CorText Manager around the world

@article{Rikap2020b,

title = {Who collects intellectual rents from knowledge and innovation hubs? questioning the sustainability of the singapore model},

author = {Cecilia Rikap and David Flacher},

doi = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strueco.2020.06.004},

year  = {2020},

date = {2020-12-01},

journal = {Structural Change and Economic Dynamics},

volume = {55},

pages = {59-73},

abstract = {While knowledge and innovation are produced in networks involving diverse actors, associated rents are greatly appropriated by global leaders, mostly coming from core countries, that become intellectual monopolies. This raises the question on emerging or peripheral countries companies’ capacity to catch-up, innovate and compete for intellectual rents. The article considers the case of Singapore who has pursued a knowledge hub strategy aimed at: 1) creating world class universities inserted in global knowledge networks of defined fields; and 2) capturing intellectual rents through those institutions’ research and contributing to local firms’ catching up. We show that research universities caught-up. However, we find that foreign companies, particularly multinationals, capture most of Singapore's intellectual rents at the expense of local companies and research institutions. Overall, our findings point to the limitations of Singapore's knowledge hub as a catching-up strategy. The article ends discussing the relevancy of these findings for emerging countries in general.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Macq2020,

title = {From Deliberation to Production: Public Participation in Science and Technology Policies of the European Commission (1998–2019)},

author = {Hadrien Macq and Elise Tancoigne and Bruno Strasser},

url = {http://hdl.handle.net/2268/246902},

doi = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-020-09405-6},

year  = {2020},

date = {2020-04-22},

journal = {Minerva: A Review of Science, Learning and Policy},

abstract = {This article investigates how a discourse about the role and value of public participation in science, technology, and innovation emerged and evolved in the research policies of the European Commission. At the beginning of the twenty- first century, two main discourses have been successively institutionalized: the first focused on participation in policy-making, while the second aimed at participation in the production of knowledge and innovation. This paper distinguishes three main institutional phases: (i) a phase dedicated to public participation in the governance of science and technology (2000–2010); (ii) a reframing period of science and tech- nology policies by the Commission to integrate the growing emphasis on innova- tion (2010–2014); (iii) a period focusing on co-creation and citizen science as new ways to involve the public in science and technology (2014-today). Factors such as individual commitments of key policy actors, specific epistemic communities and institutional dynamics within the Commission played a crucial role in shaping the policies of participation. But broader factors are also essential to account for these changes. In this respect, the economic crisis of the late 2000s appears fundamental to understanding how the conception and promotion of public participation in the European science and technology policies have evolved over time. This paper thus offers new insights to the analysis of the political economy of public participation.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}