Search

This article investigates whether sector-specific research and development (R&D) specialisation indices are a useful device for R&D policy analysis. We first conceptualise R&D specialisation, and then discuss the usability and limitations of a quantitative benchmarking approach by displaying specialisation indices for Austria, Germany and Norway. We show that the extent of correlation between public and private R&D funding specialisation in firms varies considerably between countries. Reasons for specific specialisation patterns are to be found in government funding decisions and strategies, such as the role of bottom-up research funding or the relevance of defence R&D. Limitations in data availability and lack of appropriate classifications require a combination of quantitative and qualitative measures in order to understand better existing R&D specialisation patterns. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article characterizes and analyses evaluation practice in national innovation policy across Europe. It is the first study that examines and interprets the characteristics, quality, usefulness, and consequences of evaluations in a systematic way. The analysis is based on the comprehensive I NNO-Appraisal repository of 171 evaluation reports of national innovation policies of EU25 countries, conducted between 2002 and 2007. The article seeks (1) to assess the state of the art of evaluation in innovation policy at national level, (2) to understand how different key dimensions of evaluation (timing, purpose, methods, tendering process, etc.) relate to each other, and (3) to explore types of evaluations. On that basis, we (4) draw lessons as to what constitutes good practice in evaluation, as the results of the survey have been exchanged and discussed with a number of policy makers of the sample responsible for the evaluation. The article thus both contributes to the academic understanding of policy evaluation and supports use in policy practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite its relevance for research funding, few comparable data are available in official R&D statistics on the amount and composition of project funding. This paper discusses in detail the methodology developed in the European Network of Excellence on Research and Innovation Policies PRIME for systematically producing indicators on public project funding which allow for comparative analysis between different countries and across periods of time. We introduce the design of the methodology, and discuss delimitation problems and how to develop suitable classifications of project funding instruments, as well as data availability and limitations. We present examples of our quantitative results for six European countries and of the questions they raise for comparative policy analysis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper investigates the developments of research councils in Austria, Norway and Switzerland, and analyses their responsiveness to government and science. By use of various data sources and indicators, our results suggest that councils are sometimes more responsive to the beneficiaries' interests (science) than to policy-makers, but are more responsive to government policies when under stronger government control. Patterns of responsiveness tend to be stable through time despite important changes in national contexts and the changing roles and organisation of research councils. These findings have interesting theoretical consequences about responsiveness and independence [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article presents a comparative analysis of the evolution of national research policies during the past three decades in six European countries (Austria, Italy, France, Netherlands, Norway and Switzerland), with a special focus on the changes of public project funding schemes. It systematically uses indicators on the volume of funding attributed by each instrument and agency, which have been developed in a project of the European network of excellence PRIME. A common model is identified in these countries, where project funding is the second main channel of public funding of research, but also there are considerable variations among them in the share of instruments and agencies, and in beneficiaries. There are three interesting commonalities: a strong increase of project funding volumes; a differentiation of instruments; and a general shift towards instruments oriented to thematic priorities. They also show that individual countries appear to follow quite distinct paths in the organisation setting of funding agencies, and that national differences in funding portfolios persist through time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]