ISSN: 2450-7733
eISSN: 2300-4096
OAI
DOI: 10.18276/sip.2017.49/1-13
Issue archive /
nr 49/1 2017
Dysproporcje między krajami Unii Europejskiej pod względem nakładów i efektywności działań B+R
(European Union Member States’ disparities in terms of GERD and R&D activity efficiency)
| Authors: |
Marcin
Gryczka
Uniwersytet Szczeciński |
| Keywords: | European Union gross domestic expenditure on R&D GERD Horizon 2020 |
| Data publikacji całości: | 2017 |
| Page range: | 15 (149-163) |
| Klasyfikacja JEL: | O31 O57 |
Abstract
The paper’s primary objectives are to analyze disparities between old and new European Union member states in terms of gross domestic expenditure on R&D (GERD) and to demonstrate possible catching-up process. In its latter part GERD financing and performance composition shifts in period 2004–2014 have been scrutinized, as well as the changes in R&D activity efficiency of main stakeholders, i.e. business, government and higher education sectors. Conducted research has confirmed that especially in period 2004–2014 new EU members were narrowing the gap to EU-15 countries, Japan and the USA, but current rate of those changes doesn’t assure neither the Horizon 2020 goals achievement nor new members’ competitive position improvement in comparison to fast developing Asian economies.
Download file
Article file
Bibliography
| 1. | Geissbauer, R., Vedsø, J., Schrauf, S. (2016). A Strategist’s Guide to Industry 4.0. Strategy & Business, 83. Pobrano z: https://www.strategy-business.com/article/A-Strategists-Guide-to-Industry-4.0?gko=7c4cf. |
| 2. | Hermann, M., Pentek, T., Otto, B. (2015). Design Principles for Industrie 4.0 Scenarios: A Literature Review. Technische Universität Dortmund Working Paper No. 01. Pobrano z: http://www.snom.mb.tu-dortmund.de/cms/de/forschung/Arbeitsberichte/Design-Principles-for-Industrie-4_0-Scenarios.pdf. |
| 3. | James, J. (2003). Bridging the Global Digital Divide. Cheltenham–Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing. |
| 4. | Lee, C.O. (1988). The Role of the Government and R&D Infrastructure for Technology Development. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 33 (1), 33–54. |
| 5. | Mazzucato, M. (2015). The Entrepreneurial State: Debunking Public vs. Private Sector Myths. New York: PublicAffairs. |
| 6. | Montagnier, P., Wirthmann, A. (2011). Digital Divide: From Computer Access to Online Activities – A Micro Data Analysis. OECD Digital Economy Papers No. 189. OECD Publishing. |
| 7. | OECD (2011). Public Research Institutions: Mapping Sector Trends. Paris: OECD Publishing. |
| 8. | OECD (2016). Research and Development Statistics. Pobrano z: https://www.oecd.org/innovation/inno/researchanddevelopmentstatisticsrds.htm. |
| 9. | Stoneman, P. (2003). Government Spending on Research and Development in the UK. W: D. Miles, G. Myles, I. Preston (red.), The Economics of Public Spending. Oxford: Oxford University Press. |
| 10. | The Global Innovation Index 2016: Winning with Global Innovation (2016). Ithaca, Fontainebleau, Geneva: Cornell University, INSEAD, WIPO. |
| 11. | UNESCO (2017). Science, Technology and Innovation. Pobrano z: http://data.uis.unesco.org/Index.aspx. |
| 12. | Veugelers, R., Cincera, M. (2015). The Impact of Horizon 2020 on Innovation in Europe. Intereconomics, 50 (1), 4–30. |