Henrekson, M. <strong>and</strong> N. Rosenberg, 2000, Akademiskt entreprenörskap.Universitet och Näringsliv i Samverkan, SNS, Stockholm.Hicks, D. <strong>and</strong> D. Olivastro, 1998, ‘Are There Strong In-State Links betweenTechnology <strong>and</strong> Scientific <strong>Research</strong>’, Issue Brief, Division of ScienceResources Studies, CHI <strong>Research</strong>, Cherry Hill.Higgins, R.S. <strong>and</strong> A.N. Link, 1981, ‘Federal Support of Technological<strong>Growth</strong> in Industry: Some Evidence of Crowding Out’, IEEETransactions on Engineering Management EM-28, 86-88.Hines, J.R., Jr., 1993, ‘On the Sensitivity of R&D to Delicate Tax Changes:The Behavior of U.S. Multinationals in the 1980s’, i Giovannini, A.,Hubbard, R.G. och Slemrod, J. (red), Studies in International Taxation,III, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 149-94.Holemans, B. <strong>and</strong> L. Sleuwagen, 1988, ‘Innovation Expenditures <strong>and</strong> theRole of Government in Belgium’, <strong>Research</strong> Policy, 17, 375-79.Howe, J.D. <strong>and</strong> D.G. McFetridge, 1976, ‘The Determinants of R&DExpenditure’, Canadian Journal of Economics, 9, 57-71.Irwin, D.A. <strong>and</strong> P.J. Klenow, 1996, ‘High-Tech R&D Subsidies: Estimatingthe Effects of SEMATECH’, Journal of International Economics, 40,323-44.Jacobsson, S., 2002, ‘Universities <strong>and</strong> Industrial Transformation. AnInterpretative <strong>and</strong> Selective Literature Study with an Emphasis onSweden’, Science <strong>and</strong> Public Policy, 29(5), 345-65.Jensen, R. <strong>and</strong> M. Thursby, 2001, ‘Proofs <strong>and</strong> Prototypes for Sale: The Taleof University Licensing’, American Economic Review, 91(1), 240-59.Johnes, G., 1997, ‘Costs <strong>and</strong> Industrial Structure in Contemporary BritishHigher Education’, Economic Journal, 107, 727-37.Johnston, R., 1994, ‘Effects of Resource Concentration on <strong>Research</strong>Perfromance’, Higher Education, 28, 25-37.Jones, C., 2004, ‘<strong>Growth</strong> <strong>and</strong> Ideas’, i P. Aghion och S. Durlauf (red.),H<strong>and</strong>book of Economic <strong>Growth</strong>, 1063-1111.Katz, J.S., 1994, ‘Geographical Proximity <strong>and</strong> Scientific Collaboration’,Scientometrics, 31(1), 31-43.Kyvik, S., 1995, ‘Are Big University Departments Better than SmallOnes?’, Higher Education, 30, 295-304.Kyvik, S., 1998, ‘Kritisk Masse – Om Forskningsmiljöers Störrelse,Produktivitet og Kvalitet’, NIFU Skriftserie nr 8/98, NIFU, Oslo.60
Laundry, R., N. Amara <strong>and</strong> I., Rherrad, 2006, ‘Why are some University<strong>Research</strong>ers more Likely to Create Spin-Offs than Others? Evidencefrom Canadian Universities’, <strong>Research</strong> Policy, 35, 1599-1615.Levin, R.S. <strong>and</strong> P. Reiss, 1984, ‘Tests of a Schumpeterian Model of R&D<strong>and</strong> Market Structure’, i Z. Griliches (red.), R&D, Patents <strong>and</strong>Productivity, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Levy, D.M. <strong>and</strong> N.E. Terlecyj, 1983, ‘Effects of Government R&D onPrivate R&D Investment <strong>and</strong> Productivity: A Macroeconomic Analysis’,Bell Journal of Economics, 14, 551-61.Leyden, D.P., A.N. Link <strong>and</strong> D.S. Siegel, 2008, ‘A Theoretical <strong>and</strong>Empirical Aanalysis of the Decision to Locate on a University <strong>Research</strong>Park’, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management.Lichtenberg, F.R., 1984, ‘The Relationship between Federal Contract R&D<strong>and</strong> Company R&D, American Economic Review, 74(2), 73-78.Lichtenberg, F.R., 1987, ‘The Effect of Government Funding on PrivateIndustrial <strong>Research</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Development</strong>: A Re-Assessment’, Journal ofIndustrial Economics, 36, 97-104.Lichtenberg, F.R., 1988, ‘The Private R&D Investment Responseto FederalDesign <strong>and</strong> Technical Competitions’, American Economic Review, 78,550-59.Lichtenberg, F.R., 1993, ‘R&D Investment <strong>and</strong> International ProductivityDifferences’, i H. Siebert (red.), Economic <strong>Growth</strong> in the WorldEconomy, Tübingen, Mohr.Lichtenberg, F.R. <strong>and</strong> D. Siegel, 1991, ‘The Impact of R&D Investment onProductivity – New Evidence Using Linked R&D–LRD Data’, EconomicInquiry, 19(2), 535-51.Lindelöf, P. <strong>and</strong> H. Löfsten, 2003, ‘Science Park Location <strong>and</strong> NewTechnology-Based Firms in Sweden: Implications for Strategy <strong>and</strong>Performance’, Small Business Economics, 20(3), 245-58.Lindelöf, P. <strong>and</strong> H. Löfsten, 2004, ‘Proximity as a Resource Base forCompetitive Advantage: University-Industry Links for TechnologyTransfer’, Journal of Technology Transfer, 29(3–4), 311-26.Lindholm-Dahlstr<strong>and</strong>, Å., 1997, ‘<strong>Growth</strong> <strong>and</strong> Inventiveness in Technology-Based Spin-Off Firms’, <strong>Research</strong> Policy, 26(3), 331-44.Link, A.N., 1982, ‘An Analysis of the Composition of R&D Spending’,Southern Journal of Economics, 49, 342-49.61
- Page 1 and 2:
V I N N O V A R E P O R TV R 2 0 0
- Page 3:
Growth through Researchand Developm
- Page 7:
Contents1 Introduction ............
- Page 10 and 11:
The Government can perform R&D itse
- Page 12 and 13: that the company should appoint a c
- Page 14 and 15: the foremost examples of this syste
- Page 16 and 17: affected to a greater extent by the
- Page 18 and 19: companies themselves relates to pro
- Page 20 and 21: however, a question of a comparison
- Page 22 and 23: (Rosenberg, 1990; Pavitt, 1991). Di
- Page 24 and 25: previously. In such cases, the Gove
- Page 26 and 27: The direct public funding of R&D in
- Page 28 and 29: 5 The transfer of knowledge fromuni
- Page 30 and 31: that have both fixed and variable p
- Page 32 and 33: measures should be taken to improve
- Page 34 and 35: elieves that patenting and license
- Page 36 and 37: A better alternative would then be
- Page 38 and 39: type. The authors have examined the
- Page 40 and 41: Scott and Link (2006) have reviewed
- Page 42 and 43: thus comes from above. These suppor
- Page 44 and 45: 6 Government funding of theuniversi
- Page 46 and 47: • It can be expected that the uni
- Page 48 and 49: of the funding (increased polarisat
- Page 50 and 51: esearch to be effective. In additio
- Page 52 and 53: funds R&D projects. On the other ha
- Page 54 and 55: profit sharing between the research
- Page 56 and 57: Traditionally, the tasks of the uni
- Page 58 and 59: 8 ReferencesAdams, J., 1990, ‘Fun
- Page 60 and 61: Dresch, S.P., 1995, ‘The Economic
- Page 64 and 65: Link, A.N. and J.T. Scott, 2003,
- Page 66 and 67: Poole, E. and J.T. Bernard, 1992,
- Page 68 and 69: Zellner, C., 2003, ‘The Economics
- Page 70 and 71: tillväxtområde?11 DYNAMO 2 i halv
- Page 72: VINNOVA´s mission is to promote su