Advertisement

References

Chapter
  • 562 Downloads

Keywords

Nascent Entrepreneur 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. AAAS (2003): Research and Development FY 2004. In: AAAS Report, 28, Washington: American Association for the Advancement of Science.Google Scholar
  2. Acs, Z., Audretsch, D. (1990): Innovation and Small Firms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Acs, Z.A., Arenius, P., Hay, M., Minniti, M. (2005): Global Entrepreneurship Monitor. 2004 Executive Report. Babson Park, MA and London: Babson College and London Business School.Google Scholar
  4. Almus, M., Engel, D., Prantl, S. (2000): The Mannheim Foundation Panels of the Centre for European Economic Research (ZEW). Mannheim: Centre for European Economic Research.Google Scholar
  5. Amable, B., Verspagen, B. (1995): The Role of Technology in Market Shares Dynamics. In: Applied Economics, 27, pp. 197-204.Google Scholar
  6. Amable, B., Barré, R., Boyer, R. (1997): Les Systèmes d’Innovation à l’Ere de la Globalisation. Paris: Economica.Google Scholar
  7. Ammermüller, A., Dohmen, D. (2003): Individuelle und soziale Renditen von Bildungsinvestitionen. Studien zum deutschen Innovationssystem, 1-2004, Köln.Google Scholar
  8. Anker, R. (1997): Theories of Occupational Segregation by Sex. An Overview. In: International Labour Review, 136 (3).Google Scholar
  9. Archibugi, D., Howells, J., Michie, J. (1999): Innovation Policy in a Global Economy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Arundel, A., Patel, P. (2003): Strategic Patenting. Background Report for the Trend Chart Policy Benchmarking Workshop ‘New Trends in IPR Policy’.Google Scholar
  11. Arvanitis, S., von Arx, J., Hollenstein, H., Sydow, N. (2004): Innovationsaktivitäten in der Schweizer Wirtschaft. Eine Analyse der Ergebnisse der Innovationserhebung 2002. In: Strukturberichterstattung, 24, Bern: Staatssekretariat für Wirtschaft.Google Scholar
  12. Arvanitis, S., Hollenstein, H., Marmet, D., Sydow, N. (2005): Forschungs- und Technologiestandort Schweiz: Stärken-/Schwächenprofil im internationalen Vergleich. Strukturberichterstattung No. 32, Bern: State Secretariat for Economic Affairs - Economic Policy Directorate.Google Scholar
  13. Audretsch, D.B., Mahmood, T. (1995): New Firm Survival: New Results Using a Hazard Function. In: Review of Economics and Statistics, 77, pp. 97-103.Google Scholar
  14. Audretsch, D.B., Bozeman, B., Combs, K.L., Feldman, M., Link, A.N., Siegel, D.S., Stephan, P., Tassey, G., Wessner, C. (2002): The Economics of Science and Technology. In: The Journal of Technology Transfer, 27, pp. 155-203.Google Scholar
  15. Australian Bureau of Statistics (2005): Innovation in Australian Business. Melbourne: ABS.Google Scholar
  16. Balassa, B. (1965): Trade Liberalization and Revealed Comparative Advantage. In: The Manchester School of Economic and Social Studies, 33, pp. 99-123.Google Scholar
  17. Becker, G.S. (1995): Human Capital and Poverty Alleviation. Working Papers HROWP (World Bank, Human Resources Development and Operations Policy), 52.Google Scholar
  18. Beicht, U., Walden, G., Herget, H. (2004a): Costs and Benefits of In-Company Vocational Education and Training in Germany. Bielefeld: Bundesinstitut für Berufsbildung.Google Scholar
  19. Beicht, U., Walden, G., Herget, H. (2004b): Kosten und Nutzen der betrieblichen Berufsausbildung in Deutschland. Berichte zur Beruflichen Bildung, H. 264, Bielefeld.Google Scholar
  20. Beicht, U. et al. (2003): Technische Berufe im dualen System der Berufsausbildung - Stellenwert und Entwicklungstendenzen. Studien zum deutschen Innovationssystem, 3-2003. Bonn (http://technologische-leistungsfaehigkeit.de/pub/3_2003.pdf ).
  21. Beise, M. (2001): Lead Markets: Country-Specific Success Factors of the Global Diffusion of Innovations. Heidelberg: Physika-Verlag.Google Scholar
  22. Beise, M., Belitz, H. (1999): Internationalisation of R&D in Multinational Enterprises: The German Perspective. In: Barrell, R., Pain, N. (eds.), Innovation, Investment and Diffusion of Technology in Europe. German Direct Investment and Economic Growth in Postwar Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 89-119.Google Scholar
  23. Beise, M., Belitz, H. (1998): Trends in the Internationalisation of R&D - the German Perspective. In: Vierteljahrsheft des DIW, 2, Berlin: DIW, pp. 67-85.Google Scholar
  24. Belitz, H. (2004a): Forschung und Entwicklung in multinationalen Unternehmen. Studien zum deutschen Innovationssystem, 8-2004. Berlin.Google Scholar
  25. Belitz, H. (2004b): Foreign Companies Expand Research and Development in Germany. In: Economic Bulletin, 41 (6), 2004, pp. 199-204.Google Scholar
  26. Belitz, H. (2002): Germany as a Location for Research and Development by Multinational Companies. In: Economic Bulletin, 39 (5), pp. 175-180.Google Scholar
  27. Belitz, H. (2000): German Companies Intensify their Research and Development Activities Abroad. In: DIW Economic Bulletin, 37 (6), June 2000, pp. 175-182.Google Scholar
  28. Bertschek, I., Kaiser, U. (2004): Productivity Effects of Organizational Change: Microeconometric Evidence. In: Management Science, 50 (3), pp. 394-404.Google Scholar
  29. Biersack, W. (2002): Überblick zur Beschäftigung und Arbeitslosigkeit von Frauen nach Berufen. In: Engelbrech, G. (ed.): Arbeitsmarktchancen für Frauen. Nürnberg, BeitrAB 258, pp. 127-144.Google Scholar
  30. Biersack, W. et al. (2001): Arbeitssituation, Tätigkeitsprofil und Qualifikationsstruktur von Personengruppen des Arbeitsmarktes. Ergebnisse der BIBB/IAB-Erhebung 1998/1999 im Überblick. Nürnberg, BeitrAB 248.Google Scholar
  31. Blind, K., Frietsch, R. (2003): Sector-Based Multidimensional Forecasting Model (SEFORM). Report to the European Patent Office Within the Research Programme: Improvement of Methods for Forecasting Patent Filings. Karlsruhe: Fraunhofer ISI.Google Scholar
  32. Blind, K., Edler, J., Frietsch, R., Schmoch, U. (2004): The Patent Upsurge in Germany: The Outcome of a Multi-motive Game Induced by Large Companies. Working Paper presented at the 8th Schumpeter Conference in Milano. Karlsruhe: Fraunhofer ISI.Google Scholar
  33. Blind, K., Edler, J., Frietsch, R., Schmoch, U. (2003a): Erfindungen kontra Patente. Schwerpunktstudie ‘Zur technologischen Leistungsfähigkeit Deutschlands’. Karlsruhe: Fraunhofer ISI.Google Scholar
  34. Blind, K., Edler, J., Schmoch, U., Andersen, B., Howells, J., Miles, I., Roberts, J., Hipp, C., Green, L., Herstatt, C., Evangelista, R. (2003b): Patents in the Service Industries. Final Report. Brussels: European Commission (ed.).Google Scholar
  35. Bloningen, B.A., Davies, R.B., Head, K. (2002): Estimating the Knowledge-Capital Model of the Multinational Enterprise: Comment. NBER Working Paper, No. 8929, May.Google Scholar
  36. Changing Educational Careers in the Federal Republic of Germany. A Longitudinal Study of Three Birth Cohorts. In: Sociology of Education, 63, pp. 165-177.Google Scholar
  37. BMBF (2005): Berufsbildungsbericht 2005. Bonn, Berlin: BMBF.Google Scholar
  38. BMBF (2004a): Bundesbericht Forschung 2004. Berlin: Federal Ministry of Education and Research, Germany.Google Scholar
  39. BMBF (2004b): Zukunftsnavigation. Jugend und Ausbildung. Broschüre zum Jahr der Technik. Bonn, Berlin: BMBFGoogle Scholar
  40. BMBF (ed.) (2002): Germany’s Technological Performance 2001. Bonn: BMBF.Google Scholar
  41. BMBWK; BMVIT; BMWA (eds.) (2005): Österreichischer Forschungs- und Technologiebericht 2005. Vienna: Federal Ministry of Education, Science and Culture.Google Scholar
  42. BMWA (2004): Wirtschaftsbericht 2004. Zukunftsfaktor Innovation. Berlin: Federal Ministry of Economics and Labour.Google Scholar
  43. Borga, M., Mann, M. (2003): U.S. International Services, Cross-border Trade and Sales Through Affiliates in 2001. In: Survey of Current Business, October, pp. 58-118.Google Scholar
  44. Boskin, M.J., Lau, L.J. (1992): Capital, Technology, and Economic Growth. In: Rosenberg, N., Landau, R., Mowery, D.C. (eds.): Technology and the Wealth of Nations. Stanford: Stanford University Press, pp. 17-55.Google Scholar
  45. Boutellier, R. et al. (1999): Managing Global Innovation. Uncovering the Secrets of Future Competitiveness. Berlin et al.: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  46. BPM5 (1993): Balance of Payments Manual 1993. 5th edition. International Monetary Fund.Google Scholar
  47. Brenner, H. (1997): Entwicklung anerkannter Ausbildungsberufe. Fortschreibung überkommener Regelungen oder Definition zukunftsbezogener Ausbildungsgänge? In: Euler, D., Sloane P.F.E. (eds.): Duales System im Umbruch. Eine Bestandsaufnahme der Modernisierungsdebatte. Pfaffenweiler, pp. 53-69.Google Scholar
  48. Bresnahan, T.F., Brynjolfsson, E., Hitt, L.M. (2002): Information Technology, Workplace Organization, and the Demand for Skilled Labor. Firm-Level Evidence. In: Quarterly Journal of Economics, 117 (1), pp. 339-376.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  49. Bresnahan, T.F., Greenstein, S. (1998): Technical Progress and Co-Invention in Computing and in the Uses of Computers. In: Brookings Papers on Economic Activity: Microeconomics, pp. 1-77.Google Scholar
  50. Bresnahan, T.F., Trajtenberg, M. (1995): General Purpose Technologies: ‘Engines of Growth’? In: Journal of Econometrics, 65 (1), pp. 83-108.Google Scholar
  51. Brynjolfsson, E., Hitt, L.M. (2000): Beyond Computation: Information Technology, Organizational Transformation and Business Performance. In: Journal of Economic Perspectives, 14 (4), pp. 23-48.Google Scholar
  52. Buck, H., Kistler, E., Mendius, H.G. (2002): Demographischer Wandel in der Arbeitswelt. Stuttgart: IRB Verlag.Google Scholar
  53. Bund-Länder Commission for Educational Planning and Research Promotion (BLK) (2002): Zukunft von Bildung und Arbeit - Perspektiven von Arbeitskräftebedarf und -angebot bis 2015. Bonn: Bericht der BLK an die Regierungschefs von Bund und Ländern.Google Scholar
  54. Bürgel, O., Fier, A., Licht, G., Murray, G. (2004): The Internationalisation of Young High-tech Firms. Heidelberg, New York: Physica.Google Scholar
  55. Cantwell, J. (1995): The Globalisation of Technology: What Remains of the Product Life Cycle model. In: Cambridge Journal of Economics, 19 (1), pp. 155-174.Google Scholar
  56. Cantwell, J., Kosmopoulou, E. (2001): What Determines the Internationalisation of Corporate Technology. In: Forsgren, M. et al. (eds): Critical Perspectives on Internationalisation. mimeo.Google Scholar
  57. Cantwell, J., Janne, O. (1999): Technological Globalisation and Innovation Centres: the Role of Corporate Technological Leadership and Locational Hierarchy. In: Research Policy, 28, pp. 119-144.Google Scholar
  58. Cantwell, J., Harding, R. (1998): The Internationalisation of German Companies R&D. In: National Institute Economic Review, 163, pp. 99-124.Google Scholar
  59. Cap Gemini (2004): Online Availability of Public Services: How Does Europe Progress? WebBased Survey on Electronic Public Services. Report of the Fourth Measurement. October 2003 (http://europa.eu.int/information_society/eeurope/2005/index_en.htm).
  60. Cassiman, B., Ueda, M. (2002): Optimal Project Rejection and New Firm Startups. mimeo, IESE Business School.Google Scholar
  61. Cefis, E., Marsili, O. (2004): A Matter of Life and Death: Innovation and Firm Survival. mimeo, Utrecht School of Economics, Utrecht University.Google Scholar
  62. Clough, G.W. (2003): National Priorities for Science and Technology: A View from the Academic Sector. In: AAAS (ed.), Science and Technology Policy Yearbook 2003. Washington, pp. 23-42.Google Scholar
  63. Cohen, W.M., Levinthal, D.A. (1990): Absorptive Capacity: A New Perspective on Learning and Innovation. In: Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, pp. 128-152.Google Scholar
  64. Cohen, W.M., Levinthal, D.A. (1989): Innovation and Learning: The Two Faces of R&D. In: Economic Journal, 99, pp. 569-596.Google Scholar
  65. Cohen, W.M., Goto, A., Nagata, A., Nelson, R.R., Walsh, J.P. (2002): R&D Spillovers, Patents and the Incentives to Innovate in Japan and the United States. In: Research Policy, 31, pp. 1349-1367.Google Scholar
  66. Coombs, R. (2003): The Changing Character of ‘Service Innovation’ and the Emergence of ‘Knowledge-Intensive Business Services’. In: Dankbaar, B. (ed.): Innovation Management in the Knowledge Economy. London: Imperial College Press, pp. 83-96.Google Scholar
  67. Cowan, R., van de Paal, G. (2000): Innovation Policy in a Knowledge-Based Economy. Brussels and Luxembourg: ECSC-EC-EAEC.Google Scholar
  68. Criscuolo, P., Narula, R., Verspagen, B. (2001): Measuring Knowledge Flows Among European and American Multinationals: A Patent Citation Analysis. Eindhoven: Eindhoven Centre for Innovation Studies (Ecis).Google Scholar
  69. Curzio, A.Q., Fortis, M., Zoboli, R. (eds.) (1994): Innovation, Resources and Economic Growth. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  70. Dalton, D.H., Serapio, M.G. (1999): Globalizing Industrial Research and Development. U.S. Department of Commerce, Technology Administration. Washington D.C.: Office of Technology Policy.Google Scholar
  71. Deissinger, T. (2004): Apprenticeship Systems in England and Germany: Decline and Survival. In: Greinert, W.D.; Hanf, G. (eds.): Towards a History of Vocational Education and Training in Europe in a Comparative Perspective. Luxembourg: Cedefop Panorama Series, 103, pp. 28-45.Google Scholar
  72. Dernis, H., Kahn, M. (2004): Triadic Patent Families Methodology. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  73. DEST (2003): Mapping Australian Science and Innovation. Canberra: Department of Education, Science and Training.Google Scholar
  74. Deutsche Bundesbank (2004): The Significance of Information and Communication Technology. In: Monthly Report April, pp. 45-55.Google Scholar
  75. DIHK (ed.) (2005): FuE-Verlagerung: Innovationsstandort Deutschland auf dem Prüfstand, Berlin: DIHK.Google Scholar
  76. DIW (1988): Exportgetriebener Strukturwandel bei schwachem Wachstum. Analyse der strukturellen Entwicklung der deutschen Wirtschaft - Strukturberichterstattung 1987. In: DIWBeiträge zur Strukturforschung, Heft 103.Google Scholar
  77. Dohmen, D. (2005): Deutschlands Bildungssystem im internationalen Vergleich vor dem Hintergrund der technologischen Leistungsfähigkeit. Auswertung der OECD-Studie ‘Bildung auf einen Blick’. Studie für den Bericht zur technologischen Leistungsfähigkeit, 2-2005, Köln.Google Scholar
  78. Dohmen, D. (1999): Ausbildungskosten, Ausbildungsförderung und Familienlastenausgleich (Educational Cost, Student Support and Family Allowances). Eine ökonomische Analyse unter Berücksichtigung rechtlicher Rahmenbedingungen. Berlin.Google Scholar
  79. Dohmen, D., Hoi, M. (2004): Bildungsaufwand in Deutschland - eine erweiterte Konzeption des Bildungsbudgets. Studien zum deutschen Innovationssystem, 3-2004, Köln.Google Scholar
  80. Dohmen, D., Abraham H. (2003): Die Entwicklung der bildungspolitischen SituationGoogle Scholar
  81. Deutschlands im internationalen Vergleich. Gutachten im Auftrag des Bundesministeriums für Bildung und Forschung. Studien zum deutschen Innovationssystem, 19-2003, unpublished, Köln.Google Scholar
  82. Dorsch-Schweizer, M. (2004): Die Ambivalenz moderner Beruflichkeit für Frauen. In: Berufsbildung in Wissenschaft und Praxis (BWP), 33 (5), pp. 43-46.Google Scholar
  83. Dosi, G., Pavitt, K., Soete, L. (1990): The Economics of Technical Change and International Trade. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar
  84. DTI (2003): Innovation Report. Competing in the Global Economy: the Innovation Challenge. London: Department of Trade and Industry.Google Scholar
  85. Dunning, J. (1979): Explaining Changing Patterns of International Production. Defence of the Eclectic Theory. In: Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 41 (4), pp. 269-295.Google Scholar
  86. Dunning, J., Wymbs, C. (1999): The Geographical Sourcing of Technology-Based Assets by Multinational Enterprises. In: Archibugi, D. et al. (eds.): Innovation Policy in a Global Economy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  87. Edler, J. (2004): International Research Strategies of Multinational Enterprises: A German Perspective. In: Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 71, special issue ‘Science Policy and Innovation Systems’, ed. by Heitor, M. et al., pp. 599-621.Google Scholar
  88. Edler, J. (2003): Germany and the Internationalisation of Industrial R&D. New Trends and Old Patterns. In: Canwell, J., Molero, J. (eds.): Multinational Enterprises, Innovative Strategies and Systems of Innovation. Cheltenham, UK, Northampton, USA: Edward Elgar, pp. 105-128.Google Scholar
  89. Edler, J., Kuhlmann, S. (2005): Towards One System? The European Research Area Initiative, the Integration of Research Systems and the Changing Leeway of National Policies. In: Technikfolgenabschätzung - Theorie und Praxis, 14 (1), pp. 59-68.Google Scholar
  90. Edler, J., Döhrn, R., Rothgang, M. (2003): Internationalisierung industrieller Forschung und grenzüberschreitendes Wissensmanagement. Eine empirische Analyse aus der Perspektive des Standortes Deutschland. Fraunhofer ISI Series No. 54. Heidelberg: Physica.Google Scholar
  91. Edler, J., Meyer-Krahmer, F., Reger, G. (2001): Managing Technology in the Top R&D Spending Companies Worldwide - Results of a Global Survey. In: Engineering Management Journal, 13 (1), special issue of the ‘Managing High Technology Research Organizations’, pp. 5-11.Google Scholar
  92. Edquist, C. (ed.) (1997): Systems of Innovation. Technologies, Institutions and Organizations. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
  93. Egeln, J., Gottschalk, S., Rammer, C., Spielkamp, A. (2003): Public Research Spin-offs in Germany. ZEW Documentation 03-04, summary report, Mannheim: Centre for European Economic Research.Google Scholar
  94. EITO (2005): European Information Technology Observatory 2005. Frankfurt: EITO.Google Scholar
  95. EITO (2004): European Information Technology Observatory 2004. Frankfurt: EITO.Google Scholar
  96. Engel, D.; Fryges, H. (2002): Aufbereitung und Angebot der ZEW Gründungsindikatoren. ZEW Dokumentation Nr. 02-01. Mannheim: Centre for European Economic Research.Google Scholar
  97. EPO (2005): Annual Report 2004. Munich: EPO.Google Scholar
  98. EPO, JPO, USPTO (2004): Trilateral Statistical Report - Edition 2003. Munich, Tokyo, Alexandria, VA: EPO, JPO, USPTO.Google Scholar
  99. Ertl, H., Sloane, P.F.E. (2004): The German Training System and the World of Work: The Transfer Potential of the Lernfeldkonzept. In: bwp@, issue 7 (http://www.bwpat.de/7eu/ertl _sloane_de_bwpat7.pdf).
  100. European Commission (2005): European Innovation Scoreboard. http://trendchart.cordis.lu.
  101. European Commission (2004): European Innovation Scoreboard 2004. Comparative Analysis of Innovation Performance. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities, pp. 1475.Google Scholar
  102. European Commission (2003a): Raising EU R&D Intensity. Improving the Effectiveness of the Mix of Public Support Mechanisms for Private Sector Research and Development. Fiscal Measures. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  103. European Commission (2003b): Commission Staff Working Paper. Investing in Research: An Action Plan for Europe. Brussels: European Commission, p. 489.Google Scholar
  104. European Commission (2003c): Science and Technology Policies in Europe: New Challenges and New Responses. Final report from the STRATA Consolidating Workshop. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  105. European Commission (2002): Corporate Tax and Innovation. In: Innovation Papers, 19, Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  106. European Commission (2000): Towards a European Research Area - Communication from the Commission to the Council. The European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  107. European Commission (1997): Second European Report on Science & Technology Indicators. Luxemburg, Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  108. European Commission (1995): Action Plan for Innovation in Europe. Innovation for Growth and Employment. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  109. European Council (2004): Allgemeine und berufliche Bildung 2010 - Die Dringlichkeit von Reformen für den Erfolg der Lissabon-Strategie. Brussels: European Council, pp. 1-43.Google Scholar
  110. European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (2002): Quality of Women’s Work and Employment. Tools for Change. Foundation Paper No. 3, December 2002, Luxembourg.Google Scholar
  111. Eurostat (2004): Business Demography in Europe. Results for 10 Member States and Norway. Data 1997-2001. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Commission.Google Scholar
  112. Eurostat (ed.) (2003): High Tech Industries and Knowledge Based Services. Doc. ESTAT/A4/ STI/-May 03/4.4. To be presented in Luxembourg on 7 and 8 May 2003.Google Scholar
  113. Fagerberg, J. (1997): Competitiveness, Scale and R&D. In: Fagerberg, J., Hansson, P., Lundberg, L., Melchior, A. (eds.): Technology and Trade. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  114. Fagerberg, J. (1988): International Competitiveness. In: Economic Journal, 98, pp. 355-374.Google Scholar
  115. Federal Agency of Labour (BA) (various years): Statistik der sozialversicherungspflichtigen Beschäftigten.Google Scholar
  116. Federal Statistical Office Germany (2002): Studentenstatistik 2002.Google Scholar
  117. Federal Statistical Office Germany (various years): Hauptberichte 1993-2002.Google Scholar
  118. Federal Statistical Office Germany (1992): Klassifizierung der Berufe. Systematisches und alphabetisches Verzeichnis der Berufsbenennungen. Stuttgart: Metzler-Poeschel.Google Scholar
  119. Federal Statistical Office Germany (various years): Nicht-monetäre hochschulstatistische Kennzahlen 1980-1997 und 1980-2000. In: Bildung und Kultur, Fachserie 11, Reihe 4.3.1, Wiesbaden.Google Scholar
  120. Florida, R. (1997): The Globalization of R&D: Results of a Survey of Foreign-Affiliated R&D Laboratories in the USA. In: Research Policy, 26; pp. 85-103.Google Scholar
  121. Freeman, C. (1987): Technology Policy and Economic Performance: Lessons from Japan. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
  122. Freeman, C. (1982): The Economics of Industrial Innovation. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
  123. Freeman, C., Soete, L. (1997): The Economics of Industrial Innovation. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
  124. Frier, A., Czarnitzki, D. (2004): Zum Stand der empirischen Wirkungsanalyse der öffentlichen Innovations- und Forschungsförderung. Mannheim: ZEW, unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  125. Frietsch, R. (2004a): Combining Databases for Forecasting Purposes. Patents and Further Economic Data. Paper presented at the WIPO-OECD Workshop on the Use of Patent Statistics, 11th/12th October 2004, Geneva.Google Scholar
  126. Frietsch, R. (2004b): Intensivierung von Bildungsabschlüssen zwischen 1970 und 2000, Analysen im Rahmen der jährlichen Berichterstattung zur technologischen Leistungsfähigkeit Deutschlands. Studien zum deutschen Innovationssystem, 4-2004, Bonn.Google Scholar
  127. Frietsch, R., Gehrke, B. (2004): Bildungs- und Qualifikationsstrukturen in Deutschland und Europa. Studien zum deutschen Innovationssystem, 3-2005. Karlsruhe, Hannover:Google Scholar
  128. Fraunhofer ISI, NIW.Google Scholar
  129. Frommberger, D., Reinisch, H. (2004): Development of Disparate Structures of Dutch and German Vocational Education. In: Greinert, W.D., Hanf, G. (eds.): Towards a History of Vocational Education and Training in Europe in a Comparative Perspective. In: Cedefop Panorama Series, 103, Luxembourg, pp. 28-45.Google Scholar
  130. Fryges, H. (2004): Stepping In and Out of the International Market: Internationalisation of Technology-Oriented Firms in Germany and the UK. ZEW Discussion Paper 04-65, Mannheim: ZEW.Google Scholar
  131. Fuchs, M. (1994): Forschungslinien im Maschinenbau. Relevanzstrukturen der technikwissenschaftlichen Forschung an Hochschulen. In: Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 23 (1), pp. 41-55.Google Scholar
  132. Fuchs, J., Söhnlein, D., Weber, B. (2004): Konsequenzen des demografischen Wandels für den Arbeitsmarkt der Zukunft. Herausforderung demografischer Wandel! Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, GWV Fachverlage GmbH, pp. 122-139.Google Scholar
  133. Fuente de la, A., Ciccione, A. (2002): Human Capital in a Global and Knowledge-Based Economy. Luxembourg: European Commission.Google Scholar
  134. Gallouj, F. (2002): Innovation in Services and the Attendant Old and New Myths. In: Journal of Socio-Economics, 31.Google Scholar
  135. Gallouj, F. (1997): Towards a Neo-Schumpeterian Theory of Innovation in Services? In: Science and Public Policy, 24 (6), pp. 405-420.Google Scholar
  136. Geroski, P.A. (1991): Market Dynamics and Entry. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  137. Geroski, P.A., Mata, J., Portugal, P. (2002): Founding Conditions and the Survival of New Firms. mimeo.Google Scholar
  138. Glänzel, W., Schubert, A. (2004): Analysing Scientific Networks Through Co-authorship. In: Moed, H.F., Glänzel, W., Schmoch, U. (eds.): Handbook of Quantitative Science and Technology Research. The Use of Publication and Patent Statistics in Studies of S&T Systems. Dordrecht, Boston, London: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 257-276.Google Scholar
  139. Glänzel, W., de Lange, C. (2002): A Distributional Approach to Multinational Measures of International Scientific Collaboration. In: Scientometrics, 54, pp. 75-89.Google Scholar
  140. Gokhberg, L., Kouznetsova. I.et al. (2004): Indicators of Innovation. Data Book. Moscow: State University - Higher School of Economics.Google Scholar
  141. Gompers, P., Lerner, J., Scharfstein, D. (2003): Entrepreneurial Spawning: Public Corporations and the Genesis of New Ventures, 1986-1999. NBER Working Paper No. 9816.Google Scholar
  142. Gomulka, S. (1990): The Theory of Technological Change and Economic Growth. London, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  143. Granato, M., Schittenhelm, K. (2004): Junge Frauen: Bessere Schulabschlüsse - aber weniger Chancen beim Übergang in die Berufsausbildung. In: Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte, B28, pp. 31-39.Google Scholar
  144. Grandstrand, O. (1999): Internationalisation of Corporate R&D: A Study of Japanese and Swedish Corporations. In: Research Policy, 28; pp. 275-302.Google Scholar
  145. Granstrand, O., Patel, P.; Pavitt, K. (1997): Multi-technology Corporations: Why they have ‘Distinctive Core’ Competencies. In: California Management Review, 39, pp. 8-25.Google Scholar
  146. Greinert, W.D., Hanf, G. (eds.) (2004): Towards a History of Vocational Education and Training in Europe in a Comparative Perspective. In: Cedefop Panorama Series, 103, Luxembourg.Google Scholar
  147. Grenzmann, Chr. (2004): Forschung und Entwicklung in der Wirtschaft - Die FuE-Statistik des Wirtschaftssektors. In: Legler, H., Grenzmann, Chr. (eds.): Forschung und Entwicklung in der deutschen Wirtschaft. Materialien zur Wissenschaftsstatistik, 13, Essen: SV Wissenschaftsstatistik, pp. 7-17.Google Scholar
  148. Grömling, M. (2004): Weniger Volk, weniger Wohlstand? Die Auswirkungen des demographischen Wandels auf das Wirtschaftswachstum. In: Wirtschaftswissenschaftliches Studium, 11, pp. 640-646.Google Scholar
  149. Grupp, H. (1998): Foundations of the Economics of Innovation - Theory, Measurement and Practice. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  150. Grupp, H., Jungmittag, A. (1999): Convergence in Global High Technology? A Decomposition and Specialisation Analysis for Advanced Countries. In: Jahrbücher für Nationalökonomie und Statistik, 218 (5+6).Google Scholar
  151. Grupp, H., Schmoch, U. (1992): Wissensbindung von Technik. Panorama der internationalen Entwicklung und sektorales Tableau für Deutschland, Heidelberg: Physica.Google Scholar
  152. Grupp, H., Schmoch, U., Hinze, S. (2001): International Alignment and Scientific Regard as Macro-indicators for International Comparisons of Publications. In: Scientometrics, 51 (2), pp. 359-380.Google Scholar
  153. Grupp, H., Legler, H., Jungmittag, A., Schmoch, U. (2000): Hochtechnologie 2000.Google Scholar
  154. Neudefinition der Hochtechnologie für die Berichterstattung zur technologischen Leistungsfähigkeit Deutschlands. Karlsruhe and Hannover: Fraunhofer-ISI and NIW.Google Scholar
  155. Gundlach, E., Wößmann, L. (2003): Bildungsressourcen, Bildungsinstitutionen und Bildungsqualität: Makroökonomische Relevanz und mikroökonomische Evidenz. Kiel.Google Scholar
  156. Günterberg, B., Kayser, G. (2004): SMEs in Germany. Facts and Figures 2004. In: IfMMaterialien, 161, Bonn: Institute for SME Research.Google Scholar
  157. Gustavsson, P., Hansson, P., Lundberg, L. (1997): Technical Progress, Capital Accumulation and Changing International Competitiveness. In: Fagerberg, J., Hansson, P., Lundberg, L., Melchior, A. (eds.): Technology and Trade. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  158. Hall, B.H., Ziedonis, R.M. (2001): The Patent Paradox Revisited: An Empirical Study of Patenting in the U.S. Semiconductor Industry, 1979-1995. In: The Rand Journal of Economics, 32 (1), pp. 101-128.Google Scholar
  159. Hall, B.H., van Reenen, J. (2000): How Effective Are Fiscal Incentives for R&D? A Review of the Evidence. In: Research Policy 29, 449-469.Google Scholar
  160. Hammer, M. (1990): Reengineering Work: Don’t Automate, Obliterate. In: Harvard Business Review, 68 (4), pp. 104-112.Google Scholar
  161. Harhoff, D., Stahl, K., Woywode, M. (1998): Legal Form, Growth and Exit of West German Firms - Empirical Results for Manufacturing, Construction, Trade and Service Industries. In: Journal of Industrial Economics, 46, pp. 453-488.Google Scholar
  162. Hartung, S., Leber, U. (2004): Betriebliche Ausbildung und wirtschaftliche Lage. Empirische Ergebnisse des IAB-Betriebspanels. In: Krekel, E., Walden, G. (eds.): Zukunft der Berufsausbildung in Deutschland. Ergebnisse der BIBB-Fachtagung am 4./5. November 2003 in Bonn. Bielefeld: BIBB, pp. 111-129.Google Scholar
  163. Hatzichronoglou, T. (1997): Revision of the High-technology Sector and Product Classification. In: STI Working Paper, 1997 (2), OECD/GD(97)216, Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  164. Hempell, T. (2005a): Does Experience Matter? Innovation and the Productivity of ICT in German Services. In: Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 14 (4), pp. 277-303.Google Scholar
  165. Hempell, T. (2005b): Computers and Productivity - How Firms Make a General Purpose Technology Work. In: ZEW Economic Studies, 33, Heidelberg: Physica.Google Scholar
  166. Hempell, T. (2004): Einsatz von Informations- und Kommunikationstechnologien 2003. Studien zum deutschen Innovationssystem, 13-2005, Mannheim: Centre for European Economic Research.Google Scholar
  167. Hempell, T., Vanberg, M., Schäfer, A., Ohnemus, J. (2005): Benchmark ‘Internationale Telekommunikationsmärkte’. Report for the Federal Ministry of Economics and Labour (BMWA), Mannheim: ZEW (ftp://ftp.zew.de/pub/zew-docs/gutachten/Benchmark_Telekommunikation.pdf ).
  168. Heublein, U., Schmelzer, R., Sommer, D. (2005): Studienabbbruchstudie 2005. Die Studienabbrecherquoten in den Fächergruppen und Studienbereichen der Universitäten und Fachhochschulen. Hannover: HIS-Kurzinformation A 1 /2005.Google Scholar
  169. Heublein, U., Spangenberg, H., Sommer, D. (2003): Ursachen des Studienabbruchs. Analyse. Hannover: HIS-Hochschulplanung, Bd. 163.Google Scholar
  170. HIS (2000): HIS-Workshop OECD-Bildungsindikatoren. Methoden und Ergebnisse des internationalen Bildungsvergleichs. Hannover: HIS-Kurzinformation A4/2000.Google Scholar
  171. Ietto-Gillies, G. (2000): What Role for Multinationals in the New Theories of International Trade and Location. In: International Review of Applied Economics, 14 (4), pp. 413-426.Google Scholar
  172. Ijichi, T., Iwasa, T., Odagiri, H., Keira, H., Koga, T., Goto, A., Tawara, Y., Nagata, A., Hirano Y. (2004): Statistics on Innovation in Japan. Report on the Japanese National Innovation Survey 2003 (J-NIS 2003), selected tables, Tokio: National Institute of Science and Technology Policy.Google Scholar
  173. ILO Cinterfor (2001): Decent Work and Vocational Training. Montevideo: ILO Cinterfor (http://www.cinterfor.org.uy/public/english/region/ampro/cinterfor/publ/sala/dec_work/index.htm).
  174. Jaffe, A.B., Lerner, J., Stern, S. (eds.) (2002): Innovation Policy and the Economy. Vol. 3, Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  175. Janz, N., Ebling, G., Gottschalk, S., Peters, B., Rammer, C., Schmidt, T. (2002): Innovationsverhalten der deutschen Wirtschaft. Indikatorenbericht zur Innovationserhebung 2001. Mannheim.Google Scholar
  176. Janz, N., Licht, G., Doherr, T. (2001): Innovation Activities and European Patenting of German Firms: A Panel Data Analysis. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the European Association of Research in Industrial Economics.Google Scholar
  177. Jorgenson, D. (2005): Accounting for Growth in the Information Age. In: Aghion P.; Durlauf, S. (eds.): Handbook of Economic Growth. Amsterdam, North-Holland (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  178. Kash, D.E., Kingston, W. (2001): Patents in a World of Complex Technologies. In: Science and Public Policy, 28 (1), pp. 11-22.Google Scholar
  179. Katz, J.S., Martin, B.R. (1997): What is Research Collaboration? In: Research Policy, 26, pp. 1-18.Google Scholar
  180. Kazemzadeh, F., Teichgräber, M. (1998): Europäische Hochschulsysteme. Ein Vergleich anhand statistischer Indikatoren. Hannover: HIS Hochschulplanung, Bd. 132.Google Scholar
  181. Kf W-Bankengruppe (2004): Kf W-Gründungsmonitor 2004. Gründungen aus der Arbeitslosigkeit gewinnen an Bedeutung. Frankfurt/M.: KfW-Bankengruppe.Google Scholar
  182. Klodt, H., Mauer, R.; Schimmelpfenning, A. (1997): Tertiarisierung der deutschen Wirtschaft. Kiel: Mohr Siebeck.Google Scholar
  183. KMK (2003): Fächerspezifische Prognose der deutschen Hochschulabsolventen. In: KMK Statistische Veröffentlichungen, 168.Google Scholar
  184. Kölling, A., Schank, T. (2002): Skill-Biased Technological Change, International Trade and the Wage Structure. Discussion papers No. 14. Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg.Google Scholar
  185. Koopmann, G., Münnich, F. (1999): National und International Developments in Technology. In: INTERECONOMICS, 34 (6), pp. 267-278.Google Scholar
  186. Kortum, S., Lerner, J. (1999): What is Behind the Recent Surge in Patenting? In: Research Policy, 28, pp. 1-22.Google Scholar
  187. Krekel, E.M, Troltsch, K, Ulrich J.G. (2003): Betriebliche Ausbildungsbeteiligung bei schwieriger Wirtschaftslage. BIBB startet neues Forschungsprojekt. In: Berufsbildung in Wissenschaft und Praxis (BWP), 32, special edition ‘Jugendliche in Ausbildung bringen’, pp. 13-16.Google Scholar
  188. Krekel, E.M., Troltsch, K., Ulrich J.G. (2004): Keine Besserung in Sicht? Zur aktuellen Lage auf dem Ausbildungsstellenmarkt. In: Berufsbildung in Wissenschaft und Praxis (BWP), 33 (3), pp. 11-14.Google Scholar
  189. Kuhlmann, S., Arnold, E. (2001): RCN in the Norwegian Research and Innovation System. Synthesis Report in the Evaluation of the Research Council of Norway. Karlsruhe: Fraunhofer ISI.Google Scholar
  190. Kumar, N. (2001): Determinants of Location of Overseas R&D Activity of Multinational Enterprises: The Case of US and Japanese Corporations. In: Research Policy, 31, pp. 159-174.Google Scholar
  191. Kutscha, G. (2000): General Education and Initial Vocational Training in Germany. The ‘Flexicurity Route’ of Modernization under Aspects of Flexibility, Transferability and Mobility. A contribution to COST A11, working group 1: VET policy (Draft Ku-COST1, Ver2).Google Scholar
  192. Kutscha, G. (1999): Pluralisierung der Berufsbildung als Innovationsstrategie, Modernisierung der Qualifikationsentwicklung im Spannungsfeld von Regulierung und Deregulierung. In: Senatsverwaltung für Arbeit, Berufliche Bildung und Frauen (ed.): Expertisen für ein Berliner Memorandum zur Modernisierung der Beruflichen Bildung. Berlin, pp. 101-125.Google Scholar
  193. Laafia, I. (1999): Beschäftigung im Hochtechnologiebereich. In: Statistik kurz gefasst, Thema 9: Wissenschaft und Technologie, 1/1999. Luxembourg: Eurostat.Google Scholar
  194. Lafay, G. (1987): La Mesure des Avantages Comparatifs Révélés. In: Économie prospective internationale, 41.Google Scholar
  195. Larédo, P., Mustar, P. (eds.) (2001): Research and Innovation Policies in the New Global Economy. An International Comparative Analysis. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  196. Laudel, G. (2002): What Do We Measure by Co-authorship? In: Research Evaluation, 11, pp. 3-15.Google Scholar
  197. Legler, H. (1987): Zur internationalen Wettbewerbsfähigkeit der westdeutschen Wirtschaft. NIW-Forschungsbericht No. 3. Hannover: NIW.Google Scholar
  198. Legler, H., Grenzmann, Chr., Marquardt, R. (2003): Forschungs- und Entwicklungsaktivitäten der deutschen Wirtschaft. Studien zum deutschen Innovationssystem, 10-2004, Han-nover, Essen: BMBFGoogle Scholar
  199. Les Bas, CH., Sierra, CH. (2002): Location Versus Home Country Advantages in R&D Activities: Some Further Results on Multinationals Locational Strategies. In: Research Policy, 31, pp. 589-609.Google Scholar
  200. Licht, G., Moch, D. (1999): Innovation and Information Technology in Services. In: Canadian Journal of Economics, 32 (2), pp. 363-383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  201. Link, A.N., Scott, J.T. (2003): U.S. Science Parks: The Diffusion of an Innovation and Its Effects on the Academic Missions of Universities. In: International Journal of Industrial Organization, 21, pp. 1323-1356.Google Scholar
  202. Lockett, A., Wright, M., Franklin, S. (2003): Technology Transfer and Universities’ Spin-out Strategies. In: Small Business Economics, 20, pp. 185-200.Google Scholar
  203. Lucke, D., Schröder, P., Schumacher, D. (2004): R&D and Price Elasticity of Demand. In: DIW Discussion Paper No. 430, Berlin.Google Scholar
  204. Lundvall, B.-ǖ. (1990): National Systems of Innovation: Towards a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning, London: Pinter.Google Scholar
  205. Lundvall, B.-ǖ. (1988): Innovation as an Interactive Process: From User-Producer Interaction to the National System of Innovation. In: Dosi, G., Freeman, C., Nelson, R., Silverberg, G., Soete, L. (eds.): Technical Change and Economic Theory. London: Pinter, pp. 349-369.Google Scholar
  206. Lundvall, B.-Å., Tomlinson, M. (2001): Learning-by-Comparing: Reflections on the Use and Abuse of International Benchmarking. In: G. Sweeny (ed.): Innovation, Economic Progress and the Quality of Life. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 120-136.Google Scholar
  207. Lundvall, B.-Å. (ed.) (1992): National Systems of Innovation: Towards a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
  208. Machin, S. (2005): Skill-Biased Technical Change and Educational Outcomes. In: Johnes, G.; Johnes, J. (eds.): International Handbook on the Economics of Education. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 189-210.Google Scholar
  209. Marklund, G. (2000): Indicators of Innovation Activities in Services. In: Boden, M., Miles, I. (eds.): Services and the Knowledge Based Economy. London: Continuum, pp. 86-108.Google Scholar
  210. Markusen, J.R. (2001/2002): Integrating Multinational Firms into International Economics. In: NBER Reporter, winter 2001/2002, pp. 5-7.Google Scholar
  211. Mataloni, R.J. (2004): U.S. Multinational Companies, Operations in 2002. In: Survey of Current Business, July, pp. 10-29.Google Scholar
  212. Mataloni, R.J. (2003): U.S. Multinational Companies, Operations in 2001. In: Survey of Current Business, November, pp. 85-105.Google Scholar
  213. Mataloni, R.J., Yorgason, D.R. (2002): Operations of U.S. Multinational Companies. Pre-liminary Results from the 1999 Benchmark Survey. In: Survey of Current Business, March, pp. 24-54.Google Scholar
  214. MED (2003): Growth and Innovation Framework. Benchmark Indicators Report 2003. Wellington: Ministry of Economic Development.Google Scholar
  215. Mendonca, S., Pereira, T.S., Godinho, M.M. (2004): Trademarks as an Indicator of Innovation and Industrial Change. LEM Working Paper Series No. 2004/15, Pisa: Laboratory of Economics and Management, Sant’Anna School of Advanced Studies.Google Scholar
  216. Meyer-Krahmer, F., Reger, G. (1997): Konsequenzen veränderter industrieller FuE-Strategien für die nationale Forschungs- und Technologiepolitik. In: Gerybadze, A., Meyer-Krahmer, F., Reger, G.: Globales Management von Forschung und Innovation. Stuttgart: SchäfferPoeschel, pp. 196-215.Google Scholar
  217. Moed, H. (2005): Citation Analysis in Research Evaluation. Berlin et al.: Springer.Google Scholar
  218. Mowery, D.C., Rosenberg, N. (1989): Technology and the Pursuit of Economic Growth. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  219. Mowery, C.D., Nelson, R.R., Sampat, B., Ziedonis, A.A. (2001): The Growth of Patenting and Licensing by U.S. Universities: An Assessment of the Effects of the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980. In: Research Policy, 30, pp. 99-199.Google Scholar
  220. Narula, R. (2002): The Implications of Growing Cross-border Interdependence for Systems of Innovation. Maastricht: Maastricht Economic Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).Google Scholar
  221. Narula, R. (2000): Explaining Inertia in R&D Internationalisation: Norwegian Firms and the Role of Home Country Effects. MERIT Research Memoranda, 2000-021.Google Scholar
  222. Nelson, R.R. (2001): Observations on the Post-Bayh-Dole Rise of Patenting at American Universities. In: The Journal of Technology Transfer, 26, pp. 13-19.Google Scholar
  223. Nelson, R.R. (1988): Institutions Supporting Technical Change in the United States. In: Dosi, G., Freeman, C., Nelson, R., Silverberg, G., Soete, L. (eds.): Technical Change and Economic Theory. London: Pinter, pp. 312-329.Google Scholar
  224. Nelson, R.R., Rosenberg, N. (1993): Technical Innovation and National Systems. In: Nelson, R.R. (ed.): National Innovation Systems. A Comparative Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 3-21.Google Scholar
  225. Nelson, R.R. (ed.) (1993): National Innovation Systems: A Comparative Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  226. Nesta, L., Patel, P. (2004): National Patterns of Technology Accumulation: Use of Patent Statistics. In: Moed, H.F., Glänzel, W., Schmoch, U. (eds.): Handbook of Quantitative Science and Technology Research. The Use of Publication and Patent Statistics in Studies of S&T Systems. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publisher, pp. 531-551.Google Scholar
  227. NSF (2004): Science and Engineering Indicators 2004. Washington: National Science Foundation.Google Scholar
  228. Nyström, K. (2005): Interdependencies in the Dynamics of Firm Entry and Exit. In: CESIS Electronic Working Paper Series No. 28.Google Scholar
  229. OECD (2005a): Science, Technology and Industry Scoreboard 2005. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  230. OECD (2005b): Main Science and Technology Indicators. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  231. OECD (2004a): The Economic Impact of ICT - Measurement, Evidence and Implications. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  232. OECD (2004b): Handbook for Internationally Comparative Education Statistics: Concepts, Standards, Definitions and Classifications. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  233. OECD (2003): ICT and Economic Growth - Evidence from OECD Countries, Industries and Firms. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  234. OECD (2002a): Frascati Manual 2002: Proposed Standard Practice for Surveys on Research and Experimental Development. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  235. OECD (2002b): Measuring the Information Economy. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  236. OECD (2002c): Science, Technology and Industry Outlook 2002. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  237. OECD (2002d): Tax Incentives for Research and Development: Trends and Issues. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  238. OECD (2002e): Investment in Human Capital Through Post-Compulsory Education and Training: Selected Efficiency and Equity Aspects. Economics Department Working Paper No. 333, Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  239. OECD (1999): Classifying Educational Programmes. Manual for ISCED-97 Implementation in OECD Countries. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  240. OECD (1989): The Measurement of Scientific and Technical Activities. R&D Statistics and Output Measurement in the Higher Education Sector - Supplement to the Frascati Manual. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  241. OECD (ed.) (2005): OECD Handbook on Economic Globalisation Indicators. Paris: OECD. OECD (ed.) (2004a): Science, Technology and Industry Outlook. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  242. OECD (ed.) (2004b): Compendium of Patent Statistics 2004. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  243. OECD (ed.) (2004c): Patents and Innovation: Trends and Policy Challenges. Paris: OECD. OECD (ed.) (2004d): Education at a Glance 2004. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  244. OECD (ed.) (2003a): Science Technology and Industry Scoreboard. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  245. OECD (ed.) (2003b): Main Science and Technology Indicators. Vol. 2003/1. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  246. OECD (ed.) (2003c): Turning Science into Business. Patenting and Licensing at Public Research Organisations. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  247. OECD (ed.) (2003d): Education at a Glance 2003. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  248. OECD (ed.) (2002): Education at a Glance 2002. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  249. OECD (ed.) (2001a): The Well-Being of Nations. The Role of Human and Social Capital. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  250. OECD (ed.) (2001b): Education at a Glance 2001. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  251. OECD (ed.) (2000a): Fostering High-tech Spin-offs: A Public Strategy for Innovation. In: STI Review, 26, Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  252. OECD (ed.) (2000b): Education at a Glance 2000. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  253. OECD (ed.) (1999): Science, Technology and Industry Scoreboard 1999. Benchmarking Knowledge-Based Economies. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  254. OECD (ed.) (1995): The Measurement of Scientific and Technological Activities. Manual on the Measurement of Human Resources Devoted to Science and Technology ‘Canberra Manual’. OECD/GD(95)77. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  255. OECD (ed.) (1993): The Measurement of Scientific and Technological Activities. Proposed Standard Practice for Surveys of Research and Experimental Development. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  256. OECD: Online Bildungs-Datenbank 2002, 2004.Google Scholar
  257. OECD; Eurostat (1997): Oslo-Manual. Proposed Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Technological Innovation Data. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  258. Oerlemans, L.A.G., Pretorius, M.W., Buys, A.J., Rooks, G. (2003): Industrial Innovation inGoogle Scholar
  259. South Africa 1998-2000. Report on the South African Innovation Survey for the Period 1998-2000. Pretoria: University of Pretoria, Department of Engineering and Technology Management.Google Scholar
  260. Omenn, G.S. (2003): Science and Technology Policies Concerning the Life Sciences. In: AAAS (ed.): Science and Technology Policy Yearbook 2003. Washington: AAAS, pp. 145-167.Google Scholar
  261. Patel, P., Pavitt, K. (2000): National Systems of Innovation under Strain: The Internationalisation of Corporate R&D. In: Barré, R. et al. (eds.): Productivity, Innovation and Economic Performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  262. Patel, P., Vega, M. (1999): Patterns of Internationalisation of Corporate Technology: Location Versus Home Country Advantages. In: Research Policy, 28 (2/3), pp. 145-155.Google Scholar
  263. Pearce, R. (1999): Decentralised R&D and Strategic Competitveness: Globalised Approaches to Generation and Use of Technology in Multinational Enterprises (MNEs). In: Research Policy, 29, pp. 157-178.Google Scholar
  264. Pearce, R., Singh, S. (1997): Motivation and Organization of Decentraliced R&D. In: Pearce, R. (ed.): Global Competition and Technology. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  265. Petersen et al. (1993): Die Bedeutung des internationalen Dienstleistungshandels für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland. DIW-Beiträge zur Strukturforschung, No. 145, Berlin.Google Scholar
  266. Plünnecke, A., Werner, D. (2004): Das duale Ausbildungssystem. Die Bedeutung der Berufsausbildung für die Jugendarbeitslosigkeit und Wachstum. Beiträge zur Ordnungspolitik des Instituts der deutschen Wirtschaft, 9, Köln.Google Scholar
  267. Polt, W., Rammer, C., Gassler, H., Schibany, A., Schartinger, D. (2001): Benchmarking Industry-Science Relations: The Role of Framework Conditions. In: Science and Public Policy, 28, pp. 247-258.Google Scholar
  268. Porter, M.E. (1998): The Competitive Advantage of Nations. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  269. Pottelsberghe van, B. et al. (2003): Improving the Effectiveness of Fiscal Measures to Stimulate Private Investment in Research. Brussels: Expert Working Group for the EC Research DG.Google Scholar
  270. Prantl, S. (2003): Bankruptcy and Voluntary Liquidation: Evidence for New Firms in East and West Germany after Unification. ZEW Discussion Paper 03-72. Mannheim: ZEW.Google Scholar
  271. PREST (2002): A Comparative Analysis of Public, Semi-Public and Recently Privatised Research Centres. Manchester: PREST.Google Scholar
  272. Raan van, A.F.J. (2004): Measuring Science. Capita Selecta of Current Main Issues. In: Moed, H.F., Glänzel, W., Schmoch, U. (eds.): Handbook of Quantitative Science and Technology Research. The Use of Publication and Patent Statistics in Studies of S&T Systems. Dordrecht, Boston, London: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 19-50.Google Scholar
  273. Rammer, C. (2005): European Trend Chart on Innovation. Country Report Germany, Covering Period October 2004 - September 2005. Luxembourg: European Commission.Google Scholar
  274. Rammer, C. (2004): Unternehmensdynamik in Deutschland 1995-2003: Die Rolle forschungsund wissensintensiver Branchen und eine Einordnung im internationalen Vergleich. Studien zum deutschen Innovationssystem, 11-2005. Berlin: BMBF.Google Scholar
  275. Rammer, C., Peters, B., Schmidt, T., Aschhoff, B., Doherr, T., Niggemann, H. (2005a): Innovationen in Deutschland. Ergebnisse der Innovationserhebung 2003 in der deutschen Wirtschaft. ZEW-Wirtschaftsanalysen, 78, Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
  276. Rammer, C., Aschhoff, B., Doherr, T., Peters, B., Schmidt, T. (2005b): Innovation in Germany. Results of the German Innovation Survey 2004. Mannheim: ZEW.Google Scholar
  277. Rammer, C., Aschhoff, B., Peters, B., Schmidt, T. (2005c): Kurzbericht zur Innovations-erhebung 2004. Auswertung der Schwerpunktfrage ‘Aufnahme/Ausweitung von Inno-vationsaktivitäten’. Mannheim: ZEW.Google Scholar
  278. Rammer, C., Polt, W., Egeln, J., Licht, G., Schibany, A. (2004): Internationale Trends der Forschungs- und Innovationspolitik - Fällt Deutschland zurück? ZEW-Wirtschaftsanalysen 73, Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
  279. Rammer, C., Schmidt, T. (2003): Innovationsverhalten der Unternehmen in Deutschland. Studien zum deutschen Innovationssystem, 15-2004. Berlin: BMBF.Google Scholar
  280. Reger, G., Beise, M., Belitz, H. (1999): Innovationsstandorte multinationaler Unternehmen. Heidelberg: Physica.Google Scholar
  281. Reich, R. (1993): The Work of Nations. Buenos Aires.Google Scholar
  282. Reinberg, A., Hummel, M. (2002): Zur langfristigen Entwicklung des qualifikationsspezifischen Arbeitskräfteangebots und -bedarfs in Deutschland. Empirische Befunde und aktuelle Projektionsergebnisse. In: Mitteilungen aus der Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung, 35 (4), pp. 580-600.Google Scholar
  283. Revermann, C., Schmidt, E.M. (1999): Erfassung und Messung von Forschungs- und Entwicklungsaktivitäten im Dienstleistungssektor. Essen: RWI, Wissenschaftsstatistik.Google Scholar
  284. Ricardo, D. (1996): Principles of Political Economy and Taxation. In: Great Minds Series. Amherst: Prometheus Books.Google Scholar
  285. Rigby, D.K., Reichheld, F.F., Schefter, P. (2002): Avoid the Four Perils of CRM. In: Technology Review, 80 (2), pp. 101-109.Google Scholar
  286. Rip, A. (1992): Science and Technology as Dancing Partners. In: Kroes, P., Bakker, M. (eds.): Technological Development and Science in the Industrial Age. New Perspectives on the Science-Technology Relationship. Dordrecht, Boston, London: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 231-269.Google Scholar
  287. Roberts, G. (2003): Review of Research Assessment. Report by Sir Gareth Roberts to the UK Funding Bodies, London.Google Scholar
  288. Sapir, A. et al. (2003): An Agenda for a Growing Europe. Making the EU Economic System Deliver (‘Sapir-Report’). Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  289. Schaan, S., Anderson, F. (2001): Innovation in Canadian Manufacturing: National Estimates. Survey of Innovation 1999. Ottawa: Statistics Canada.Google Scholar
  290. Schmid, H., Liebig, T. (2001): Quo vadis, duales System? Das neue Berufsbildungsgesetz und die Berufsbildungsreformen in der Europäischen Union. Diskussionspapiere, 71, St. Gallen: Forschungsinstitut für Arbeit und Arbeitsrecht an der Hochschule St. GallenGoogle Scholar
  291. Schmoch, U. (2005): Leistungsfähigkeit und Strukturen der Wissenschaft im internationalen Vergleich, 2004. Studien zum deutschen Innovationssystem, 6 -2005. Bonn, Berlin: BMBF (accessible by: www.technologische-leistungsfaehigkeit.de).
  292. Schmoch, U. (2003a): Hochschulforschung und Industrieforschung - Perspektiven der Interaktion. Frankfurt, New York: Campus.Google Scholar
  293. Schmoch, U. (2003b): Service Marks as Novel Innovation Indicator. In: Research Evaluation, 12 (2), pp. 149-156.Google Scholar
  294. Schmoch, U., Hinze, S. (2004): Opening the Black Box. In: Moed, H.F., Glänzel, W., Schmoch, U. (eds.): Handbook of Qualitative Science and Technology Research. The Use of Publication and Patent Statistics in Studies of S&T Systems. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 215-235.Google Scholar
  295. Schmoch, U., Grupp, H., Mannsbart, W., Schwitalla, B. (1988): Technikprognosen mit Patentindikatoren. Köln: Verlag TÜV Rheinland.Google Scholar
  296. Schultz, S., Weise, Ch. (1999): Der deutsche Dienstleistungshandel im internationalen Ver-gleich. DIW-Beiträge zur Strukturforschung, 180, Berlin: DIW.Google Scholar
  297. Schumpeter, J. (1911): Theorie der wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung. Eine Untersuchung über Unternehmergewinn, Kapital, Kredit, Zins und den Konjunkturzyklus. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.Google Scholar
  298. Siegel, D., Waldman, D., Link, A. (2003): Assessing the Impact of Organizational Practices on the Productivity of University Technology Transfer Offices: An Exploratory Study. In: Research Policy, 32, pp. 27-48.Google Scholar
  299. Siegfried, J.J., Evans, L.B. (1994): Empirical Studies of Entry and Exit: A Survey of the Evidence. In: Review of Industrial Organization, 9, pp. 121-155.Google Scholar
  300. Stach, M. (1998): Die Krise des Dualen Systems - Phasen, Symptome, Gründe, Reformen. In: TNTEE Publications, 1 (1).Google Scholar
  301. Stadler, M.; Wapler, R. (2004): Endogenous Skilled-biased Technological Change and Matching Unemployment. In: Journal of Economics, 81, pp. 1-24.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  302. Statistics New Zealand (2004): Innovation in New Zealand 2003. Wellington: Statistics New Zealand.Google Scholar
  303. Stifterverband für die Deutsche Wissenschaft (2004): FuE-Datenreport 2003/04. Forschung und Entwicklung in der Wirtschaft. Bericht über die FuE-Erhebungen 2001 und 2002. Essen: Wissenschaftsstatistik GmbH im Stifterverband für die Deutsche Wissenschaft.Google Scholar
  304. Storey, D., Wynarczyk, P. (1997): The Survival and Non Survival of Micro Firms in the UK. In: Review of Industrial Organization, 11, pp. 209-229.Google Scholar
  305. Strack, G. (2003): Hightech- und wissensintensive Sektoren schaffen Arbeitsplätze in Europa. In: Statistik kurz gefasst, Thema 9: Wissenschaft und Technologie, 10/2003. Luxembourg: Eurostat.Google Scholar
  306. Tae, Y.S. et al. (2002): Korean Innovation Survey 2002: Manufacturing Sector. Seoul: Science & Technology Policy Institute.Google Scholar
  307. Tessaring, M., Wannan, J. (2004): Vocational Education and Training - Key to the Future, Lisbon-Copenhagen-Maastricht: Mobilising for 2010. CEDEFOP Synthesis of the Maastricht Study, Luxembourg.Google Scholar
  308. Thurik, R., Grilo, I. (2005): Determinants of Entrepreneurial Engagement Levels in Europe and the US. Discussion Papers of Entrepreneurship, Growth and Public Policy, 20-2005, Jena: Max Planck Institute of Economics.Google Scholar
  309. Tidd, J., Hull F.M. (eds.) (2003): Service Innovation. London: Imperial College Press. tns infratest (2004): Monitoring Informationswirtschaft 7. Faktenbericht 2004, Munich.Google Scholar
  310. Troltsch, K. (2004a): Strukturen und Entwicklung der dualen Ausbildung in Technikberufen und Trends im Fachkräfteangebot bis 2015. Studien zum deutschen Innovationssystem, 6-2004, Bonn.Google Scholar
  311. Troltsch, K. (2004b): Berufsbildung und Strukturwandel. Zum Einfluss wirtschaftsstruktureller Veränderungen auf das betriebliche Ausbildungsstellenangebot seit 1980. In: BIBB (ed.): Der Ausbildungsmarkt und seine Einflussfaktoren. Ergebnisse des Experten-Workshops vom 1. und 2. Juli 2004 in Bonn, Bonn: BIBB.Google Scholar
  312. Tunzelmann von, N., Kraemer Mbula, E. (2003): Changes in Research Assessment Practices in other Countries since 1999. Final report, Brighton: SPRU.Google Scholar
  313. Uhly, A. (2005): Die Zukunftsfähigkeit technischer Berufe im dualen System. Empirische Analysen auf der Basis der Berufsbildungsstatistik. Gutachten im Rahmen der Berichterstattung zur technologischen Leistungsfähigkeit Deutschlands. Studien zum deutschen Innovationssystem, 5-2005, Bonn (http://technologische-leistungsfaehig-keit.de/pub/sdi-05-05.pdf).
  314. Ulrich, J.G., Troltsch, K. (2003): Stabilisierung des Lehrstellenmarktes unter wirtschaftlich schwierigen Rahmenbedingungen? Aktuelle Analysen der Berufsberatungsstatistik zur Lage auf dem Ausbildungsstellenmarkt. Forschung Spezial, 5, Bielefeld: Bertelsmann.Google Scholar
  315. Um, M.-J. et al. (2004): Korean Innovation Survey (KIS) 2003: Service Sector. Seoul: Science & Technology Policy Institute.Google Scholar
  316. UNESCO (1999): Operational Manual for ISCED 1997. Paris: UNESCO.Google Scholar
  317. UNESCO (1997): International Standard Classification of Education - ISCED 1997. Paris: UNESCO.Google Scholar
  318. VDG (2004): Bedarfslücke in der Gründungsfinanzierung schliessen! Press information, 27 September 2004, Berlin: Verband deutscher Gründungsinitiativen (VDG).Google Scholar
  319. Voßkamp, R. (2005): Die Beiträge von Forschung, Entwicklung und Innovation zu Produktivität und Wachstum. Berlin: DIW.Google Scholar
  320. Wagner, J. (1994): The Post-Entry Performance of New Small Firms in German Manufacturing Industries. In: Journal of Industrial Economics, 62, pp. 141-154.Google Scholar
  321. Wakelin, K. (1997): Trade and Innovation. Theory and Evidence. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  322. Walden, G., Herget, H. (2002): Nutzen der betrieblichen Ausbildung für Betriebe. Erste Ergebnisse einer empirischen Erhebung. In: Berufsbildung in Wissenschaft und Praxis, 31 (6), pp. 32-37.Google Scholar
  323. Warda, J. (2002): A 2001-2002 Update of R&D Tax Treatment in OECD Countries. Report Prepared for the OECD Directorate for Science, Technology and Industry, Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  324. Weißhuhn, G., Wichmann, T. (2000): Beschäftigungseffekte von Unternehmensgründungen. Berlin: Berlicon Research.Google Scholar
  325. Wenger, L. (1997): Forschungsrahmen zukünftiger Qualifikationsforschung. In: Zeitschrift für Berufs- und Wirtschaftspädagogik (ZBW), 4 (93), pp. 384 - 404.Google Scholar
  326. Wennekers, S., van Stel, A., Thurik, R., Reynolds, P. (2005): Nascent Entrepreneurship and the Level of Economic Development. In: Small Business Economics, 24, pp. 293-309.Google Scholar
  327. Werner, R. (2003): Die Bedeutung der neuen Ausbildungsberufe für den Strukturwandel des dualen Systems. In: Beicht, U. et al.: Technische Berufe im dualen System der Berufsausbildung - Stellenwert und Entwicklungstendenzen. Studien zum deutschen Innovationssystem, Nr. 3-2003, Bonn, pp. 6-25.Google Scholar
  328. Westerhuis, A. (2001): European Structures of Qualification Levels. Reports on Recent Developments in Germany, Spain, France, the Netherlands and in the United Kingdom (England and Wales). Vol. II. Luxembourg.Google Scholar
  329. World Bank (2005): Doing Business in 2006: Removing Creating Jobs. Washington: The World Bank.Google Scholar
  330. World Bank (2004): Doing Business in 2005: Removing Obstacles to Growth. Washington: The World Bank.Google Scholar
  331. Youtie, J., Shapira, P., Brice, K., Hegde, D., Changeau, D., Wang, J. (2002): Manufacturing Needs, Practices, and Performance in Georgia, 1999-2002. GaMEP Evaluation Working Paper E 200201, Atlanta: Georgia Institute of Technology.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Personalised recommendations