Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Grundzüge der Innovationspolitik

  • Living reference work entry
  • First Online:
Handbuch Innovationsforschung

  • 593 Accesses

Zusammenfassung

Die Forschung zur Innovationspolitik ist vielfältig. Sie reflektiert den Verlauf abstrakter Diskurse der Innovationsforschung und der politischen Ökonomie. Angelsächsische und institutionalistische Ansätze prägen den Diskurs. Dabei weichen lineare Modelle von Innovationsprozessen zunehmend komplexeren Ansätzen wie denen zu Innovationssystemen oder „triple-helices“. Auch die Bedeutung von Ideen und Diskursen für den policy-Prozess erhält zunehmend Aufmerksamkeit.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Literatur

  • AK Postwachstum, Hrsg. 2016. Wachstum – Krise und Kritik: Die Grenzen der kapitalistisch-industriellen Lebensweise. Frankfurt a. M.: Campus Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amable, Bruno, und Stefano Palombarini. 2008. A neorealist approach to institutional change and the diversity of capitalism. Socio-Economic Review 7(1): 123–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Apreda, Riccardo, Andrea Bonaccorsi, Gualtiero Fantoni, und Donata Gabelloni. 2014. Functions and failures: How to manage technological promises for societal challenges. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 26(4): 369–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Archibugi, Daniele. 2017a. Blade Runner economics: Will innovation lead the economic recovery? Research Policy 46(3): 535–543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Archibugi, Daniele. 2017b. The social imagination needed for an innovation-led recovery. Research Policy 46(3): 554–556.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arrow, Kenneth J. 1962. Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for invention. In The rate and direction of inventive activity, Hrsg. Richard R. Nelson, 609–629. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aschhoff, Birgit, und Wolfgang Sofka. 2009. Innovation on demand – Can public procurement drive market success of innovations? Research Policy 38(8): 1235–1247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Austin, John L. 1967. How to do things with words. The William James lectures delivered at Harvard University in 1955. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beckert, Jens. 2016. Imagined futures. Fictional expectations and capitalist dynamics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Béland, Daniel. 2010. Reconsidering policy feedback: How policies affect politics. Administration & Society 45(5): 568–590.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bemelmans-Videc, Marie-Louise, Ray C. Rist, und Evert Vedung, Hrsg. 1998. Carrots, sticks & sermons. Policy instruments & their evaluation. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, Andrew, und Jeffrey T. Checkel, Hrsg. 2015. Process tracing: From metaphor to analytic tool, Strategies for social inquiry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bijker, Wiebe E. 2001. Understanding technological culture through a constructivist view of science, technology, and society. In Visions of STS: Counterpoints in science, technology, and society studies, Hrsg. Carl Mitcham und Stephen H. Cutcliffe, 19–34. Albany: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bijker, Wiebe E., und John Law, Hrsg. 1992. Shaping technology/building society: Studies in sociotechnical change, Inside technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bijker, Wiebe E., Thomas P. Hughes, Trevor J. Pinch, und Deborah G. Douglas. 2012. The social construction of technological systems. New directions in the sociology and history of technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blättel-Mink, Birgit, und Alexander Ebner, Hrsg. 2009. Innovationssysteme. Technologie, Institutionen und die Dynamik der Wettbewerbsfähigkeit. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bloch, Ernst. 1973. Das Prinzip Hoffnung. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blyth, Mark. 2002. Great transformations. Economic ideas and institutional change in the Twentieth Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Borrás, Susana, und Charles Edquist. 2013. The choice of innovation policy instruments. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 80(8): 1513–1522.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borrás, Susana, und Charles Edquist. 2014. Institutions and regulations in innovation systems. Effects, problems and innovation policy design. CIRCLE papers in innovation studies no. 2014/29. Lund. Zugegriffen am 03.03.2017.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bradley, Karen, und Johan Hedrén. 2014. Green utopianism. Perspectives, politics and micro-practices. New York City: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Chaminade, Cristina, und Charles Edquist. 2006. From theory to practice: The use of the systems of innovation approach in innovation policy. In Innovation, science, and institutional change, Hrsg. Jerald Hage und Marius Meeus, 141–160. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cimoli, Mario, Giovanni Dosi, Richard R. Nelson, und Joseph E. Stiglitz. 2009. Institutions and policies shaping industrial development: An introductory note. In Industrial policy and development: The political economy of capabilities accumulation, Hrsg. Mario Cimoli, Giovanni Dosi und Joseph E. Stiglitz, 19–38. New York City: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Cooke, Philip. 2012. Transversality and transition: Green innovation and new regional path creation. European Planning Studies 20(5): 817–834.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crouch, Colin. 2010. Complementarity. In The Oxford handbook of comparative institutional analysis, Hrsg. Glenn Morgan, John L. Campbell, Colin Crouch, Ove K. Pedersen und Richard Whitley, 117–137. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Degele, Nina. 2002. Einführung in die Techniksoziologie, UTB für Wissenschaft Soziologie, Bd. 2288. München: Fink.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dodgson, Mark, und John Bessant. 1996. Effective innovation policy. A new approach. London: International Thomson Business Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dolfsma, Wilfred, und Dong Back Seo. 2013. Government policy and technological innovation – A suggested typology. Technovation 33(6–7): 173–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ebner, Alexander. 2010. Varieties of Capitalism and the limits of entrepreneurship policy: Institutional reform in Germany’s coordinated market economy. Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade 10(3–4): 319–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edler, Jakob, und Luke Georghiou. 2007. Public procurement and innovation – Resurrecting the demand side. Research Policy 36(7): 949–963.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edler, Jakob, und Andrew D. James. 2015. Understanding the emergence of new science and technology policies: Policy entrepreneurship, agenda setting and the development of the European Framework Programme. Research Policy 44(6): 1252–1265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edquist, Charles, Hrsg. 1997. Systems of innovation. Technologies, institutions and organizations. London: Pinter Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edquist, Charles. 2011. Design of innovation policy through diagnostic analysis: Identification of systemic problems (or failures). Industrial and Corporate Change 20(6): 1725–1753.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edquist, Charles, Nicholas S. Vonortas, und Jon Mikel Zabala-Iturriagagoitia. 2016a. Introduction. In Public procurement for innovation, Hrsg. Charles Edquist, Nicholas S. Vonortas, Jon Mikel Zabala-Iturriagagoitia und Jakob Edler, 1–27. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edquist, Charles, Nicholas S. Vonortas, Jon Mikel Zabala-Iturriagagoitia, und Jakob Edler, Hrsg. 2016b. Public procurement for innovation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellul, Jacques. 1954. La Technique ou L’enjeu du siecle. Paris: Colin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Esposito, Elena. 2016. Pläne und die Zukunft: Das Unvorhersagbare gestalten. In Innovationsgesellschaft heute: Perspektiven, Felder und Fälle, Hrsg. Werner Rammert, Arnold Windeler, Hubert Knoblauch und Michael Hutter, 427–436. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Etzkowitz, Henry. 2008. The Triple Helix. University-industry-government innovation in action. New York City/London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Etzkowitz, Henry, und Loet Leydesdorff. 2000. The dynamics of innovation: From national systems and „Mode 2“ to a Triple Helix of university–industry–government relations. Research Policy 29(2): 109–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fagerberg, Jan, und Koson Sapprasert. 2011. National innovation systems: The emergence of a new approach. Science and Public Policy 38(9): 669–679.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fagerberg, Jan, und Bart Verspagen. 2009. Innovation studies – The emerging structure of a new scientific field. Research Policy 38(2): 218–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fagerberg, Jan, David C. Mowery, und Richard R. Nelson, Hrsg. 2005. The Oxford handbook of innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feenberg, Andrew. 2012. Questioning technology. Florence: Taylor and Francis.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Flanagan, Kieron, und Elvira Uyarra. 2016. Four dangers in innovation policy studies – And how to avoid them. Industry and Innovation 23(2): 177–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flanagan, Kieron, Elvira Uyarra, und Manuel Laranja. 2011. Reconceptualising the ‚policy mix‘ for innovation. Research Policy 40(5): 702–713.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foray, Dominique, David C. Mowery, und Richard R. Nelson. 2012. Public R&D and social challenges: What lessons from mission R&D programs? Research Policy 41(10): 1697–1702.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Georghiou, Luke, Jakob Edler, Elvira Uyarra, und Jillian Yeow. 2014. Policy instruments for public procurement of innovation: Choice, design and assessment. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 86:1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Godin, Benoît. 2006. The linear model of innovation. The historical construction of an analytical framework. Science, Technology & Human Values 31(6): 639–667.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guerzoni, Marco, und Emilio Raiteri. 2015. Demand-side vs. supply-side technology policies: Hidden treatment and new empirical evidence on the policy mix. Research Policy 44(3): 726–747.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, Jürgen. 1968. Technik und Wissenschaft als ‚Ideologie‘. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, Peter A. 1999. The role of interests, institutions, and ideas in the comparative political economy of the industrialized nations. In Comparative politics: Rationality, culture, and structure, Hrsg. Mark Irving Lichbach und Alan S. Zuckerman, 174–207. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, Peter A., und Daniel W. Gingerich. 2004. „Spielarten des Kapitalismus“ und institutionelle Komplementaritäten in der Makroökonomie: Eine empirische Analyse. Berliner Journal für Soziologie 14(1): 5–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, Peter A., und David W. Soskice, Hrsg. 2001. An introduction to varieties of capitalism. In Varieties of Capitalism: The institutional foundations of comparative advantage, 1–67. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hay, Colin. 2008. Constructivist institutionalism. In The Oxford handbook of political institutions. The Oxford handbooks of political science, Hrsg. Roderick A. W. Rhodes, Sarah A. Binder und Bert A. Rockman, 56–74. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hekkert, Marko P., Roald A. A. Suurs, Simona O. Negro, Stefan Kuhlmann, und Ruud E. H. M. Smits. 2007. Functions of innovation systems: A new approach for analysing technological change. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 74(4): 413–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hodgson, Geoffrey M. 2007. Evolutionary and institutional economics as the new mainstream? Evolutionary and Institutional Economics Review 4(1): 7–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Höpner, Martin. 2012. Coordination and organization. The two dimensions of nonliberal capitalism. Köln. MPIfG discussion paper 07/12. Zugegriffen am 21.03.2017.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jokisch, Rodrigo, Hrsg. 1982. Techniksoziologie, Suhrkamp-Taschenbuch Wissenschaft, Bd. 379. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Korpi, Walter. 2008. Power resources and employer-centered approaches in explanations of welfare states and varieties of capitalism: Protagonists, consenters, and antagonists. World Politics 58(2): 167–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laranja, Manuel. 2012. Network governance of innovation policies: The technological plan in Portugal. Science and Public Policy 39(5): 655–668.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Latour, Bruno. 2005. Reassembling the social. An introduction to actor-network-theory, Clarendon lectures in management studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Law, John, und Vicky Singleton. 2000. Performing technology’s stories: On social constructivism, performance, and performativity. Technology and Culture 41(4): 765–775.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lundvall, Bengt-Åke, Hrsg. 1995. National systems of innovation. Towards a theory of innovation and interactive learning. London: Pinter Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lundvall, Bengt-Åke, und Susana Borrás. 2005. Science, technology, and innovation policy. In The Oxford handbook of innovation, Hrsg. Jan Fagerberg, David C. Mowery und Richard R. Nelson, 599–631. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mahoney, James. 2000. Path dependence in historical sociology. Theory and Society 29(4): 507–548.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mannheim, Karl. 1952. Ideologie und Utopie, 3. Aufl. Frankfurt a. M.: Verlag G. Schulte-Bulmke.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marcuse, Herbert. 1964. One-dimensional man. Studies in the ideology of advanced industrial society. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, Ben R. 2012. The evolution of science policy and innovation studies. Research Policy 41(7): 1219–1239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Metcalfe, J. Stanley. 1994. Evolutionary economics and technology policy. The Economic Journal 104(425): 931–944.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morlacchi, Piera, und Ben R. Martin. 2009. Emerging challenges for science, technology and innovation policy research: A reflexive overview. Research Policy 38(4): 571–582.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mowery, David C., Richard R. Nelson, und Ben R. Martin. 2010. Technology policy and global warming: Why new policy models are needed (or why putting new wine in old bottles won’t work). Research Policy 39(8): 1011–1023.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mytelka, Lynn K., und Keith Smith. 2002. Policy learning and innovation theory: An interactive and co-evolving process. Research Policy 31(8–9): 1467–1479.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, Richard R. 1959. The simple economics of basic scientific research. Journal of Political Economy 67(3): 297–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, Richard R., Hrsg. 1993. National innovation systems. A comparative analysis. New York City: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, Richard R. 2009. Building effective ‚innovation systems‘ versus dealing with ‚market failures‘ as ways of thinking about technology policy. In The new economics of technology policy, Hrsg. Dominique Foray, 7–16. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, Richard R., und Sidney G. Winter. 2002. Evolutionary theorizing in economics. The Journal of Economic Perspectives 16(2): 23–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Niinikoski, Marja-Liisa, und Stefan Kuhlmann. 2015. In discursive negotiation: Knowledge and the formation of Finnish innovation policy. Science and Public Policy 42(1): 86–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Niinikoski, Marja-Liisa, und Johanna Moisander. 2014. Serial and comparative analysis of innovation policy change. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 85:69–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parsons, Talcott. 1971. The system of modern societies. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parsons, Talcott, und Neil J. Smelser. 1964. Economy and society. A study in the integration of economic and social theory, 3. Aufl. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pelling, Mark, David Manuel-Navarrete, und Michael Redclift. 2012. Climate change and the crisis of capitalism. A chance to reclaim self, society and nature. Abingdon: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Pierson, Paul. 1993. When effect becomes cause: Policy feedback and political change. World Politics 45(4): 595–628.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pierson, Paul. 2000. Increasing returns, path dependence, and the study of politics. American Political Science Review 94(2): 251–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pyka, Andreas. 2002. Innovation networks in economics: From the incentive-based to the knowledge-based approaches. European Journal of Innovation Management 5(3): 152–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pyka, Andreas. 2015. Avoiding evolutionary inefficiencies in innovation networks. Prometheus 32(3): 265–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rammert, Werner. 1998. Technik und Sozialtheorie, Theorie und Gesellschaft, Bd. 42. Frankfurt a. M.: Campus Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rhodes, Roderick A. W. 2010. Policy network analysis. In The Oxford handbook of public policy. The Oxford handbooks of political science, Hrsg. Michael Moran, Martin Rein und Robert E. Goodin, 425–447. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogge, Karoline S., und Kristin Reichardt. 2016. Policy mixes for sustainability transitions: An extended concept and framework for analysis. Research Policy 45(8): 1620–1635.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rothwell, Roy. 1992. Successful industrial innovation: Critical factors for the 1990s. R&D Management 22(3): 221–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanz-Menéndez, Luis, und Susana Borrás. 2001. Explaining changes and continuity in EU technology policy: The politics of ideas. In The dynamics of European science and technology policies, Hrsg. Simon Dresner und Nigel Gilbert, 28–51. Aldershot: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schelsky, Helmut. 1965. Auf der Suche nach Wirklichkeit, Gesammelte Aufsätze. Düsseldorf: Diederichs.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, Vivien A. 2010. Taking ideas and discourse seriously: Explaining change through discursive institutionalism as the fourth ‚new institutionalism‘. European Political Science Review 2(1): 1–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schulz-Schaeffer, Ingo. 2000. Sozialtheorie der Technik. Zugl.: Bielefeld, University, Dissertation, Campus Forschung, Bd. 803. Frankfurt a. M.: Campus Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, W. Richard. 2014. Institutions and organizations. Ideas, interests, and identities, Foundations for organizational science, 4. Aufl. Los Angeles: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shinn, Terry. 2002. The Triple Helix and new production of knowledge: Prepared thinking on science and technology. Social Studies of Science 32(4): 599–614.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thornton, Patricia H., und William Ocasio. 2008. Institutional logics. In The SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism, Hrsg. Royston Greenwood, Christine Oliver, Kerstin Sahlin und Roy Suddaby, 99–127. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Trousset, Sarah. 2014. Current trends in science and technology policy research: An examination of published works from 2010–2012. Policy Studies Journal 42(2): S87–S117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Utterback, James M., und William J. Abernathy. 1975. A dynamic model of process and product innovation. Omega 3(6): 639–656.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uyarra, Elvira, Philip Shapira, und Alan Harding. 2016. Low carbon innovation and enterprise growth in the UK: Challenges of a place-blind policy mix. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 103:264–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vitols, Sigurt, und Lutz Engelhardt. 2005. National institutions and high tech industries: A varieties of capitalism perspective on the failure of Germany’s Neuer Markt. WZB working paper no. SP II 2005–03. Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waschkuhn, Arno. 2003. Politische Utopien. Ein politiktheoretischer Überblick von der Antike bis heute. München: Oldenbourg.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Weber, K. Matthias, und Harald Rohracher. 2012. Legitimizing research, technology and innovation policies for transformative change. Research Policy 41(6): 1037–1047.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wendt, Alexander. 1999. Social theory of international politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Werle, Raymund. 2012. Institutions and systems: Analysing technical innovation processes from an institutional perspective. In Innovation policy and governance in high-tech industries, Hrsg. Johannes M. Bauer, Achim Lang und Volker Schneider, 23–47. Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Wieczorek, Anna J., und Marko P. Hekkert. 2012. Systemic instruments for systemic innovation problems: A framework for policy makers and innovation scholars. Science and Public Policy 39(1): 74–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, Oliver E. 2000. The new institutional economics: Taking stock, looking ahead. Journal of Economic Literature 38(3): 595–613.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wooten, Melissa, und Andrew J. Hoffman. 2008. Organizational fields: Past, present and future. In The SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism, Hrsg. Royston Greenwood, Christine Oliver, Kerstin Sahlin und Roy Suddaby, 129–147. Los Angeles: Sage.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • World Bank. 2010. Innovation policy. A guideline for developing countries. Washington, DC: The World Bank.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Zehavi, Amos, und Dan Breznitz. 2017. Distribution sensitive innovation policies: Conceptualization and empirical examples. Research Policy 46(1): 327–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institut für Soziologie, Goethe Universität Frankfurt, Frankfurt (Main), Deutschland

    Filippo Reale

Authors
  1. Filippo Reale
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Filippo Reale .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Inst für Soziologie Campus Westend PEG, Goethe-Universität Frankfurt Inst für Soziologie Campus Westend PEG, Frankfurt, Hessen, Germany

    Birgit Blättel-Mink

  2. Institut für Soziologie, TU Berlin Institut für Soziologie, Berlin, Germany

    Ingo Schulz-Schaeffer

  3. Institut für Soziologie, TU Berlin Institut für Soziologie, Berlin, Berlin, Germany

    Arnold Windeler

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Reale, F. (2019). Grundzüge der Innovationspolitik. In: Blättel-Mink, B., Schulz-Schaeffer, I., Windeler, A. (eds) Handbuch Innovationsforschung. Springer VS, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-17671-6_57-1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-17671-6_57-1

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer VS, Wiesbaden

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-658-17671-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-658-17671-6

  • eBook Packages: Springer Referenz Naturwissenschaften

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation