Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The R&D composition of European countries: concentrated versus dispersed profiles

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this study, we use a unique dataset covering all higher education institutions, public research Institutions and private companies that have applied for funding to the European Framework Programs for Research and Innovation in the period 2007–2017. The first aim of this study is to show the composition of R&D performing actors per country, which to the best of our knowledge has never been done before. The second aim of this study is to compare country profiles in R&D composition, so that we may analyse whether the countries differ in concentration of R&D performing institutions. The third aim of this study is to investigate whether different R&D country profiles are associated with how the R&D systems perform, i.e. whether the profiles are associated with Research and Innovation performance indicators. Our study shows that the concentration of R&D actors at country-level and within the sectors differ across European countries, with the general conclusion being that countries that can be characterized as well-performing on citation and innovation indicators seem to combine (a) high shares of Gross Domestic Expenditure on R&D as percentage of GDP with (b) a highly skewed R&D system, where a small part of the R&D performing actors account for a very high share of the national R&D performance. This indicates a dual R&D system which combines a few large R&D performing institutions with a very large number of small actors.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. For example; a public nursing home: should it be treated as an individual unit, or is it part of a municipality? If it is not public, is it a private corporate that has the ownership (PRC) or is it voluntary organizations which runs the nursing home (OTH)?

  2. For Serbia, data on PCT patent applications is not available. We have thus calculated Serbia’s Intellectual assets score based on design and trademark applications only.

  3. Russia and Ukraine are not included in this study.

  4. Greece, Cyprus, Malta and Iceland have not been chosen as reference values and are given the score 1.00 equal to the second-highest performing country.

References

  • Acosta, M., Coronado, D., Ferrandiz, E. & Leon, M. (2012). Quantity or quality? What do academic R&D funds promote? Paper presented at the DRUID 2012 (June 19–21), Copenhagen.

  • Agrawal, A. K., Cockburn, I. M., Galasso, A., & Oettl, A. (2014). Why are some regions more innovative than others? The role of small firms in the presence of large labs. Journal of Urban Economics, 81, 149–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aksnes, D. W., Sivertsen, G., van Leeuwen, T. N., & Wendt, K. K. (2017). Measuring the productvity of national R&D systems: Challenges in cross-national comparisons of R&D input and publication output indicators. Science and Public Policy, 44(2), 246–258.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anic, I.-D. (2017). Facilitating effective science-industry collaborative research: A literature review. Privredna kretanja i ekonomska politika, 26, 7–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ankrah, S., & Al-Tabbaa, O. (2015). University–industry collaboration: A systematic review. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 31(3), 387–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bjerke, L., & Johansson, S. (2015). Patterns of innovation and collaboration in small and large firms. Annals of Regional Science, 55, 221–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boschma, R. A. (2005). Proximity and innovation: A critical assessment. Regional Studies, 39, 61–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braunerhjelm, P., Ding, D. & Thulin, P. (2014). Does labor mobility foster innovation? Evidence from Sweden. In Working paper 30. Swedish Entrepreneurship: Forum.

  • Braunerhjelm, P., Ding, D., & Thulin, P. (2018). The knowledge spillover theory of intrapreneurship. Small Business Economics, 51, 1–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Breznitz, S. M., & Feldman, M. P. (2012). The engaged university. Journal of Technology Transfer, 37(2), 139–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caloghirou, Y., Tsakanikas, A., & Vonortas, N. S. (2001). University–industry cooperation in the context of the European Framework Programmes. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(1), 153–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cardamone, P., Pupo, V., & Ricotta, F. (2016). Do firms benefit from university research? Evidence from Italy. Italian Economic Journal, 2(3), 445–471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Commission, European. (2015). An analysis of the role and impact of Research Performing Organisations’ participation in the Framework Programmes (PP-01264-2104). Brussels: European Commission, Directorate General for Research & Innovation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cunningham, J. A., & Link, A. N. (2015). Fostering university–industry R&D collaborations in European Union countries. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 11(4), 849–860.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • D’Este, P., Guy, F., & Iammarino, S. (2013). Shaping the formation of university–industry research collaborations: What type of proximity does really matter? Journal of Economic Geography, 13(4), 537–558.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ebersberger, B., & Herstad, S. J. (2012). The relationship between international innovation collaboration, intramural R&D and SMEs’ innovation performance: A quantile regression approach. Applied Economic Letters, 20(7), 626–630.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ebersberger, B., & Lööf, H. (2005). Multinational enterprises, spillover, innovation and productivity. International Journal of Management Research, 4, 7–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edquist, C., Zabala-Iturriagagoitia, J. M., Barbero, J., & Zofío, J. L. (2018). On the meaning of innovation performance: Is the synthetic indicator of the Innovation Union Scoreboard flawed? Research Evaluation, 27(3), 196–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ejsing, A., Kaiser, U., Kongsted, H., & Laursen, K. (2013). The role of university scientist mobility for industrial innovation. IZA discussion paper 7470.

  • Eriksson, T., & Moritz Kuhn, J. (2006). Firm spin-offs in Denmark 1981–2000—Patterns of entry and exit. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 24(5), 1021–1040.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (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 

  • European Commission. (2018). European innovation scoreboard.

  • Eurostat. (2017). Eurostat news release 183/2017—1 December 2017.

  • Falk, M. (2006). What drives business Research and Development (R&D) intensity across Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries? Applied Economics, 38(5), 533–547.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fantino, D., Mori, A., & Scalise, D. (2015). Collaboration between firms and universities in Italy: The role of a firm’s proximity to top-rated departments. Italian Economic Journal, 1, 219–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fontana, R., Geuna, A., & Matt, M. (2006). Factors affecting university–industry R&D projects: The importance of searching, screening and signalling. Research Policy, 35(2), 309–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frenken, K., Heimeriks, G. J., & Hoekman, J. (2017). What drives university research performance? An analysis using the CWTS Leiden Ranking data. Journal of Informetrics, 11, 859–872.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frenken, K., van Oort, F. G., & Verburg, T. (2007). Related variety, unrelated variety and regional economic growth. Regional Studies, 41(5), 685–697.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giuliani, E., & Arza, V. (2009). What drives the formation of ‘valuable’ university–industry linkages? Insights from the wine industry. Research Policy, 38(6), 906–921.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hottenrott, H. & Lawson, C. (2012). Research grants, sources of ideas and the effects on academic research. Discussion paper no. 12-048. Zentrum für Europäische Wirtschaftsforschung GmbH.

  • Hottenrott, H., & Thorwarth, S. (2011). Industry funding of university research and scientific productivity. Kyklos, 64(4), 534–555.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jong, S., & Slavova, K. (2014). When publications lead to products: The open science conundrum in new product development. Research Policy, 43(4), 645–654.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaiser, U., Kongsted, H., & Rønde, T. (2015). Does the mobility of R&D labor increase innovation? Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 110, 91–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keller, W., & Yeaple, S. R. (2009). Multinational enterprises, international trade, and productivity growth: Firm-level evidence from the United States. Review of Economics and Statistics, 91(4), 821–831.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laursen, K., Reichstein, T., & Salter, A. (2011). Exploring the effect of geographical proximity and university quality on university–industry collaboration in the United Kingdom. Regional Studies, 45(4), 507–523.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lepori, B., Veglio, V., Heller-Schuh, B., Scherngell, T., & Barber, M. (2015). Participations to European Framework Programs of higher education institutions and their association with organizational characteristics. Scientometrics, 105(3), 2149–2178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leydesdorff, L., & Wagner, C. (2009). Macro-level indicators of the relations between research funding and research output. Journal of Informetrics, 3, 353–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lopez, S. F., Astray, B. P., Pazos, D. R., & Calvo, N. (2015). Are firms interested in collaborating with universities? An open-innovation perspective in countries of the South West European Space. Service Business, 9(4), 637–662.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maietta, O. W. (2015). Determinants of university-firm R&D collaboration and its impact on innovation: A perspective from a low-tech industry. Research Policy, 44(7), 1341–1359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKelvey, M., Zaring, O., & Ljungberg, D. (2015). Creating innovative opportunities through research collaboration: An evolutionary framework and empirical illustration in engineering. Technovation, 39–40, 26–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Melin, G. (2000). Pragmatism and self-organization: Research collaboration on the individual level. Research Policy, 29, 31–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moed, H. F., de Moya-Anegon, F., Lopez-Illescas, C., & Visser, M. (2011). Is concentration of university research associated with better research performance? Journal of Informetrics, 5, 649–658.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mowery, D. C., & Sampat, B. N. (2006). Universities in national innovation systems, chapter 8. In J. Fagerberg, D. C. Mowery, & R. Nelson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nooteboom, B., van Haverbeke, W., Duysters, G., Gisling, V., & van den Oord, A. (2007). Optimal cognitive distance and absorptive capacity. Research Policy, 36, 1016–1034.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parish, A. J., Boyack, K. W., & Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2018). Dynamics of co-authorship and productivity across different fields of scientific research. PLoS ONE, 13(1), e0189742.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piro, F. N., Scordato, L. & Aksnes, D. W. (2016). Choosing the right partners. Norwegian participation in European framework programmes. NIFU Report 2016: 41. Oslo, NIFU.

  • Piro, F.N., Tømte, C., Rørstad, K. & Thune, T. (2013). Langsiktig kunnskapsutvikling på næringslivets premisser? Evaluering av Nærings-ph.d.-ordningen. NIFU-rapport 2/2013. Oslo, NIFU.

  • Simeth, M., & Raffo, J. D. (2013). What makes companies pursue an open science strategy? Research Policy, 42(9), 1531–1543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Solberg, E., Larsen, K., Wiig, O., Aagaard, K. & Sivertsen, G. (2012). Markets for applied research. A comparative analysis of R&D-systems in five countries. NIFU Report 46/2012. Oslo, NIFU.

  • Steinmo, M., & Rasmussen, E. (2016). How firms collaborate with public research organizations: The evolution of proximity dimensions in successful innovation projects. Journal of Business Research, 69(3), 1250–1259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tijssen, R., Lamers, W., & Yegros, A. (2017). UK universities interacting with industry: Patterns of research collaboration and inter-sectoral mobility of academic researchers. Working paper no. 14. March 2017. London, Centre for Global Higher Education working paper series.

  • Wagner, C. S. (2005). Six case studies of international collaboration in science. Scientometrics, 62(1), 3–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waltman, L., Calero-Medina, C., Kosten, J., Noyons, E., Tijssen, R. J. W., Van Eck, N. J., et al. (2012). The Leiden Ranking 2011/2012: Data collection, indicators, and interpretation. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(12), 2419–2432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang, H., Zheng, Y., & Zhao, X. (2013). Exploration or exploitation? Small firms’ alliance strategies with large firms. Strategic Management Journal, 35(1), 146–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This study was funded by R-QUEST, Research Council of Norway Grant Number 256223.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Research Quality and Policy Impact Studies (R-QUEST), Nordic Institute for Studies in Innovation, Education and Research (NIFU), PO Box 2815, Tøyen, 0608, Oslo, Norway

    Fredrik Niclas Piro

Authors
  1. Fredrik Niclas Piro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fredrik Niclas Piro.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Piro, F.N. The R&D composition of European countries: concentrated versus dispersed profiles. Scientometrics 119, 1095–1119 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03062-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03062-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation