. The Introduction of a “grace period” in the EPO patent system would help researchers to be active both in the academic arena and the patent arena and would support the needs of open science. A provisional patent application system would allow filing patent applications without paying the first fees. Reduced filing and maintenance fees for universities would strengthen attitudes towards university patents.

The participants NIFUSTEP and SPRU conclude with regard to the situation of universities based in transition economies that they are confronted with increasing demands to undertake industry collaboration, patenting of own research results, and the creation of R&D based companies – either directly with spin-offs or indirectly with start-ups. This concept of the ‘entrepreneurial university’ was transferred to universities in CEECs, which started to implement corresponding strategies and support structures. However, these universities at the same time struggle to fulfil their traditional roles in education and research. Starting-point for political initiatives to improve academic entrepreneurship should be a balance between the different tasks of the universities: education, research and development, diffusion of knowledge and social engagement. The barriers for successful commercialisation of university research results could be addressed by a number of measures including improved financial support for entrepreneurial activities international patenting, upgrading of technology transfer institutions, and a more specialised provisions of entrepreneurship education. The deliverable elaborate recommendations for a broad spectre of policy arenas at university, regional and national level touching upon research, education and innovation policy as well as legal framework conditions.

The second objective of section 2 addresses the issue of entrepreneurial education in selected European countries and has been implemented in workpackage 2.2 led by O. Spilling (NIFU-Step). The workpackage focused on the supply and demand of entrepreneurial education in the enlarging EU as well as policy implications.

Here, participants NIFU-Step, GEA, IER, IWH and UoT contributed to a comprehensive survey of the provision of entrepreneurship education in Norway, Germany, Romania, Estonia and Slovenia (D16d). This approach facilitated a comparative analysis across more advanced and catching-up economies of Europe. The consolidated report gives for each of the countries an overview of indicators such as the share of higher education institutions that offer entrepreneurship education, entrepreneurship chairs, or entrepreneurship centres. While the general

Workpackage 2.2

14

CIT5-028519

level entrepreneurship education provision seems below potential in Romania compared to the other countries, the structure in the provision of entrepreneurship education varies a lot across all countries. The report summarises the country specific characteristics of the current entrepreneurship education. The authors find that entrepreneurship education is – apart from a few interesting exception – not related to the general institutional structure and strategy targeting science-industry linkages. This could indicate some degree of misalignment and potential for future development.

While D16d analysed the supply side of entrepreneurial education and related programs, GEA and NIFU-Step have looked at the ‘demand side’, i.e. the need for entrepreneurial education, by focusing on the relative performance of the entrepreneurial function in Norway, Germany, Romania, Estonia and Slovenia (D16e). A very heterogeneous picture emerges from this evidence. For example, it seems that the level of early stage entrepreneurial activity is low in all countries apart from Norway, which is also the only country where start-ups are mainly rather than moderately opportunity driven. Start-up rates seem particularly low in Slovenia. In contrast competitive performance and innovation in SMEs lacks particularly behind in Romania. Thus, the need of entrepreneurial education is country specific and thus should be policy responses.

In the final deliverable (D17) GEA and NIFU-Step assess the appropriateness of current policy approaches in the field of entrepreneurial education against the background of the evidence that emerged from the work in this workpackage. The policy analysis is conducted at the level of the European Union as well as in Romania and Norway as national-level case studies that contrast an advanced and a post-transition country. The authors recognise that there has been great concern to develop an adequate policy for entrepreneurship education at the EU and national level. However, policy strategies are very general in nature do not discuss how the diversity of countries and regions should be reflected in entrepreneurship programs. The authors conclude that there is an insufficient discussion of the specific role of higher education institutions (HEIs) in the provision of entrepreneurial education. The authors propose that HEIs should offer more comprehensive and specialised programs to provide competence beyond what is provided given by the lower level programs. This requires a coordination of the efforts of HEIs in developing more specialised strategies for addressing needs for knowledge and competencies both related to various disciplines and to specific target groups. Finally, an important issue for the future development of entrepreneurship education is how to design programs to more actively contribute to knowledge transfer and start-ups of knowledge based firms. This includes the challenge to integrate entrepreneurship programs with the other instruments targeting science-industry linkages. The workpackage leader has taken part in three events in order to implement the policy briefing exercise in this workpackage (D18). The first took place in a meeting with representatives of the Norwegian Ministry of Education. The second was an open entrepreneurship education conference, the third was an internal seminar organised by the Norwegian Ministry of Trade and Industry. All events took place during the spring of 2008.

The final objective of section 2 was concerned with the relationship between belief systems, perceptions of knowledge, and innovation policy at the national and European levels. This issue is at the heart of workpackage 2.3 under the joint

Workpackage 2.3

15

U-KNOW

leadership of P. Koch (Norwegian Research Council) and M. Knell (NIFU-Step). The workpackage analysed the interrelatedness of policy making in the fields of research, education, and innovation, with different understandings of what knowledge is and how knowledge is functioning in European economies.

The participant NIFUSTEP in cooperation with P. Koch (Norwegian Research Council) that considered the influence that rationalities and belief systems have on the development of innovation policy (D19a). These rationalities are often shaped by the policy-makers’ analysis and vision of how the market works, and influence the way they think about the innovation process and policies that can shape this process. Different rationalities can appear both within ministries or departments, and across the ministries in the same government, which can create obstacles to building an effective innovation policy that crosses ministerial boundaries. Policy learning, and in particular transnational learning, is essential for developing a successful innovation policy and its governance system. Effective policy learning necessitates that policymakers have a theoretical and factual knowledge of the innovation system, as well as knowledge of the political system and the relevant policy instruments. Finally, it is important to recognize of the differences between subjective and objective knowledge are important for distinguishing between ‘good’ practices and ‘best’ practices.

The participant NIFUSTEP looked also at the role of knowledge perceptions and public-private partnership policies in education, research, an innovation in Norway, Denmark, Estonia, Germany, Hungary, Italy, and Latvia selected countries of the enlarging EU (D19_b). This research was based on the analysis of National Reform Programmes, legal acts and descriptions of policy measures relevant for knowledge perceptions and public-private partnership in education, research, and innovation policies. The authors argue that many countries have developed focused research policy measures, but often the smaller countries still have set too many priorities. This may lead to sub-critical measures and will not contribute to increased collaboration with the business sector. Many R&D programmes require the collaboration of public R&D organisations and firms. However, foresight studies to identify new research priorities have often been conducted without participation of the private sector. The changes in university legislation, technology transfer and IPR legislation has been on the agenda for some countries, however, it is necessary to proceed with the alignment of the legal system to the needs of knowledge society. Policy measures should improve the interaction of public science and industry by creating and strengthening of bridging or intermediary institutions. Many innovation policy measures address collaboration between public R&D and business sector, and here specifically SMEs. All countries have put support structure for technology transfer in place, but there is a need for more specialised and networked organisations. Tax incentives for R&D expenditures of enterprises have been introduced and enhanced in most of the countries. Some countries have established centres of competence or expertise which are centred in highly innovative companies and which are ready to collaborate with public R&D organisations. Lacking absorptive capacity in the business sector, brain drain and a lack of younger researchers in the public R&D sector are major challenges in CEECs, which need attention of educational and research policy actions. In general the authors find that least attention is dedicated to the coordination of the research, innovation, education, and lifelong-learning. In sum the research shows that policy design is still to some extent driven by linear thinking on public-private partnership. This may result in an

16

CIT5-028519

innovation policy focussing on a narrow base of technology intensive firms and, therefore, only a limited policy impact on the competitiveness of firms on a wider scale.

The participant NIFUSTEP also worked on the link between innovation governance and policy learning (19c). It is argue that the political economy of knowledge policies and knowledge practices becomes central when considering the effectiveness of science, technology and innovation (STI) policies in Europe. Effective national learning systems depend on how well government policy overcomes failure. In mapping the general policymaking and governance in the catching-up countries, the report takes into account the specific characteristics and changes in the types of governance. Overall, the report concludes that countries are moving from agenda setting and formulation, to implementation and learning stage. Yet, tensions in the system that hinder the implement of truly horizontal innovation policies still remain in the more advanced countries of the European Union. Many of the countries covered in the research have ambitious plans to improve technology governance through the creation of a long-range strategy, but vestiges from the previous institutional setting appear to delay the implementation of the strategy. Operational technology governance (in R&D institutes and organizations) has changed very little over the past 10 or 15 years, especially in the formally centrally planned economies of Eastern and Central Europe. Here virtually all of the components of a viable innovation system are already in place in these countries, but many of them do not function properly within the innovation system due to conflicting ‘belief systems’ which can appear across different directorates, ministries and departments within a particular ministry as well as network misalignments.

The partner NIFU-Step organised in cooperation with the Norwegian Research Council a European open workshop on policy learning and public private partnerships (D20) in February 2008. On the conceptual side, the workshop reviewed approaches taken in prior large-scale research projects and corresponding evidence of policy learning instruments. These conceptual and analytical insights were contrasted with first-hand experience by representatives in charge of national-level R&D and innovation policy design and implementation.

The contribution (D19_TTC 4) of the South African partners to this workpackage reflected on the idea of the learning economy in a catch-up situation, described how the learning economy informed policy and strategy, and analysed the extent to which implementation followed policy and strategy. The researchers assessed network (mis)alignments across the three domains of ideas, policy and implementation, as well as across different levels of governance. In particular, HSRC traced the way in which the concepts of ‘knowledge’ and the ‘learning economy’ have been represented in South African policy across a wide array of cross-departmental policy and looked at the implementation of these policies (D19TTC_04a). CSIR focused on the alignment of the science councils and the private sector with national technology missions and R&D strategies (D19TTC_04b). Further, UCT focused on the question of institutional network alignment between the public sector and the private sector in the context of formulating and implementing industrial policy at the regional level, using the example of the Micro Economic Development Strategy (MEDS) for the Western Cape province in South Africa (D19TTC_04c). The final contribution (D19TTC_04d) under the authorship of partner CSIR focused on an evolving set of

17

U-KNOW

policy interventions aimed at improving the technology transfer activity of South African public research organisations.

The work of the South African partners, especially HSRC, provided an opportunity for a policy dissemination by the project team with industrial and innovation policy planners of the Department of Economic Development and Tourism of the Provincial Government of Western Cape in South Africa in October 2008. This event discussed the relevance of insights from the experiences of the transition countries in knowledge acquisition and exploitation for one of Africa’s most knowledge-intensive regions (i.e. the area around Cape Town). Stakeholders from industry also attended this event.

SECTION 3 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS AND ORGANISATIONAL CONDITIONS FOR KNOWLEDGE GENERATION

(December 06 – February 09)

The first objective of section three has focused on the societal fabric required to match demand for and supply of human capital and skills in the evolving knowledge-based society. The research drew on analyses of the changing combinations of skills required for the continued expansion of knowledge-intensive processes and products in modern society. This carried implications in particular for policy learning and specific forms of network governance. The second objective has been to examine the form and function of intellectual property rights regimes in terms of their role in supporting the accumulation of knowledge. This serves to consolidate and augment our current knowledge of changing IPR systems and the implications for knowledge-based society. The third objective was to develop our understanding of the impacts of socio-cultural attitudes and non-economic motivations on the progress of knowledge and how these impacts differ for different knowledge characteristics. The fourth objective was to analyse network alignment in innovation systems to institute new forms of interaction between the different agents of knowledge creation, production and diffusion to harness latent knowledge-based capabilities. Particular attention has been paid to the reconstruction of ‘regional’ and ‘national systems of innovation’ in CEECs as well as in South Africa. The final objective has been to conclude all policy-relevant results generated in the project to contribute to the development of knowledge and innovation policy for building the advance of the knowledge-based society.

The intention of section 3 of the project at the outset was to synthesize the research results generated in sections 1 and 2. This implied the WPs of section 3 drawing on the research output of those sections after they had reached a sufficient level of finalization. However, the workpackages of section 3 also involved some additional original empirical analyses.

The first objective of section 3 has focused on the demand for and supply of human capital as well as the appropriateness of existing governance mechanisms. This objective was implemented in workpackage 3.1 under the guidance of D. Dyker (SPRU).

The participant SPRU prepared a review of EU-wide and British experiences in the job-matching area (D21a) which argued that conventional wisdom holds that job-matching is a problem of education and training systems, i.e. an essentially supply-

Objectives of section 3 of the project

Workpackage 3.1

Achievements of section 3 during the project

18

CIT5-028519

side problem. However, contemporary research indicates that it is at least as much a demand-side problem – a problem of companies capability to articulate and organise their labour and human capital needs. This review was complemented by a country case studies of the matching of supply and demand of labour in Hungary (D21a2), Romania (D21a3), and Norway (D21a4).

The Hungarian case study looked at job-matching of graduates with tertiary education as a specific segment of the labour market. The investigations revealed that problems with labour supply are manifest both quantity and quality in the tertiary education. Foreign subsidiaries of multinational companies (MNCs) firms apply their standard, formal personnel policy which exerts a non-negligible demonstration effect on local SMEs. However, the competition in the talent market keeps increasing. MNCs’ local subsidiaries can compensate for the lack of their informal relations with universities and for the lack of a network of local acquaintances by establishing tight formal relations with universities, and supporting tertiary educational institutions in various forms. This support is crucially important for universities not only because of financing reasons, but also from the point of view of keeping pace with technical progress and new technological trends, technological problems and firms’ educational requirements. Companies’ internal training programs compensate for the deficiencies in tertiary educational institutions’ curriculae. This, however, seems insufficient to the authors as the improvement of human capital requires conscious educational reform that would alter the structure and the quality of supply and result in better job matching.

Participant GEA prepared the country study on Romania. The report concludes that Romania still lacks a strategic view of how to match the education and qualifications of the labour force to the demands of the business environment, and indeed the conceptual, methodological and planning instruments needed to integrate existing, separate, strategic documents. Several reasons could explain this phenomenon: the failure to observe systematically patterns of demand for labour from the point of view of labour force quality, the lack of an integrated system of professional careers advice and information; the need for closer involvement of employers in labour market projections; the shortage of resources in schools, and the difficulty older people find in accessing vocational training and education. The report argues that more needs to be done at the level of the education system as a whole, in particular by better aligning curricula with the demand for graduate skills, improving the effectiveness of public spending on education, expanding the use of lifelong learning opportunities.

Participant NIFUSTEP researched horizontal and vertical mismatch in the labour market among graduate students with generic or vocational higher education in Norway (D21a4). Using Norwegian survey data of new graduate students from 1995 to 2005, the paper examines how the mismatch level in the labour market varies between those with generic and vocational educational qualifications six months after graduation. Mismatch in the labour market may arise in four ways: horizontal mismatch, vertical mismatch, both horizontal and vertical mismatch, and unemployment. The results show that the generic group of graduates has a higher probability of being mismatched than the vocational group, and this holds for all four types of mismatch. The authors emphasize that the focus of the paper is exclusively on graduates’ mismatch levels over a short period after graduation but a mismatch in the period immediately after graduation may have consequences for graduates’ career opportunities in the longer term.

19

U-KNOW

Participant SPRU developed a paper that summarises the workpackage findings in the context policy development in transition economies of the enlarging EU (D22). In general there seems to be no strong evidence of job-matching as a demand-side problem in the new member states. This may reflect the dominance in these countries of MNCs as potential employers and the fact that most SMEs in the transition countries are not working in human-capital-intensive sectors. However, forward-looking policy for the new member states on job-matching should seek to anticipate this problem by engaging with companies at the level of strategic corporate planning. Many of the specific skill shortages reported in transition countries relate to physics and chemistry, precisely the areas, along with maths, in which transition region science remains strongest. That suggests that it is weaknesses in graduate training rather than in science itself that lie at the bottom of at least some of the skill shortages in the transition countries. But in the sunrise sectors like ICT and biotechnology, transition region science is weak. So policy on higher education for the new member states has to focus on the quality of graduate training in general, and on graduate training in key specific sectors. While problems of mismatch in the new member states are partly a legacy from the communist period, they have in some cases actually become worse in the course of transition. Effective reform of higher education should avoid the pitfall of ‘excessive market-orientation’. In the new member states current policy is generally based on the assumption that more flexible labour markets will improve job-matching. Although, flexible labour markets are desirable in themselves, but we should not assume that they will automatically improve job-matching. In general, job-matching is an area where there are deep-seated misalignments which hinder the process of establishing dynamic equilibrium between the supply of and demand for different kinds of human capital.

The second objective of section 3 has examined the form and function of intellectual property rights regimes in terms of their role of supporting the production and accumulation of knowledge. This workpackage under the leader ship of B. Andersen (BC) started in Nov 2007 (ending Feb 2009) and is among the smaller workpackages. Research in this workpackage takes two main topical avenues: first, the analysis of the form and function of the IPR regime, second the survey of how firms deal with the IPR regime and its ongoing reforms.

With respect to the first avenue, two articles were contributed by the workpackage leader B. Andersen (BC) on Intellectual Property Rights and ‘Open Innovation’ in Services (D 24b1) and on a search for a useful theory of the productive potential of intellectual property rights (D 24b2). Those two papers helped the other participants to set the agenda for future research and establish the state of the art in researching IPR regimes in view of the knowledge-based economy. The participant Eric Iversen (NIFU-STEP) reviewed the nature of knowledge in the role of the patent system to promote the formation of technological knowledge in the economy (D24b3). This addresses the preliminary objective of setting up the relationship between knowledge processes and the use of IPRs. The research makes the case that the coordinative role of the patent system is becoming a more important part of the larger innovation system, as the nature and the extent of technology-based collaboration have significantly changed in recent decades. Thus, it is increasingly important to turn attention to the role of patents and patent-based arrangements (e.g. patent pools) to facilitate collaborative multi-invention scenarios.

Workpackage 3.2

20

CIT5-028519

With respect to the second avenue of research in this workpackage, the workpackage leader Birgitte Andersen (BC) organised implemented a survey of the changing relationship between IPR regimes and the underlying institutional arrangements for knowledge creation and utilization (D24c). The survey aimed to identify the strategic benefits firms are seeking when exchanging proprietary and non-proprietary technology and creative expressions in the IP marketplaces, and the obstacles firms experience that prevent them from using the IP marketplaces most efficiently. The preliminary results show that IP marketplaces are vibrant and complex entities in which many forms of IP are exchanged within different institutional arrangements or IP governance structures. It seems that the benefits that firms seek and the obstacles that they experience tend to differ across sectors and often to differ across marketplaces. There seems to be high degree of participation in different market forms i.e. proprietary IP (patents and copyright) and non-proprietary (open source, non-patented IP) marketplaces. Furthermore, the results indicate that building informal relationships with industry networks, entering collaborative agreements and developing better innovation methodology are important benefits firms seek across the board when creating value through the IP marketplaces. The participants derives some first implication from this analysis. Importantly, there should be no “one size fits all” approach to IP regulation. Policy needs to meet high complexity: firms in different sectors seek different benefits and experience different obstacles and different markets need to be underpinned by different institutions. Government policy on IPR laws need to take into account non-proprietary protection methods in order to cover the full range of IP marketplaces in which firms participate. Furthermore, various IP marketplaces are important platforms for collaborative innovation for collaborative value creation and IP regulations should not limit the exchange of non-proprietary IP through merely focusing on designing an institutional infrastructure to stimulate the power of proprietary IPRs with exclusive rights.

The third objective has been to develop our understanding of the impacts of non-economic motivations and socio-cultural attitudes on knowledge production and diffusion. Within workpackage 3.3, under the leadership of D. Paier (CEE), UTN was delegated to deal with the issue of non-economic motivations, beginning with a summary of state-of-the-art in research on the subject (D28a). In subsequent work UTN focused on non-economic motivations and knowledge production by employing empirical evidence from controlled experiments (D28b). Complementary to this, UTN looked at evidence from a survey of social cooperatives in the Italian non-profit sector in order to analyse non-economic motivations and knowledge (D28c). Finally, the interrelationship between policy-making and non-economic motivations (D28d) was considered as an example of open-source projects. Findings of the research were presented to directors of non-profit organizations (D29) during the final year of the project.

With regard to the role of social-cultural attitudes in the knowledge process, In spring 2007, CEE provided a conceptual outline on science-industry links (D30a) and a matrix for analysis of the perception of science-industry links in national policy papers (D30d). Based on this, the team of CEE, IWH, NIFU-Step and IER carried out a corresponding analysis of selected policy documents. The interim results of this cross-country analysis were presented at the Ljubljana meeting in September 2007, at which steps were taken to carry out a fieldwork study on the mutual perceptions of science and industry in two sectors distinguishing high- and low-tech industries:

Workpackage 3.3

21

U-KNOW

chemical and food industry (D30b, D30c). The main findings of the cross country in-depth analysis was presented by Dietmar Paier, CEE, at the final project conference in Brussels, February 2008. The findings of the case studies in Austria, Germany, Norway and Slovenia exhibit an advancing convergence of science and industry in both sectors examined. The particular nature of science-industry links show distinct features of concurrence in countries where institutional frameworks of the national innovation system developed in similar modes. From the perspective of industry partners, universities represent providers of highly specialized research skills, which is usually not a part of the internal R&D capacities. While this particular expertise is acknowledged, the industry partners seek to minimize the risks in collaborative projects stemming from contingent features of basic research. The most important tools to achieve more control over these academic imponderabilities are a strong goal-setting position, control of IPR regulations and rigorous project management. Industry partners demand a position where university partners accept this ‘control paradigm’ as an indispensable prerequisite for collaboration. With regard to the (bio-) chemical industry, the convergence of industry and universities may proceed to a point, where the boundaries between industrial R&D and academic research gradually get blurred. Yet, some examples from the food industry exhibit very distinct features of science-industry links. Particularly it is the low-tech oriented and SME-dominated areas of food industry which lack the internal R&D which are an important prerequisite to from absorptive capacity. Their primary needs are directed towards expertise in reengineering business processes, production technologies and in improvement of products rather than inventing new products in a collaborative manner. This particular situation makes public research organisations (PROs) for low-tech oriented SMEs far more attractive collaboration partners than universities.

To round up the research in this workpackage, the participant IWH arranged a policy briefing (D31) by actively participating in a meeting organised by Nordchemie (German Industry Association): this made particular sense, as Nordchemie was involved in the research for this workpackage. This way, the results could be discussed with industry or an industry association.

.

The fourth objective of section 3 was an analysis of network alignment in innovation systems as encapsulated in workpackage 3.4 under the leadership of Nick von Tunzelmann (SPRU). The workpackage focused on two different perspectives: the concept of cognitive flexibility and network mis-alignment.

With regard to cognitive flexibility, the participant CEE produced a substantial state-of-the-art report (D33a) and a paper on network analysis methodology (D33b). Subsequently the participant CEE carried out a survey on structural collaboration patterns and the practices of knowledge creation in innovation networks across different industries (life sciences, mechanics, food). The survey reveals different types of collaboration patters: One type of innovation networks can be characterised by a high degree of flexibility in thinking and modes of operation which is linked with homogeneity of goals and mindsets which are highly compatible. In the second type, factors such as trust and generation of knowledge by inclusion of all partners’ interests support the development of common understanding. The third type points towards the importance of internal R&D capacities and seems to be characterised by a well-balanced knowledge exchange through R&D specialists. The findings substantiated the hypothesis that approaches which facilitate innovation

Workpackage 3.4

22

CIT5-028519

through informal practices of learning contribute essentially to the achievement of innovation goals. With regard to the structural patterns of innovation networks, the cognitive remoteness of partners is ambivalent: While it supports understanding between similar approaches in principal, radical innovation seems to be fostered by heterogeneity of innovation partners, such as firms and research organizations.

With regard to objective two of this workpackage on network alignment, the participants SPRU and UoT analysed the main directions of the development of national innovation systems in the new EU member-states as catch-up economies emerging from a period of systemic change (35c1). The authors argue that attempts simply to copy the experiences of the high-income economies in building national innovation systems are misconceived. High-income economies’ experiences need to be adapted to the specific conditions of catch-up countries with a unique systemic heritage. In particular, the dominant linear innovation model should be replaced as a basis for thinking and policy-making by an interactive, learning-based approach. The authors highlight that catch-up economies need to improve significantly their levels of innovation diffusion management and networking. A symbiotic approach to the balance of high- and low-tech industries is needed. Finally, the authors conclude that managerial and organisational competence is at least as important as technological competence. Furthermore, the research draws attention to a particularly acute set of network misalignments in the Hungarian educational system (D35b_4). The empirical applicability of the ‘network alignment’ perspective was extended by studies on the Slovakian ‘national innovation system’ (D35b_1), inter-firm linkages in automotive clusters in Poland and Turkey (D35b_5), the role of FDI in the East German innovations system (D35b_3), and the transformation process of university–industry–government linkages in transition countries (D35b_2).

The final objective of section 3 was to work on a comprehensive, integrated, multi-objective science, technology, and innovation (STI) policy agenda in the context of the findings of the U-KNOW project. This was implemented in the framework of workpackage 3.5. The participants SPRU, NIFUSTEP and IWH developed a corresponding paper entitled “Towards a broader mix of measures for policy alignment in knowledge-based institutions for science and technology” (D37). Drawing on results from the U-KNOW project, a general conceptual framework is constructed for phrasing issues of alignment between science and innovation policies in terms which emphasize the multi-objective and multi-sectoral scope of both sets of policies, and as both essentially concerned with issues of (im)balance between policy objectives.

The paper concludes that many of the countries in the enlarging European Union have moved from agenda setting and formulation to implementation and learning, though at very different speeds. A third-generation (3G) innovation policy of the kind being promoted in this deliverable has properties that involve broad-based inclusiveness in the „system‟ responsible for innovation: multi-sectoral (in both vertical and particularly horizontal senses), multi-functional (combining S&T functions with organizational, financial and market-related demand functions), and multi-regional (combining activities at various spatial levels). Policy-makers at all territorial levels (local, regional, national and supranational) have to develop the „interactive dynamic capabilities‟ to bring coherence and consistency to the innovation system. The complete attainment of „network alignment‟ is an

Workpackage 3.5

23

U-KNOW

improbability, given the multiplicity of goals, instruments, agents and networks involved. It is quite likely to be undesirable to reach any such optimum, because the costs of striving for perfection at the margin may well exceed the benefits. Nevertheless, at the heavily infra-marginal level at which most existing network structures probably operate, there is often much to be said in favour of aiming to do better – rather than achieving „best practice‟ we might follow evolutionary thinking in advocating the objective of „better practice‟ . While the fulfilment of policy alignment remains something of a pipe dream, the U-KNOW project has aimed to present a host of practical ways in which current practices could be substantially improved, even if not perfected.

The consortium took the opportunity to present these recommendations in form of policy papers at the final project conference which was jointly organised with the Leibniz Association in Brussels in February 2009. All papers were directly commented by relevant policy-makers mainly from the European level as well as selected external scientist including members of the scientific advisory board of the U-KNOW project (D39).

24

CIT5-028519

DISSEMINATION AND USE

Overview table

Actual Dates Type Type of audience Countries addressed

Size of audience

Partner responsible /involved

1st year (1.03.06 to 28.02.07)

1 15-17.03.2006 Conference Scientific EU, World Economy About 100 IER

2 Mar 06 Workshop Scientific EU, World Economy 50 BC

3 Mar 06 Workshop Scientific EU, World Economy 50 BC

4 25.08.2006 Conference Policy Estonia 50 UoT 5 Sep 06 Conference Scientific EU 20 IWH 6 Sep 06 Conference Scientific EU 20 IWH 7 Sep 06 Conference Scientific EU NIFU-STEP

8 7-10.09.2006 Conference Scientific Countries of Eastern Europe About 250 UoT

9 26-27.10.2006 Conference Industry, Policy, Scientific

Europe, Baltic Sea Region About 150 UoT

10 Sep 15-16, 2006 International conference, London Scientific EU, World

economy About 100 BC

11 Nov 15, 2006 UK Government seminar/workshop

Policy and Business Forum UK About 80 BC

12 Nov 2006 Public Debate Policy and Business Forum World economy About 150 BC

13 Nov 06 Conference Scientific EU NIFU-STEP 14 Nov 06 Workshop Policy Norway NIFU-STEP 15 9-10.11.2006 Conference Industry, Policy Estonia About 100 UoT 16 Dec 06 Conference Scientific, Industry Asia, World About 500 SPRU 17 Dec 06 Conference Scientific EU 20 IWH

18 7-9.12.2006 Conference Scientific, Industry EU, World economy About 350 IER

19 19.01.2007 Conference Scientific Germany 40 IWH 20 Feb 07 Workshop Policy Norway NIFU-STEP

21 16.02.2007 Seminar Policy EU, Countries of South-Eastern Europe

About 30 IER

22 15-17.02.07 Conference Scientific, industry Eastern Europe, Turkey About 100 SPRU

2nd year (1.03.07 to 29.02.08)

Actual Dates Type Type of audience Countries addressed

Size of audience

Partner responsible /involved

23 Mar 07 Conference Policy EU 30 IWH

24 13.3.2007 Presentation at a university seminar Scientific Countries of

Europe About 20 IWH

25 16.03.2007 Conference Scientific, Students

EU, World economy About 100 IER

26 16.03.2007 Conference Scientific, Industry, Policy

EU, World economy 40 IER

27 29-30.03.2007 OECD NESTI/SWIC Scientific, Industry, Policy World economy 35 NIFU-STEP

28 10.04.2007 Seminar Scientific, Students

EU, World economy IER

29 26-27.04.2007 Conference Scientific Poland about 60 SPRU

30 May 07

Press release (press/radio/TV) on the results of the FDI survey in Romania

General public Romania

Large (main TV channels, central newspapers)

GEA

31 May 07 Conference Scientific and representatives of large foreign

Romania 50 GEA

25

U-KNOW

companies

32 May 07 Conference Scientific, Policy and Business Forum

UK About 50 BC

33 16-18.05.2007 Conference Scientific Worldwide n/a UoT

34 Jun 06-07, 2007 Conference Scientific Eastern Europe, Poland, Turkey About 40 SPRU

35 12-13.06.2007

ESSHRA European Conference in Switzerland “Towards a Knowledge Society”

Scientific, Industry, Policy EU About 150 IWH

36 14-16.06.2007 Conference Scientific Countries of Europe About 80 IWH, SPRU, UoT

37 June 2007 Conference Scientific Worldwide 1500 IWH 38 14-16. June 2007 Conference Scientific Worldwide n/a UoT 39 31.05-01.06.2007 Conference Scientific EU 40 UoT 40 18.-19.06.2007 Conference Scientific EU n/a UoT 41 Aug 07 Conference Scientific Asia, world About 150 SPRU

42 06-09.09.2007 Conference Scientific Countries of Europe About 300 IWH

43 12-14.09.2007 Conference Scientific Countries of Europe About 80 IWH

44 Sep 13-14, 2007 Workshop Scientific Nordic, Europe About 50 NIFU-STEP

45 20-22.09.2007 Conference Scientific Countries of Europe 300 UoT

46 7-10.10.2007 Conference Scientific World economy About 200 IER

47 15.10.2007 Seminar Policy EU, Countries of eastern Europe About 30 IER

48 Oct 07 Conference Scientific Germany About 800 IWH 49 Oct 07 Conference Scientific EU About 400 IWH

50 13-15.12.2007 Conference Scientific EU, World economy About 350 IER

51 13-15.12.2007 Conference Scientific EU, World economy About 350 IER

52 13-15.12.2007 Conference Scientific EU, World economy About 350 IWH

53 17.-19.12.2007 Workshop Scientific EU 40 UoT 54 Dec 2007 Conference Scientific EU About 200 GEA 55 Jan 17-18, 08 Conference Scientific, Policy Poland About 100 SPRU

3nd year (01.03.2008 to 29.02.08)

Actual Dates Type Type of audience Countries addressed

Size of audience

Partner responsible /involved

56 Mar 19, 08 Conference Scientific EU, World Economy IWE(Hungary), IER

57 Mar 27-28, 2008 OECD Global Forum Policy, Scientific Worldwide About 500 IWH, GEA 58 May 12-13, 2008 International Conference Scientific, Policy Poland About 50 SPRU 59 May 14, 2008 Conference General public UK 60 BC

60 May, 22-23, 2008 International Conference, London Scientific EU, World

economy About 120 BC

61 May, 28-30, 2008 International Conference Scientific Europe 100 NIFU-STEP

62 Jul 17, 2008 International Conference, Copenhagen Scientific EU, World

economy About 100 BC

63 Aug 20-23, 2008 International Conference Scientific Europe About 400 SPRU

64 14-15 Sep 2008 International Conference Scientific UK 100 BC

65 Oct 7, 2008 BICEPS Seminar Policy, Scientific Latvia 20 UoT

66 Oct 23-24, 2008 Conference Scientific Poland About 60 SPRU

67 Oct 27, 2008 Seminar Policy EU, countries of Eastern Europe About 30 IER

68 Oct 28, 2008 Policy dissemination workshop

Policy and academic South Africa 40 HSRC, IWH, NIFU-

STEP, SPRU

26

CIT5-028519

69 Nov 11, 2008 Policy dissemination workshop

Policy and academic Germany About 20 IWH

70 Nov 13, 08 Workshop Scientific EU 50 SPRU

71 Nov 27, 2008 International Conference Scientific EU, World Economy About 50 IER

72 Dec 5, 2008 Policy briefing with Romanian competition authority

Policy and academic Romania 22 GEA

73 Dec 10, 2008 Workshop Scientific, local authorities, entrepreneurs

Poland About 150 SPRU

74 Dec 11-13, 2008 International Conference Scientific EU, World Economy About 250 IER

75 Jan 22-23, 2009 Workshop Policy EU About 80 IER

76 Sept 22-24, 2008 International Conference Scientific EU, World Economy About 500 HSRC

77 Oct 30-31, 2008 Workshop Scientific EU, World Economy About 50 HSRC

78 Dec 11-13, 2008 International Conference Scientific EU, World Economy About 700 GEA

Short description (corresponding to the information in the overview table)

1st year

1 A. Burger, A. Jaklič, M. Rojec, Dynamic effects of R&D subsidies in Slovenia: substitute or complement to private r&d expenditures. V: International Pro-ACT Conference, Mar 15-17, 2006, Tampere, Finland. Rethinking competi-tiveness, policy and the society in a globalised economy: Innovation Pressure Conference.

2 Andersen, B. (as organiser of workshop): Rules, norms and standards in corporate and sectoral IPR practices when profiting from technological innovations and innovations in creative expressions. Mar 24, 2006. Location: Birkbeck College , University of London.

3 Andersen, B. (as organiser of workshop): Rules, norms and standards in the institutional IPR environment. Mar 23, 2006. Location: Birkbeck College, University of London.

4 Ukrainski., K., Innovation in Estonian firms: results of interviews with top-managers of industry, Economic Development in Baltic Sea Region: Challenges and Opportunities”, 25.08.2006 in Pedase by Centre of Policy Studies PRAXIS for policy-makers as an input for designing the strategy “National Development Program for the Implementation of the EU Structural Funds 2007-2013”

5 J. Günther, Determinants of Innovation in East Germany - does foreign ownership matter?, 9th EACES Conference in Brighton/UK, 08. September 2006.

6 B. Jindra, A Strategy View on Knowledge in the MNE - Integrating Subsidiary Roles and Knowledge Flows, SPRU 40th Anniversary Conference, Brighton, September 2006.

7 A. Klitkou and M.Gulbrandsen at the SPRU 40th Anniversary Conference: The Future of Science, Technology and Innovation Policy in Brighton, Sept 2006 under the title "Academic patenting and university research in Norway".

8 Varblane, U. The second annual conference “INNOESTONIA” has been organised in Tallinn on 9-10.11. 2006 by Enterprise Estonia and targeted

27

U-KNOW

towards business managers, officials of municipal and central government offices, but also specialists of R&D and education

9 T. Mets, J. Andrijevskaja, and U. Varblane participated in organising The Second BEPART Conference “Towards Entrepreneurial Regions: Universities & Innovation-Networks Challenged by the Knowledge Society” in Tartu, Estonia, on 26-27. 10.2006. Participants were from Europe, especially from Baltic Sea region (See the conference website http://www.evk.ut.ee/161925). The presentation were made by T. Mets and K. Ukrainski.

10 Andersen, B. (as organiser of workshop): Intellectual Property Rights for Business and Society. Sep 15-16, 2006. Birkbeck College, University of London.

11 Andersen, B.: Intellectual Property Rights and Services, Presentation at Department of Trade and Industry of the UK, Victoria St in London, Nov 15, 2006. Forum of policy makers and industry bodies.

12 Andersen, B.: "Stockholm Network" Intellectual Property (IP) Debate on: Unregulated free-riding on others' ideas will harm consumers and cripple innovation. Nov 2006, Venue: One Great George Street, Westminster SW1, London.

13 N. Frølich and A. Klitkou at the Conference on Indicators on Science, Technology and Innovation, Special session on Indicators for strategic management of higher education institutions, Lugano, Nov 2006 under the title "Strategic management of higher education institutions: performance funding and research output".

14 M. Gulbrandsen at a workshop at the Research Council of Norway on the 1st of November 2006 under the title "Forskere som patentoppfinnere- omfang, erfaringer og forutsetninger for kommersiell suksess" (Researchers as patent inventors - scope, experiences and preconditions for commercial success).

15 U. Varblane, J. Masso and P. Vahter, and K. Ukrainski, European Association for Comparative Economics Studies (EACES) 9th Bi-Annual Conference Development Strategies - A Comparative View has been held in Brighton on 7-9.09.2006.

16 N. von Tunzelmann: “Capabilities and entrepreneurship”, CSMOT/ Tsing Hua University, Hsinchu, Taiwan, Dec 2006.

17 B. Jindra, A Strategy View on Knowledge in the MNE - Integrating Subsidiary Roles and Knowledge Flows, 32nd EIBA Annual Conference, Fribourg, December 2006.

18 J.P. Damijan, A. Jaklič, and M. Rojec, 2006, Innovation Cooperation and innovation activity of Slovenian enterprises. 32nd EIBA Annual Conference: Regional and National Drivers of Business Location and Competitiveness, Dec 7-9, 2006, Fribourg, Faculty of Economics and Social Sciences Perolles II, University of Fribourg.

19 Wirtschaftswissenschaftliches Neujahrskolloquium der TU Bergakademie Freiberg und des Instituts für Wirtschaftsforschung Halle. Prof. Ulrich Blum (IWH) presented his paper on “Die Auswirkungen der Globalisierung auf den Wirtschaftsstandort Deutschland –Eine ostdeutsche Perspektive“, and

28

CIT5-028519

Johannes Stephan (IWH) on “Die Staaten des ehemaligen Ostblocks im Globalisierungsprozeß”.

20 NIFU-Step, Workshop with representatives of the Ministry of Education and Research, Oslo, 5 February 2007.

21 M. Rojec. Scope and Elements of Foreign Direct Investment Policy in SEE Countries. EPPU/DEP Research network: Conference on Economic Fitness for Integration. Banja Luka (Bosnia and Herzegovina), February 16, 2007

22 Ozatagn, G.: Unveiling the New Global Linkages in Production Networks: Evidence from the Turkish Auto-components Industry, Paper presented at the International Conference, The new international division of labour? The changing role of emerging markets in automotive industry, Feb 15-17, 2007, Krakow, Poland.

2nd year

23 B. Jindra, Global Integration and Local Capability as Determinants of R&D Sourcing in MNC subsidiaries - Evidence from five new EU member countries, EU Commission DG Regio, Brussels, 21 March 2007.

24 Stephan, J.: Seminar series at the Centre for the Study of Economic and Social Change in Europe, UCL, UK. J. Stephan presented his co-authored paper (with J. Hölscher) on “Competition and anti-trust policy in the enlarged European Union - What are the effects of Competition Policy reform in CEE?”.

25 M. Rojec: Knowledge Spillovers from Foreign Subsidiaries to Domestic Firms. Presented at the Conference on ‘The role of FDI in an Emerging Economy – Advances in the Theory of FDI’, Bucharest, Mar 16, 2007. Grupul de Economie Aplicata (GEA).

26 M. Rojec: Scope, Efficiency and Some Elements of FDI Policy. Presented at the Conference on ‘The role of FDI in an Emerging Economy – FDI and Public Policy’, Bucharest, Mar 16, 2007. Grupul de Economie Aplicata (GEA).

27 M. Knell, 2007, Innovation and productivity. OECD NESTI/SWIC Innovation microdata project Workshop, 29-30 March 2007, Vienna. Presentation of the paper prepared together with Matija Rojec.

28 M. Rojec: Knowledge transfer and knowledge spillovers: theoretical issues and empirical evidence. Doctoral course. University of Tartu, Tartu, Apr 10, 2007.

29 M. Kondratiuk-Nierodzinska: Technology diffusion and firms’ innovativeness, Podlasie Region case study, paper presented at the conference Innovative activity of firms in global environment, Apr 26-27, 2007 Torun, Poland.

30 L. Voinea: Press release by the GEA for main TV channels, the radio and central newspapers on the results of the FDI survey in Romania, May 2007, Romania.

31 L. Voinea: Organisation of a scientific conference involving the presentation of U-Know results by GEA, May 2007, Bucharest, Romania.

32 B. Andersen: Creative Industries Observatory, London May 14, 2007. Presentation: The Rationales for Copyrights and the Performance of the Creative Industries.

29

U-KNOW

33 T. Mets and U. Varblane, 6th Biennial international Conference on University, Industry & Government Linkages “Emerging Models for the Entrepreneurial University: Regional Diversities or Global convergence” is organised by the National University of Singapure on 16-18.05.2007.

34 Ozatagan, G.: Inter-firm Relations and Innovation in Global Production Networks: A Comparison of Polish and Turkish Auto-Components Clusters, Paper presented at the Economic Geography Research Group Annual Symposium, University of Sussex, Jun 6-7, 2007.

35 J. Günther, K. Wagner and I. Ritter, Zehn Jahre Entrepreneurship-Ausbildung in Deutschland: eine positive Zwischenbilanz, Paper presented at ESSHRA European Conference in Switzerland on “Towards a Knowledge Society”, 12-13 June 2007, Berne.

36 The 10th Uddevalla Symposium on: “INSTITUTIONS FOR KNOWLEDGE GENERATION AND KNOWLEDGE FLOWS – BUILDING INNOVATIVE CAPABILITIES FOR REGIONS”. J. Stephan organised a special session for U-Know at this conference involving Nick von Tunzelmann (SPRU) with a paper on “Network alignment and the regeneration of regional innovative capabilities”, Jaanika Meriküll (UoT) a co-authored paper (with Frank Cörvers) on “Skills structure of EU Countries – Result of Developments in Industry Structure or Technological Change?”, and Peter Franz (IWH) on “Knowledge cities”.

37 Jindra, B. Global Integration and Local Capability as Determinants of R&D Sourcing in MNC subsidiaries - Evidence from five new EU member countries, 49th Annual Meeting AIB, Indianapolis, June 2007

38 J. Meriküll “Occupational Structures across 25 EU Countries: The Importance of Industry Structure and Technology in Old and New EU Countries”, The 10th Uddevalla Symposium 2007 "Institutions for Knowledge Generation and Knowledge Flows – Building Innovative Capabilities for Regions", 14-16.06.07, Uddevalla, Sweden. Presentation by

39 Masso, J. Conference “Micro Evidence on Innovation in Developing Economies“ (MEIDE), UNU-MERIT, Maastricht (the Netherlands), May 31-June 1, 2007.

40 Varblane, U. “How to improve the national innovation systems of the catching-up economies, Baltic Business and Socio-Economic Development (BBSED) Conference in Tallinn, Estonia in 18-19. June 2007.

41 N. von Tunzelmann: presentation of 2 U-KNOW related papers, ‘Regional capabilities and innovation in China’, and ‘Network alignment and innovation systems’, Tsinghua University, Beijing, Aug 2007.

42 Stephan, J.: EARIE Annual Conference in Valencia, Spain 2007. J. Stephan presented his paper on “The Influence of Knowledge Intensity on Market Concentration in European Industries - An empirical test of the reverse causality case”.

43 Stephan, J.:EUNIP Annual Conference in Florence, Italy. J. Stephan presented his paper on “The Influence of Knowledge Intensity on Market Concentration in European Industries”.

44 A. Klitkou, N. Frøhlic, 2007, Collaboration of technical universities with industry – evidence from thirteen European universities. Paper presented at the 12th

30

CIT5-028519

Nordic Workshop on Bibliometrics and Research Policy in Copenhagen, Sep 2007.

45 J. Masso, U. Varblane and P. Vahter., presentation at EALE (European Association of Labour Economists) Conference 2007 on September 20th-22nd, 2007, Oslo, Norway.

46 J. Pavlič Damijan, C. Kostevc, M. Rojec: Knowledge transfer, innovation and growth. Savannah (Georgia), International Atlantic Economic Society, Sixty-Fourth International Atlantic Economic Conference, 2007. [COBISS.SI-ID 512252284].

47 M. Rojec: Scope, Efficiency and some Elements of Foreign Direct Investment Policy. Foreign direct investment policies, Seminar at Joint Vienna Institute. Vienna: WIIW. Oct 15, 2007.

48 B. Brandenburg, J. Günther, L. Schneider, 2007, Does qualification drive innovation? Paper also presented at the “Verein für Socialpolitik” annual conference in Munich, October 2007.

49 Jindra, B. Global Integration and Local Capability as Determinants of R&D Sourcing in MNC subsidiaries - Evidence from five new EU member countries, EU Commission DG Regio, Conference on Corporate R&D, Joint Research Center, Sevilla, October 2007

50 J. Pavlič Damijan, C. Kostevc, M. Rojec, A. Jaklič: The effects of own R&D and external knowledge spillovers on firm innovation and productivity : the case of Slovenia. V: 33rd EIBA Annual Conference, Catania, Italy, Dec 13-15, 2007. International business, local development and science-technology relationships, Catania - Italy: conference proceedings. Catania: University of Catania, Faculty of Political Science, 2007, 26 str. [COBISS.SI-ID 512263548].

51 A. Burger, A. Jaklič, M. Rojec: Dynamic effects of r&d subsidies in Slovenia: substitute or complement to private r&d expenditures. V: 33rd EIBA Annual Conference, Catania, Italy, Dec 13-15, 2007. International business, local development and science-technology relationships: Catania - Italy: conference proceedings. Catania: University of Catania, Faculty of Political Science, 2007, 26 str. [COBISS.SI-ID 512263548].

52 Jindra, B. FDI, Technological Spillovers and the governance of external innovation networks - Evidence from East Germany. Doctorial Tutorial, 33-rd annual EIBA conference, Catania, December 2007

53 COST E51 and 7th EFI PC Innoforce Meeting in 17-19 December 2007, Prague, Czech Republic. Presentation by Kadri Ukrainski “Sources of Knowledge in Wood-Related Value Networks – Technological Trajectories, Capabilities of Firms & Public R&D Alignment”.

54 L. Voinea: Organisation of a scientific conference involving the presentation of U-Know results by GEA, Dec 2007, Bucharest, Romania.

55 M. Kondratiuk-Nierodzinska: Characteristics of innovative activity of firms in Podlasie, paper presented at the IV Scientific Conference “Knowledge and Innovation” – EU funds and enterprises in knowledge and economy development, Jan 17-18, 08, Krakow, Poland.

31

U-KNOW

3rd year

56 A. Szalavetz: Presentation of a Background paper under the supervision of David Dyker: “Industry-university interactions to enhance the matching of demand and supply of human capital in Hungary”. This paper was presented at a conference on Mar 19, 2008, it was a bilateral workshop “EU Integration, macroeconomic background and innovation” organized by the Institute for World Economics (IWE) of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Economic Research (IER) in Slovenia.

57 L. Voinea and J. Stephan: Presentation at the OECD Global Forum on International Investment “Best practices in promoting investment for development: Pursuing a common agenda”. In the session on “International investment and innovation”, J. Stephan (IWH) presented his paper on “How Does FDI Cooperate with Domestic Innovation Systems – Evidence from East Germany”. In the same session, Liviu Voinea (GEA) presented his paper on “Market concentration and innovation: Evidence from foreign affiliates in Central and Eastern Europe”. See web-site: www.oecd.org/investment/gfi-7.

58 M. Kondratiuk-Nierodzinska: Firm’s innovative activity in Podlasie region based on Central Statistical Office in Poland data, paper presented at International Scientific Conference “Innovativeness of Regions in Global Economy”, Lodz May 12-13, 2008.

59 B. Andersen: Creative Industries Observatory, May 14, 2008. Presentation: The Rationales for Copyrights and the Performance of the Creative Industries.

60 Andersen, B. (as organiser of workshop): The Creative Industries and IP, London, May 22-23, 2008.

61 A. Klitkou, How can we measure the orientation of technical universities towards industry? 2nd PRIME Indicators Conference: Science, Technology and Innovation Indicators for Policy. Oslo May, 28-30, 2008.

62 Andersen, B. (as organiser of workshop): Opportunities and limitations of the open source model of innovation and the role of intellectual property rights, Copenhagen, July 17, 2008.

63 R. Ciborowski: Regional Innovation System for Technological Convergence In Low-Developed Regions, paper presented at the EASST conference: Acting with Science, Technology and Medicine, Rotterdam, Aug 20-23, 2008.

64 B. Andersen, Intellectual Property Rights for Business and Society. London, Sep 14-15, 2006.

65 J. Masso: Technological Innovation and Productivity in Post-Transition Estonia: Econometric Evidence from Innovation Surveys’ presentation at the seminar at BICEPS in Riga, Latvia, Oct 7, 2008.

66 R. Ciborowski: Systemy gospodarcze a efektywność procesów innowacyjnych, paper presented at the conference: Technological shocks In World economy, Poznan, Oct 23, 2008.

67 M. Rojec: Scope, Efficiency and some Elements of Foreign Direct Investment Policy. Foreign direct investment policies, Seminar at Joint Vienna Institute, Vienna: WIIW. Oct 27, 2008. M. Rojec presented the papers ‘Knowledge spillovers from foreign ownership’ and ‘Scope and effectiveness of FDI policies in transition countries’ to the representatives of investment agencies and other

32

CIT5-028519

government bodies from transition countries of South-Eastern Europe, Belarus and Ukraine.

68 Jo Lorentzen, Johannes Stephan, Nick von Tunzelmann, Björn Jindra, Mark Knell, Mike Morris: Policy dissemination workshop with Provincial Government Western Cape Department of Economic Development and Tourism, Oct 28, 2008, Cape Town.

69 C. Lang: Presentation “Innovationstätigkeit im Verarbeitenden Gewerbe Ostdeutschlands” at a policy dissemination workshop with “Verband der Chemischen Industrie”, Nov 11, 2008.

70 N. von Tunzelmann: presentation of paper now entitled “Technology and technology policy in the postwar UK: ‘market failure’ or ‘network failure’?”, Revue d’Economie Industrielle 30 Years On workshop, Juan-les-Pins, France, Nov 13, 2008.

71 Jaklič, A., J. Damijan and M. Rojec: Innovation cooperation and innovation activity of Slovenian enterprises. International Conference on Innovation, Competitiveness and Growth, Nov 27, 2008, Zagreb, The Institute of Economics Zagreb. J. Damijan, M. Rojec, and A. Jaklič presented the paper ‘Innovation Cooperation and Innovation Activity of Slovenian Enterprises’ at a one day international conference on Innovation, Competitiveness and Growth, organized by The Institute of Economics, Zagreb. The conference was composed of three sessions. The paper of Damijan, Rojec, and Jaklič was presented as the first paper in session one.

72 L. Voinea: Policy briefing with the Romanian competition authority, Dec 5, 2008, Bucharest, Romania.

73 R. Ciborowski: Region in information society conditions, paper presented at the conference: PODLASIE - wyzwania rozwoju społeczeństwa informacyjnego w regionie w latach 2008-2010, Bialystok, Dec 10, 2008.

74 Damijan, J., M. Rojec, B. Majcen and M. Knell: Impact of firm heterogeneity on direct and spillover effects of FDI - micro evidence from ten transition countries. 34th EIBA Annual Conference on International business and catching-up economies: challenges and opportunities. Conference proceedings. Dec 11-13, 2008. Tallinn: University of Technology: School of Economics and Business Administration; Tartu: Faculty of Economics and Business Administration. M. Rojec presented the paper on the ‘Impact of firm heterogeneity on direct and spillover effects of FDI – micro evidence from ten transition countries’ at the traditional annual conference of the European International Business Academy. The authors were invited to publish the paper in the conference proceedings containing the best papers of the conference.

75 M. Rojec: Benefiting from FDI is not a simple task. The INCOM Workshop. Prague, Jan 22-23, 2009. M. Rojec presented the results of the U-know project, and in particular the results related to the knowledge transfer via FDI and FDI spillovers (a combination of papers ‘Why is there so little evidence on knowledge spillovers from FDI’ and ‘Impact of firm heterogeneity on direct and spillover effects of FDI – micro evidence from ten transition countries’) at the INCOM workshop organized by the Czech Presidency of the Council of the EU. The audience included EC institution members, the representatives of

33

U-KNOW

international organisations, heads of research councils and innovation agencies, independent experts and policy makers.

76 Kruss, G. Knowledge-intensive university spin-off firms in South Africa: fragile network alignment. Presented at IV Globelics conference, Mexico City, 22-24 September.

77 R. C. Daniels & J. Lorentzen, Taxonomies of Innovation in a latecomer economy: The example of manufacturing firms in South Africa, UNU-MERIT and UNU-WIDER Research Workshop on Entrepreneurship, Technological Innovation, and Development 30-31 October 2008 Maastricht.

78 L. Voinea and J. Stephan: Market concentration and innovation: Evidence from foreign affiliates in Central and Eastern Europe, 34th EIBA Annual Conference, Tallinn, Dec 11-13, 2008.

34

CIT5-028519

PUBLISHABLE RESULTS

Monographs and contributions to monographs

Andersen, B. (ed.) (2006) Intellectual Property Rights: Innovation, Governance and the Institutional Environment . Edward Elgar: Cheltenham.

Andersen, B. (2006) Reprint of "Andersen, B. (2005) The Rationales for Intellectual Property Rights Revisited, ICFAI Journal of Intellectual Property Rights , November issue" in Veena (2006) "Intellectual Property Rights: An Overview" Amicus Books: The ICFAI University Press: Hyderabad.

Andersen, B. (2007) How Technology Changes the Scope, Strength and Usefulness of Copyrights: Revisiting the 'Economic Rationales' Underpinning Copyright Law in the New Economy. In Macmillan, F. New Directions in Copyright Law, Vol. V , Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, 135-161.

Andersen, B. (ed.) (forthcoming) The Intellectual Property Right Domain in Contemporary Capitalism. Routledge.

Andrijevskaja, J., and T. Mets (2008), 'Master Program in Entrepreneurship and Technology Management in Estonia', in: P. van der Sijde, A. Ridder, G. Blaauwm, and C. Diensberg (eds), Teaching Entrepreneurship, Springer, pp. 99-107.

Damijan J.,P, A. Jaklič, and M. Rojec. (2006) Do External Knowledge Spillovers Induce Firms' Innovations? Evidence from Slovenia. in Ana Teresa Tavares and Aurora Teixeira (eds), Multinationals, Clusters and Innovation: Does Public Policy Matter? Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Pp. 27-47.

Dyker, D. (ed) (forthcoming in 2010) Network Dynamics in Emerging Regions of Europe, Imperial College Press.

Contents:

Damijan, J., Č. Kostvec and M. Rojec. (2010) Knowledge spillovers, innovation and firms’ productivity growth in Slovenia. forthcoming

Günther, J., Jindra, B. And J. Stephan (2010) Foreign direct investment in national innovations systems – Evidence from Emerging economies in Central and East Europe, forthcoming.

Ozatagan, G. 2010 Network alignment in the automotive clusters of Turkey and Poland. forthcoming.

Salis, S. (2010) The Slovakian Innovation System – Why Does it not Work?. forthcoming.

Ukrainski, K. (2010) Impact of Technology on Skills in Estonian Wood Industries, forthcoming.

Formica, P., U. Varblane, and T. Mets (2008), 'Knowledge transfer mechanisms from universities and other HEIs to the SME sector', in: E. Carayannis and P. Formica (eds), Knowledge matters: Innovation networks and knowledge clusters, Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 21-51.

Hannula, H., Radosevic, S. and von Tunzelmann, N. (eds) (2006) Estonia, the New EU Economy: building a Baltic miracle?, Ashgate Publishing, Aldershot.

35

U-KNOW

Hannula, H., Radosevic, S. and von Tunzelmann, N. (2006) Introduction: Central and Eastern European countries and EU accession, in H. Hannula, S. Radosevic and N. von Tunzelmann (eds), Estonia, the new EU Economy: building a Baltic miracle?, pp. 3-16.

Knell, M. (2008) ‘Heterogeneity in Economic Thought: Foundations and Modern Methods’ in Diversity In The Knowledge Economy And Society, edited by Elias G. Carayannis, Aris Kaloudis and Åge Mariussen, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Knell, M. and Martin Srholec (2007) ‘Diverging Pathways in Central and Eastern Europe’ in David Lane and Martin Myant, eds. Varieties of Capitalism in Post-Communist Countries, Baskingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Kondratiuk-Nierodzinska M. (2007), Dyfuzja technologii a innowacyjnosc przedsiebiorstw na przykladzie Podlasia, in J.Bogdanienko, M.Kuzel, I.Sobczak (eds.) Zarzadzanie wiedza w warunkach globalnej wspolpracy przedsiebiorstw, Wyd. Adam Marszalek, Torun, pp.262-271.

Kondratiuk-Nierodzinska M. (2008), Charakterystyka aktywności innowacyjnej firm na Podlasiu in: E. Okon-Horodynska and A. Zachorowska-Mazurkiewicz (eds), Tendencje innowacyjnego rozwoju polskich przedsiębiorstw, Instytut Wiedzy i Innowacji, Warsaw 2008, pp. 291-306.

Kostevc, Č., T. Redek and M. Rojec. 2009. Scope and Effectiveness of Foreign Direct Investment Policies in Transition Countries. In: E. Rugraff and M.W. Hansen (eds.) Multinationals and Local Firms in Emerging Markets. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University press. forthcoming.

Laperche, B., Uzunidis, D. and von Tunzelmann, N. (eds) (2008) The Genesis of Innovation: systemic linkages between knowledge and the market, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.

Laperche, B., Uzunidis, D. and von Tunzelmann, N. (2008) Introduction: knowledge, innovation systems and the role of power, in B. Laperche, D. Uzunidis and N. von Tunzelmann (eds), The Genesis of Innovation: systemic linkages between knowledge and the market, pp. 1-10.

Larsen, M. T. and von Tunzelmann, N. (2008) Fallos extramercado y desarrollo de tecnología genérica, in C. Cañibano Sánchez, M. I. Encinar del Pozo and F.-F. Muñoz Pérez (eds), Economía del Conocimiento y la Innovación: nuevas aproximaciones a una relación compleja, Pirámide/IIES, pp. 269-291.

Männik, K. and von Tunzelmann, N. (2006) Multinational subsidiaries and innovation policy in Central and Eastern Europe: alignment and autonomy, in A .T. Tavares and A. Teixeira (eds), Multinationals, Clusters and Innovation: does public policy matter? Palgrave, pp. 255-271.

Meriküll, J. (2009), Technological change and labour demand, Tartu, Tartu University Press, forthcoming.

Mets, T. (2008), 'Regio – a learned global knowledge company: Case from Estonia', in: R. Aidis and F. Welter (eds), The Cutting Edge: Innovation and Entrepreneurship in New Europe, Edward Elgar, pp. 54-73.

Paas, T. and U. Varblane (2008), ‘Catching up Process in the Case of Small Post-Socialist Economy: The Lessons of Estonia’, Chapter 21, in: J. Ram Pillarisetti, R. Lawrey, T. Siew Yean, Shamim A. Siddiqui, and A. Ahmad (eds), Small

36

CIT5-028519

Economies and Global Economics, Nova Sience Publishers, pp. 233-254 (ISBN 978-160456-477-8).

Radosevic, S. and von Tunzelmann, N. (2006) Conclusions – from the European periphery to the core?, in H Hannula, S Radosevic and N von Tunzelmann (eds), Estonia, the new EU Economy: building a Baltic miracle?, pp. 319-325.

Srholec, M. (2006) Global production systems and technological catching-up: Thinking twice about high-tech industries in emerging countries. In: Piech, K. and Radoševič, S., eds., The Knowledge-Based Economy in Central and East European Countries: Countries and Industries in a Process of Change, New York, Palgrave Macmillan, 57-78.

Ukrainski, K. (2008), ‘Sources of knowledge used in innovation: An example of Estonian wood industries’, Tartu, Tartu University Press.

Voinea, L. and J. Stephan (2009), Market concentration and innovation in transnational corporations - Evidence from foreign affiliates in Central and Eastern Europe”, in Vissak, T. and Larimo, J. (eds.) Progress in International Business Research, Emerald, forthcoming.

von Tunzelmann, N. (2009) Regional capabilities and industrial regeneration, in P. McCann, M. Farshchi and O. Janne (eds), Technological Change and Mature Industrial Regions: firms, knowledge and policy, Edward Elgar, pp. 11-28.

von Tunzelmann, N. (2007) As indústrias de alta tecnologia e os países de desenvolvimento intermédio, in I Salavisa, W Rodrigues and S Mendonça (eds): Inovação e Globalização: estratégias para a desenvolvimento económico e territorial, Campo das Letras, pp. 15-34.

Yoruk, D.E. and von Tunzelmann, N. (2006) Knowledge accumulation, networks, and information and communication technologies: evidence from traditional industries in Central and Eastern Europe, in K. Piech and S. Radosevic (eds), The Knowledge-based Economy in Central and Eastern Europe, Palgrave, pp. 110-126.

Refereed journals

Andersen, B and Konzelmann, S. (2008) 'In Search of a Useful Theory of The Productive Potential of Intellectual Property Rights'. Research Policy. Vol 37, 12-28.

Andersen, B and Kozul-Wright, Z and Kozul-Wright, R. (2007), 'Rents, Rights N'Rhythm: Conflict, Cooperation and Capabilities in The Music Industry', in Industry and Innovation , Vol 13, Issue 5. 513-540

Andersen, B and Konzelmann, S. (2006) Towards a Useful Theory of Value Creation from Intellectual Property Rights: Understanding the role of governance structures and cooperation and conflict amongst stakeholders, ICFAI Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, February issue.

Bučar, M., M. Rojec and M. Stare, 2009. Backward FDI linkages as a channel for transferring technology and building innovation capability: the case of Slovenia. The European Journal of Development Research, vol. 21, no. 1, str. 137-153. http://www.palgrave-journals.com/ejdr/journal/v21/n1/full/ejdr2008110a.html.

37

U-KNOW

Cörvers, F and J. Meriküll (2007), Occupational structures across 25 EU countries: the importance of industry structure and technology in old and new EU countries. Economic Change and Restructuring, 40(4): 327-359.

Cörvers, F and J. Meriküll (2008), Occupational structures across 25 EU countries: the importance of industry structure and technology in old and new EU countries. Economic Change and Restructuring. Research Memorandum of Research Centre for Education and the Labour Market, No 2/2008. Maastricht University, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration.

Damijan, P. J. and M. Rojec. Foreign direct investment and catching-up of new EU member states : is there a flying geese pattern?. Appl. econ. q., 2007, vol. 53, no. 2, str. 91-117. [COBISS.SI-ID 512248700]

Damijan, P. J., A. Jaklič, and M. Rojec, Vpliv zunanjih prelivanj znanja na inovativnost in produktivnost slovenskih podjetij = Impact of external knowledge spillovers on productivity of Slovenian enterprises. IB rev. (Ljubl.), 2006, letn. 40, št. 1/2, str. 51-68. [COBISS.SI-ID 16244710]

Dyker, D. (2008) "Innovation in crisis in the new member-states of the EU: Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union: Regional overview". The Economist Intelligence Unit, January 2008.

Fagerberg, J. and Martin Srholec, ‘National Innovation Systems, Capabilities and Economic Development’. Research Policy 37: 1417-1435.

Fagerberg, J, Srholec, M. and Mark Knell, ‘The competitiveness of nations: Why some countries prosper while others fall behind’, World Development, 2007.

Freitas, I.M.B. and von Tunzelmann, N. (2008) Mapping public support for innovation: a comparison of policy alignment in the UK and France, Research Policy, 37, 1446-1464.

Frølich, N., A. Klitkou, Evaluating performance funding and research output: The new, formula-based research funding model in Norway. Submitted on the 12th of March 2007 to Research Policy.

Günther, J., Jindra, B. and J. Stephan (2008) Foreign Subsidiaries in the East German innovation system - Evidence from manufacturing industries, Applied Economics Quarterly Supplement, Issue 59: 137-165.

Günther, J. and K. Wagner (2008) Getting out of the ivory tower – new perspectives on the entrepreneurial university, European J. International Management, Vol. 2 (4): 400-417.

Hauknes, J. and Mark Knell, ‘Embodied knowledge and sectoral linkages: An input-output approach to the interaction of high- and low-tech industries’, Research Policy, forthcoming April 2009.

Iversen, E.J., M.Gulbrandsen, and A. Klitkou (2007): A baseline for the impact of academic patenting legislation in Norway, Scientometrics, 70/2, 393–414.

Jindra, B., A. Giroud, and J. Scott-Kennel (2009) Subsidiary roles, vertical linkages and economic development: Lesson from transition economies, Journal of World Business, Volume 44 (2): 167-179.

Kaasa, A. and E. Parts (2008), Individual-level Determinants of Social Capital in Europe: Differences between Country Groups, Acta Sociologica, Vol. 51, No.2, pp. 145-168.

38

CIT5-028519

Kaasa, A. (2009), Effects of Different Dimensions of Social Capital on Innovative Activity: Evidence from Europe at the Regional Level. Technovation. 29, 3: 218-233.

Kelli, A., Pisuke, H. (2008) The Concept of Intellectual Property in an Innovation-based Economy, Review of Central and East European Law, 33 (2008) 223-238.

Kelli, A., Pisuke, H. (2008), Intellectual Property in an Innovation-based Economy, Review of Central and East European Law, 33 (2): 223—238.

Kelli, A. (2008), Some Issues of the Estonian Innovation and Intellectual Property Policy", Juridica International, XV: 104-114.

Korka, and Spilling, O. (2008) Towards a Comprehensive Policy on Entrepreneurship in European Higher Education, Theoretical and Applied Economics, pp. 3-16.

Kruss, G. (2008) Knowledge-intensive university spin-off firms in South Africa: fragile network alignment? Industry and Higher Education. 22 (4): 233-244

Majcen, B., S. Radošević and M. Rojec (2009), Control and productivity growth in foreign subsidiaries in Central European countries. Economic System, forthcoming.

Masso, J. and P. Vahter (2008), Technological Innovation and Productivity in Post-Transition Estonia: Econometric Evidence from Innovation Surveys, in European Journal of Development Research, special issue of the conference “Micro Evidence on Innovation in Developing Economies”, 20 (1), 240-261.

Masso, J., Varblane, U., and P. Vahter (2008), The Impact of Outward FDI on Home-Country Employment in a Low-Cost Transition Economy, Eastern European Economics, 46 (6), 27-61.

Mets, T. (2009), University-Industry-Government linkages in biotech in a small transition country: the Estonian case, International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, 9 (1/2): 139-156.

Lorentzen, Jo. 2009. Learning and Innovation: What’s Different in the (Sub)tropics and How Do We Explain It? A Review Essay. Science, Technology & Society 14, no.1 (March).

Lorentzen, Jo. 2009. Learning by Firms: The Black Box of South Africa’s Innovation System. Science and Public Policy 36, no.1: 33-45.

Lorentzen, Jo. 2009. The Geography of Innovation in South Africa: A First Cut. International Journal of Technological Learning, Innovation, and Development 2, no.3: 210-29.

Martinelli, A., Meyer, M. and von Tunzelmann, N. (2008) Becoming an entrepreneurial university?: a case study of knowledge exchange relationships and faculty attitudes in a medium-sized, research-oriented university, Journal of Technology Transfer, 33, 259-283.

Masso, J., Vahter, P. (2008), Technological Innovation and Productivity in Post-Transition Estonia: Econometric Evidence from Innovation Surveys, forthcoming in European Journal of Development Research, special issue of the conference “Micro Evidence on Innovation in Developing Economies”

Masso, J., Varblane, U., and P. Vahter (2008), The Impact of Outward FDI on Home-Country Employment in a Low-Cost Transition Economy, forthcoming in Eastern European Economics.

39

U-KNOW

Mets, T., Leego, M., Talpsep, T., Varblane, U. (2007), The Role of Intellectual Property Protection in the Business Strategy of University Spin-Off Biotech Companies in a Small Transition Economy, Review of Central and East European Law, 32, 19-40.

Pärna, O. and von Tunzelmann, N. (2007) Innovation in the public sector: key features influencing the development and implementation of technologically innovative public services in the UK, Denmark, Finland and Estonia, Information Polity, 12, 109-126.

Rojec, M. and J. Pavlič Damijan. Relocation via foreign direct investment from old to new EU member states : scale and structural dimension of the process. Struct. chang. econ. dyn.. [Print ed.], March 2008, vol. 19, no. 1, str. 53-65. [COBISS.SI-ID 512263036]

Rojec, M. Prelivanje znanja iz tujih podružnic v domača podjetja: teoretični in empirični vidiki = FDI spillovers from foreign subsidiaries to home enterprises: theoretical and empirical perspectives. Naše gospod., 2006, letn. 52, št. 3/4, str. 83-97. [COBISS.SI-ID 8712988]

Rojec, M. Struktura in politika nabav podjetij s tujim kapitalom v Sloveniji = Supplies structure and policy of foreign investment enterprises in Slovenia. IB rev. (Ljubl.), 2006, letn. 40, št. 4, str. 15-29, graf. prikazi, tabele. [COBISS.SI-ID 25739357]

Rojec, M., T. Redek and C. Kostevc, Omejitve in možni elementi slovenske politike spodbujanja neposrednih tujih investicij NTI = Scope and possible elements of Slovenian FDI incentives policy. IB rev. (Ljubl.), 2007, vol. 41, št. 3-4, str. 102-115. [COBISS.SI-ID 512262780]

Schneider, L., J. Günther, and B. Bandenburg (2010), Innovation and skills from a sectoral perspective – A linked employer-employee analysis, Economics of Innovation and New Technology, vol. 19, forthcoming in the spring of 2010.

Stephan, J. and Steffen, W. (2008) The Role of the Human Capital and Managerial Skills in Explaining the Productivity Gaps between East and West Eastern European Economics, Vol. 46(6): 5-24.

Srholec, M. (2009) ‘Does foreign ownership facilitate cooperation on innovation? Firm-level evidence from the enlarged European Union’. European Journal of Development Research 21: 47-62.

Teder, M., Ukrainski, K., Prede, M. and P. Kaimre, P. (2007). Assessing the Alignment and Integration of Innovation and Development Policies for the Forest Sector in Estonia, Forestry Studies, 46: 102 – 117.

Torokoff, M., Mets, T. (2008) Organisational learning: A concept for improving teachers’ competences in the Estonian school, International Journal of Entrepreneurship & Small Business, 5,1: 64-82.

Varblane, U., D. Dyker, D. Tamm, and N. von Tunzelmann (2007), Can the national innovation systems of the new EU member-states be improved?, Post-Communist Economies, 19/4, 399 – 416.

Varblane, U., Tamm, D. (2007), How to improve the national systems of the catching up economies?, TRAMES, A Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences, Volume 11, No. 2, pp. 106-123.

40

CIT5-028519

Varblane, U., Mets, T. and K. Ukrainski (2008), The role of the University-Industry-Government linkages in the innovation processes of the small catching-up economy, Industry and Higher Education, Vol. 22, No. 6, pp. 1-14.

von Ledebur, S. (2008), Technology transfer offices and university patenting – a review, International Journal of Technology Transfer and Commercialisation, forthcoming.

von Ledebur, S. (2007) Optimizing knowledge transfer by new employees in companies, Knowledge Management Research & Practice, Vol. 5, No. 4, pp. 229–236.

von Tunzelmann, N. (2009), Technology and technology policy in the postwar UK: ‘market failure’ or ‘network failure’?, Revue d’Economie Industrielle, forthcoming in 30th Anniversary issue

von Tunzelmann, N., Malerba, F., Nightingale, P. and Metcalfe, S. (2008) Technological paradigms: past, present and future, Industrial and Corporate Change, 17, 467-484.

von Tunzelmann, N. and Wang, Q. (2007) Capabilities and production theory, Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 18, 192-211.

Non-refereed journals or discussion paper series

Andersen, B and Frenz, M. (2008) The impact of music downloads and P2P filesharing on the purchase of music in Canada. Dynamics of Institutions of Markets in Europe (DIME) Discussion Paper Series on Intellectual Property Rights , No 82.

Andersen, B (2008) Intellectual Property Rights and 'Open Innovation' in Services. Dynamics of Institutions of Markets in Europe (DIME) Discussion Paper Series on Intellectual Property Rights , No 80.

Brandenburg. B., J. Günther, and L. Schneider (2007) Does qualification drive innovation? A microeconometric analysis using linked employer-employee data, IWH discussion paper, No. 10/2007.

Damijan, J., M. Rojec, B. Majcen and M. Knell (2008), Impact of firm heterogeneity on direct and spillover effects on FDI - micro evidence from ten transition countries (Working paper no. 40). Ljubljana: Institute for Economic Research.

Damijan, J., M. Rojec, B. Majcen and M. Knell (2008), Impact of firm heterogeneity on direct and spillover effects of FDI: micro evidence from ten transition countries (LICOS discussion paper series, 218/2008). Leuven: Katholieke Universiteit Leuven.

Damijan, J., Č. Kostvec and M. Rojec (2008), Innovation and firms' productivity growth in Slovenia: sensitivity of results to Sectoral Heterogeneitz and to estimation method (LICOS discussion paper series, 203/2008). Leuven: Katholieke Universiteit Leuven.

Damijan, J., Č. Kostvec and M. Rojec (2008), Innovation and firms' productivity growth in Slovenia: sensitivity of results to sectoral heterogeneity and to estimation method, (Working paper no. 41). Ljubljana: Institute for Economic Research.

41

U-KNOW

Damijan, J., Č. Kostvec and M. Rojec (2008), Does Innovation Help the Good or the Poor Performing Firms? (LICOS discussion paper, 230/2008). Leuven: Katholieke Universiteit Leuven.

Dyker, D.A., (2008) 'Innovation in Crisis in the New Member-States of the EU', Economies in Transition: Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union: Regional Overview, Economist Intelligence Unit, January.

Gristock, J. J. and von Tunzelmann, N. (eds) (2007) Guide to the organisation of science, engineering and technology in the UK (GOST), British Council, 135 pp.

Günther, J. Jindra, B., und J. Stephan (2008) Foreign Subsidiaries in the East German Innovation System – Evidence from Manufacturing Industries, Halle Institute for Economic Research (IWH): Discussion Paper No. 4: 1-34.

Günther, J., B. Jindra, and J. Stephan (2008) Ostdeutsches Innovationssystem attraktiv für ausländische Investoren, Wirtschaft im Wandel, Nr. 1-2008, pp. 35-44.

Günther, J., B. Jindra, J. Stephan (2008) Gute Gründe für ausländische Direktinvestitionen in Ostdeutschland, Wirtschaft im Wandel, Nr. 1-2008, p. 3.

Günther, J., B. Jindra, J. Stephan (2008) Überraschend stabile Geschäftsaussichten auswärtiger Investoren, Wirtschaft im Wandel, Nr. 2-2009, p. 71.

Günther, J., B. Jindra, J. Stephan (2009), Globalisierung von Forschung und Entwicklung – der Technologiestandort Deutschland, Wirtschaft im Wandel, Vol. 2-2009, p. 91-96.

Günther, J., B. Jindra, J. Stephan (2009) Gemeinsam statt einsam: Forschungskooperationen auswärtiger Investoren in Ostdeutschland, Wirtschaft im Wandel, Nr. 5-2009, forthcoming.

Günther, J., F. Peglow (2007) Forschung und Entwicklung wichtige Quelle für Produktinnovationen auch in Ostdeutschland, Wirtschaft im Wandel, Nr. 9/2007, pp. 337-343.

Günther, J., K. Wagner (2007) Getting out of the Ivory Tower - New Perspectives on the Entrepreneurial University, Discussion Papers on Entrepreneurship and Innovation No. 2/2007, Hochschule für Technik und Wirtschaft, Chur/Switzerland.

Günther, J., P. Franz, and B. Jindra (2007) Innovationen als Treiber der Wissensgesellschaft: Begriffserläuterungen und aktuelle Erklärungsansätze, Wirtschaft im Wandel, Nr. 9/2007, pp. 330-336.

Günther, J., Wagner, K. and Ritter, I. (2007) Zehn Jahre Entrepreneurship-Ausbildung in Deutschland: eine positive Zwischenbilanz, Wirtschaft im Wandel, Nr. 9/2007, pp. 350-356.

Iversen (forthcoming 2009) Patent regimes and the formation of technological knowledge (revisited): a review of issues and an application to industrial networks, (DIME) Discussion Paper Series on Intellectual Property Rights , No 80.

Jaklič, A., J. Damijan and M. Rojec (2008), Innovation cooperation and innovation activity of Slovenian enterprises (LICOS discussion paper, 201/2008). Leuven: Katholieke Universiteit Leuven.

42

CIT5-028519

Jindra, B. and J. Stephan (2006) Unter welchen Bedingungen profitieren einheimische Zulieferunternehmen von ausländischen Direktinvestitionen, Wirtschaft im Wandel, Nr. 10/2006, pp. 290-96.

Knell, M. and M. Srholec, (2009) ‘Collaboration in Innovation and Foreign Ownership Across European Countries’, Forthcoming in the NIFU STEP working paper series 2009.

Knell, M. and M. Srholec (2009) Novelty of innovation: Who, where and how much in Europe?, Forthcoming in the NIFU STEP working paper series 2009.

Knell, M., ‘Innovation Governance and Policy Learning in Europe (2009), Forthcoming in the NIFU STEP working paper series 2009.

Knell, M., ‘Innovation Surveys and Their Importance for Innovation Policy (2009), Forthcoming in the NIFU STEP working paper series 2009.

Knell, M., Kallerud, E., von Tunzelmann, N., Stephan, J., and B Jindra (2009), ‘Towards a Broader Mix of Measures for Policy Alignment in Knowledge-based Institutions for Science and Technology’, Forthcoming in the NIFU STEP working paper series 2009.

Knell, M. and M. Rojec, (2009) ‘ The economics of knowledge and knowledge accumulation’, Forthcoming in the NIFU STEP working paper series 2009.

Masso, J., Vahter, P. (2008) Technological Innovation and Productivity in Post-Transition Estonia: Econometric Evidence from Innovation Surveys, University of Tartu (Estonia), Faculty of Economics and Business Administration Working Paper No. 61.

Masso, J., Varblane, U., and P. Vahter (2007) The Impact of Outward FDI on Home-Country Employment in a Low-Cost Transition Economy“. University of Tartu (Estonia), Faculty of Economics and Business Administration Working Paper No. 52.

Masso, J., Varblane, U., and P. Vahter (2007) The Impact of Outward FDI on Home-Country Employment in a Low-Cost Transition Economy, William Davidson Institute Working Paper No. 873.

Ozatagan, G. (2007) The New Global Linkages and Innovation in Production Networks: A Comparison of Polish and Turkish Auto-Components Clusters, Economic Geography Research Group Working Paper Series, No. 03.07, http://www.econgeog.org.uk/wps_0307.html

Rojec, M., A. Jaklič and J. Pavlič Damijan (2007) Innovation cooperation and innovation activity of Slovenian enterprises, (Working paper series, 2007, 6). Ljubljana: Institute of Macroeconomic Analysis and Development. ISBN 978-961-6031-58-5. http://www.umar.gov.si/public/dz/2007/dz-6-07.pdf. [COBISS.SI-ID 234137856]

Srholec, M. (2009) ‘Innovation and Productivity Growth: Firm-level Evidence from the Czech Republic’, U-Know Deliverable D04b2, Forthcoming in the NIFU STEP working paper series 2009.

Stephan, J. (2008) ‘The Influence of Knowledge Intensity on Market Concentration in European Industries’ (with Niels Krap), Halle Institute for Economic Research (IWH): Discussion Paper No. 3/2008.

43

U-KNOW

Stephan, J. und Schnellbächer, B. (2009) The Role of the Intellectual Property Rights Regime for Foreign Investors in Post-Socialist Economies, Halle Institute for Economic Research (IWH): Discussion Paper No. 4/2009.

Von Ledebur, S. (2006) Patentverwertungsagenturen und der Wissenstransfer von Hochschulen – ein Literaturüberblick, Wirtschaft im Wandel, Nr. 9-2006, pp. 266-274.

von Ledebur, S. (2006) Bedingungen der Wissensweitergabe von neuen Mitarbeitern in Unternehmen – eine spieltheoretische Analyse, Wirtschaft im Wandel, Vol. 1, pp. 27-32.

Media

Andersen, B. and Frenz, M (spring 2008) Why Music Downloads and P2P Filesharing may be Good News for the Music Industry. E-Britain SCIENCE & INNOVATION. Published by the British Institute of Technology and Ecommerce.

Andersen, B. (2007 special edition) An Intellectual property Right Regime in Support of 'Open Innovation'. The Emergence of 'Open Innovation' in an old-fashioned IPR regime. E-Britain SCIENCE & INNOVATION , p. 28-29 (Published by the British Institute of Technology and Ecommerce).

Awards

In October 2008 the participant GEA received the National Award for Excellence in Research (3rd prize) for the U-Know project. The award was granted by the National Agency for Scientific Research, on the socio-economic research area.