Advertisement

Europäische Innovationspolitik

  • Marianne PaasiEmail author
Living reference work entry
  • 15 Downloads

Zusammenfassung

Dieser Artikel unterscuht die Forschung zur Forschungs- und Innovationspolitik der Europäischen Union (EU). So untermauert die Forschung zu den europäischen Forschungs- und Entwicklungsinvestitionen (FuE) und anderen immateriellen Investitionen die europäischen FuE- und Produktivitätsziele. Ebenso informiert die Forschung zur EU finanzierten FuE-Kooperation die Politik über Effekte hinsichtlich der Wettbewerbsfähigkeit und FuE-Integration Die Forschung unterstützt auch die neuere nachfrageorientierte und systemische Innovationspolitik der EU.

Schlüsselwörter

Europäische Innovationspolitik Angebots- und nachfrageorientierte Innovationspolitik Immaterielle Investitionen FuE-Integration Europa-spezifisches Innovationsumfeld 

Literatur

  1. Aghion, Philippe, und Ufuk Acigit. 2017. Innovation and growth: The schumpeterian perspective. In Economics without Borders, Hrsg. Blundell Richard, Estelle Cantillon, Barbara Chizzolini, Marc Ivaldi, Wolfgang Leininger, Ramon Marimon, Laszlo Matyas und Frode Steen, 29–72. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aghion, Philippe, Ufuk Akcigit, und Peter Howitt. 2013. What do we learn from Schumpeterian growth theory? NBER working paper series, Working Paper 18824.Google Scholar
  3. Aho Bericht. 2006. Ein innovatives Europa schaffen. Bericht eingesetzt im Anschluss an das Gipfeltreffen in Hampton Court.Google Scholar
  4. Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union C 326/47. 2012. Vertrag über die Arbeitsweise der Europäischen Union (AEUV) (Konsolidierte Fassung). 26.10.2012.Google Scholar
  5. Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L347/104. 2013. Verordnung (EU) Nr. 1291/2013 des europäischen Parlaments und des Rates vom 11. Dezember 2013 über das Rahmenprogramm für Forschung und Innovation Horizont 2020 (2014–2020) und zur Aufhebung des Beschlusses Nr. 1982/2006/EG.Google Scholar
  6. Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L94/65. 2014. Europäischen Richtlinie über die öffentliche Auftragsvergabe 2014/24/EU.Google Scholar
  7. Arbarran, Pedro, Juan A. Crespo, Ignancio Ortuno, und Javier Ruiz-Castillo. 2010. A comparison of the scientific performance of the U.S. and the EU at the turn of the 21st century. Scientometrics 85:329–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ark, Bart van, und Kerstin Jäger. 2017. Recent trends in Europe’s output and productivity growth performances at the sectoral level, 2002–2015. International Productivity Monitor, 33, Fall, 8–23.Google Scholar
  9. Ark, Bart van, und Mary O’Mahony. 2016. Productivity growth in Europe before and since the 2008/2009 economic and financial crisis. In The world economy. Growth or stagnation?, Hrsg. Dale W. Jorgenson, Kyoji Fukao und Marcel P. Timmer. 111–152. Cambridge US: CUP.Google Scholar
  10. Autant-Bernard, Corinne, Pascal Billand, David Frachisse, und Nadine Massard. 2007. Social distance versus spatial distance in R&D cooperation: Empirical evidence from European collaboration choices in micro and nanotechnologies. Papers in Regional Science 86(3): 495–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Barajas, Ascensión, Elena Hurgo, und Lourdes Moreno. 2012. Measuring the economic impact of Research Joint Ventures supported by the EU Framework Programme. Journal of Technology Transfer 37:917–942.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Belderbos, René, und Pierre Mohnen. 2013. Intersectoral and international R&D spillovers, SIMPATIC working paper No. 02.Google Scholar
  13. Breschi, Stefano, und Lucia Cusmans. 2004. Unveiling the texture of a European research area: Emergence of oligarchic networks under EU framework programmes. International Journal of Technology Management 27(8): 747–772.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Caloghirou, Yannis, Nicholas S. Vonortas, und Stavros Ioannides, Hrsg. 2004. European collaboration in research and development. Business strategy and public policy. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  15. Cassiman, Bruno, und Reinhilde Veugelers. 2002. R&D cooperation and spillovers: Some empirical evidence from Belgium. The American Economic Review 92(4): 1169–1184.Google Scholar
  16. Cincera, Michele, und Reinhilde Veugelers. 2010. Europe’s Missing Yollies. Bruegelpolicybrief 2010(6): 1–8.Google Scholar
  17. Corrado, Carol, Charles Hulten, und Daniel Sichel. 2005. Measuring capital and technology: an expanded framework. In Measuring capital in the new economy, Hrsg. Carol Corrado, John Haltiwanger und Daniel Sichel, 11–46. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Corrado, Carol, Jonathan Haskel, Cecilia Jona-Lasinio, und Massimilano Iommi. 2013. Innovation and intangible investment in Europe, Japan, and the United States. Oxford Review of Economic Policy 29(2): 261–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Corrado, Carol, Jonathan Haskel, Massimiliano Iommi, Cecilia Jona-Lasinio, Matilde Mas, und Mary O’Mahony. 2017. Advancements in measuring intangibles for European economies. EURONA Eurostat Review on National Accounts and Macroeconomic Indicators 2:90–106.Google Scholar
  20. Dauchert, Helge, Dietmar Harhoff, und Patrick Llerena. 2013. Innovation auf Bestellung? Was von einer stärkeren Nachfrageorientierung in der Innovationspolitik zu halten ist. Ifo Schnelldienst 5:3–6.Google Scholar
  21. Di Comite, Francesco, und D’Artis Kancs. 2015. Macro-Economic models for R&D and innovation policies, JRC technical reports. European Commission, Joint Research Centre.Google Scholar
  22. Dosi, Giovanni, Patric Llerena, und Mauro Sylor Labini. 2006. The relationship between science, technologies and their industrial exploitation: An illustration through the myths and realities of the so-called „European Paradox“. Research Policy 35(10): 1450–1464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Edler, Jakob. 2009. Demand policies for innovation in EU CEE Countries, Manchester Business School working paper, No. 579.Google Scholar
  24. Edler, Jacob. 2013. Review of policy measures to stimulate private demand for innovation. Concepts and effects, Compendium of Evidence on the Effectiveness of Innovation Policy Intervention. London: NESTA.Google Scholar
  25. Edler, Jakob, und Luke Georghiou. 2007. Public procurement and innovation – resurrecting the demand side. Research Policy 36:949–963.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Edler, Jacob, Luc Georghiou, Knut Blind, und Elvira Uyarra. 2012. Evaluating the demand side: New challenges for evaluation. Research Evaluation 21:33–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Edquist, Charles, und Jon Mikel Zabala-Iturriagagoitia. 2012. Public procurement for innovation as mission-oriented innovation policy. Research Policy 41:1757–1769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Edquist, Charles, und Jon Mikel Zabala-Iturriagagoitia. 2015a. The Innovation Union Scoreboard is flawed: The case of Sweden – not being the innovation leader of the EU, Papers in innovation studies paper no. 2015/16. Circle Lund.Google Scholar
  29. Edquist, Charles, und Jon Mikel Zabala-Iturriagagoitia. 2015b. Pre-commercial procurement: A demand or supply policy instrument in relation to innovation? R&D Management 45(2): 146–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Edquist, Charles, Nicolas Vonortas, und Jon-Mikel Zabala-Iturriagagoitia. 2015. Public procurement for innovation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  31. Europäische Kommission. 2010a. Europa 2020. Eine Strategie für intelligentes, nachhaltiges und integratives Wachstum. KOM (2010) 2020 endgültig.Google Scholar
  32. Europäische Kommission. 2010b. Leitinitiative der Strategie Europa 2020 Innovationsunion SEK (2010) 1161/KOM (2010) 546.Google Scholar
  33. Europäischer Rat von Lissabon. 2000. 23.–24. März. Schlussfolgerungen des Vorsitzes.Google Scholar
  34. European Commission. 2016a. Annual growth survey. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  35. European Commission. 2016b. Better regulation for innovation-investment at the EU level. Luxembourg: Commission Staff Working Document.Google Scholar
  36. European Commission. 2016c. EU Funds working together for jobs and growth. Luxembourg: Publication Office of the European Union.Google Scholar
  37. European Commission. 2017a. European Scoreboard 2017. Luxemburg: Publication Office of the European Union.Google Scholar
  38. European Commission. 2017b. Research and innovation analysis in the European semester country reports. Luxemburg: Publication Office of the European Union.Google Scholar
  39. European Commission. 2017c. Open innovation, open science, open to the world – a vision for Europe. Luxemburg: Publication Office of the European Union.Google Scholar
  40. European Commission. 2018a. A renewed European agenda for research and innovation – Europe’s chance to shape its future. COM (2018) 306 final.Google Scholar
  41. European Commission. 2018b. Science, research and innovation performance of the EU 2018. Luxemburg: Publication Office of the European Union.Google Scholar
  42. European Commission. Bureau of European Policy Advisers (BEPA). 2010. Empowering people, driving change. Social innovation in the European Union. Luxembourg: Publication Office of the European Union.Google Scholar
  43. European Political Strategy Centre. 2016. Towards an innovation principle endorsed by better regulation. EPSC Strategic Notes Issue 14, 30 June.Google Scholar
  44. Eurostat. 2013. The European System of National and Regional Accounts (ESA 2010). Brussels: European Union.Google Scholar
  45. Falck, Oliver, und Simon Wiederhold. 2013. Nachfrageorientierte Innovationspolitik. Studien zum deutschen Innovationssystem Nr. 12–2013. Ifo Institut München.Google Scholar
  46. Foray, Dominique, und Bart van Ark. 2007. Smart specialisation in a truly integrated research area is the key to attracting more R&D to Europe. Knowledge Economists Policy Brief, no. 1.Google Scholar
  47. Foray, Dominique, Paul. A. David, und Bronwyn H. Hall. 2009. Smart specialization: The concept. Knowledge for growth. Prospects for science, technology and innovation. Selected papers from Research Commissioner Janez Potočnik’s expert group, 20.Google Scholar
  48. Georghiou, Luke. 2015. Improving the framework conditions for R&D. Presentation at the opening up to an ERA of innovation, Brussels, 22–23. June.Google Scholar
  49. Griliches, Zvi. 1990. The search for R&D spillovers. The Scandinavian Journal of Economics 94(Suppl): 29–47.Google Scholar
  50. Hall, Bronwyn H., Jacques Mairesse, und Pierre Mohnen. 2010. Measuring the returns to R&D. In Handbook of the economics of innovation, Hrsg. Bronwyn H. Hall und Nathan Rosenberg, 1033–1082. Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Hagen, Jürgen von, und Jean Pisani-Ferry. 2003. Pourquoi l’Europe ne ressemble-t-elle pas à ce que voudraient les économistes? Revue économique 54(3): 477487.Google Scholar
  52. Haskel, Jonathan, und Stian Westlake. 2018. Capitalism without capital. Princeton & Oxford: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Herranz, Neus, und Javier Ruiz-Castillo. 2013. The end of the „European Paradox“. Scientometrics 95(1): 453–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Hippel, Eric von. 1986. Lead users: A source of novel product concepts. Management Science 32(7): 791–805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Howaldt, Jürgen, Christoph Kaletka, Antonius Schröder, und Marthe Zirngiebl. 2017. Atlas of social innovation. New practices for a better future. Dortmund: Sozialforschungsstelle (sfs) TU Dortmund.Google Scholar
  56. Katja, Reppel. 2008. Europäische Innovationspolitik als eine Querschnittspolitik. In Europäische Wissensgesellschaft. Leitbild europäischer Forschungs- und Innovationspolitik? Hrsg. Schefold Bertram und Thorsten Lenz, 163–178. Berlin: Akademie.Google Scholar
  57. Kommission der Europäischen Gemeinschaften. 1995. Grünbuch zur Innovation, KOM (1995) 688.Google Scholar
  58. Kommission der Europäischen Gemeinschaften. 2006. Kenntnisse in die Praxis umsetzen: Eine breit angelegte Innovationsstrategie für die EU. KOM (2006) 512.Google Scholar
  59. Makkonen, Teemu, und Timo Mitze. 2015. Scientific collaboration between „old“ and „new“ member states: Did joining the European Union make a difference? Scientometrics 106(3): 1193–1215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Mazzucato, Mariana. 2016. From market fixing to market-creating: a new framework for innovation policy. Industry and Innovation 23(2): 140–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Morescalchi, Andrea, Fabio Pammolli, Orion Penner, Alexander M. Petersen, und Massimo Riccaboni. 2015. The evolution of networks of innovation within and across borders: Evidence from patent data. Research Policy 44:651–668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Moulaert, Frank, Abid Mehmood, Diana MacCallum, und Bernhard Leubolt, Hrsg. 2017. Social innovation as a trigger for transformations. The role of research. Luxemburg: Europäische Kommission.Google Scholar
  63. OECD. 2017. Public procurement for innovation – good practices and strategies. Paris: OECD.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Paasi, Marianne. 2005. Collective benchmarking of policies: an instrument for policy learning in adaptive research and innovation policy. Science and Public Policy 32(1): 17–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Prange, Heiko. 2008. Forschungs- und Technologiepolitik im europäischen Mehrebenensystem: Vom Europäischen Forschungsraum zum Forschungsbinnenmarkt? In Europäische Wissensgesellschaft. Leitbild europäischer Forschungs- und Innovationspolitik? Hrsg. Schefold Bertram und Thorsten Lenz, 181–197. Berlin: Akademie.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Reillon, Vincent. 2016a. EU Innovationspolitik – Teil I. Entwicklung des innovationspolitischen Policy-Mix der EU. EPRS Wissenschaftlicher Dienst des Europäischen Parlaments. Brussels: Europäische Union.Google Scholar
  67. Reillon, Vincent. 2016b. Die Innovationspolitik der EU – Teil II. Politische Maßnahmen und Instrument der EU zur Förderung der Innovationen. EPRS Wissenschaftlicher Dienst des Europäischen Parlaments. Brussels: Europäische Union.Google Scholar
  68. Reillon, Vincent. 2017. EU-Rahmenprogramme für Forschung und Innovation. Entwicklung und Schlüsseldaten von RP1 bis Horizon 2020 im Hinblick auf FP9. EPRS Wissenschaftlicher Dienst des Europäischen Parlaments. Brussels: Europäische Union.Google Scholar
  69. Romer, Paul. 1990. Endogenous technological change. Journal of Political Economy 98(5): 71–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Roth, Felix, und Anna-Elisabeth Thum. 2013. Intangible capital and labour productivity growth: Panel evidence for the EU from 1998–2005. Review of Income and Wealth Series 59(3): 486–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Schmookler, Jacob. 1966. Invention and growth. Harvard: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, Bruno van. 2010. Europe should stop taxing innovation. bruegelpolicybrief, Issue 02 March.Google Scholar
  73. Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, Bruno van, und Jérôme Danguy. 2010. Patent fees for a sustainable EU (Community) Patent System. Brussels: ULB.Google Scholar
  74. Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, Bruno van, und Jérôme Danguy. 2014. The policy dilemma of the unitary patent, Bruegel working paper 2014/13.Google Scholar
  75. Varga, Attila, Dimitrios Ponikakis, und George Chorafakis. 2014. Metropolitan Edison and cosmopolitan Pasteur? Agglomeration and interregional research network effects on European R&D productivity. Journal of Economic Geography 14:229–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Wanzenböck, Iris, und Barbara Heller-Schuh. 2013. The embeddedness of regions in R&D collaboration networks of the EU Framework Programmes. In The geography of networks and R&D collaborations. Advances in spatial sciences, Hrsg. Thomas Scherngell, 279–297. Basel: Springer International Publisher.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Wanzenböck, Iris, und Philipp Piribauer. 2015. R&D networks and regional knowledge production in Europe: Evidence from a space-time model. Working paper No. 207. Department of Economics, WU Vienna.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institut für Technologie und ManagementTechnische Universität BerlinBerlinDeutschland

Personalised recommendations