Search results

This paper offers various state‐space representations in the context of applications of the system control theory to dynamic economic systems and examines interrelationships between the alternative representations in both economics literature and system control engineering literature. In particular, some characteristics of various state‐space forms are assessed with respect to the structural properties of each form, thereby demonstrating the relative advantages and disadvantages of different realization methods presented in this paper.

This paper is concerned with the state‐space approach to optimal control problems of dynamic econometric systems. We show how the state‐space approach can be integrated into the traditional econometric method, and how much could be gained by this consolidated approach.

This paper investigates how macroeconomic policy and planning of large‐scale dynamic systems are approached from the cybernetic principle, as can be viewed in the interplay of information, decision and control. Some speculations about directions in large‐scale policy and planning methods are offered.

All countries use public procurement to some degree to further policy objectives such as sustainability, innovation, fighting fraud and corruption, value for taxpayers' money etc. Countries may learn from past successes and failures in other countries while implementing these policies: cross-country learning. In this exploratory study, we investigate cross-country learning across two frequently used policy areas: sustainability and innovation. A threefold methodology was used that consisted of (1) an extensive review of scientific literature complemented by (2) a thorough examination of policy documents and (3) interviews with leading public procurement experts from 10 countries including both developing and developed countries. The main findings indicate that there is no hard evidence for cross-country learning. Even if cross-country learning would exist, the lessons learned seem to remain largely implicit.

The purpose of this paper is to characterize the knowledge flow between companies and universities based on national and sectoral systems of innovation perspective. It is argued here that high-tech sectors can describe a knowledge flow mainly based on scientific research, while sectors with lower technological impact may establish relations based on technical needs.

A case study research was conducted in the horticulture and aerospace sectors in Brazil. Thirteen interviews were performed with chief executive officer’s and academic researchers from both fields.

Results demonstrated differences in technology development and knowledge infrastructure when comparing both sectors, reflecting the impacts of national and sectoral systems of innovation. The horticulture sector presented technological limitations due to restricted eating habits, logistics, knowledge development at universities and difficulties on the establishment of partnerships between local companies and Embrapa, the main public research centre. Such restrictions limit academic activities while companies look for research partnerships abroad. Space industry also has limited technological development due to international embargoes and lack of research alignment between companies and universities. Companies end up developing research activities internally, usually funded by governmental tenders.

The horticulture sector has limitations, as it is not the main agriculture area in science and technology applications. Future studies may analyse areas like soy beans, sugar cane and coffee, which may present differences specially regarding sectoral systems of innovation.

The finding of this paper may influence the review of sectoral innovation policies, improving the development of local research activities which may be a source of valuable knowledge to companies. It also demonstrates the importance of the knowledge flow to improve sector’s technology level.

Academic entrepreneurship is seen as a pathway for universities to create value from their knowledge. However, there has been a lack of clarity about what activities constitute academic entrepreneurship, the different type of entrepreneurial academics and how their perceptions of their environment relate to their engagement.

Drawing on a large data set of 10,836 responses across 33 countries, the empirical study investigates European academics who undertake four academic entrepreneurship activities (spin-out creation, commercialisation of R&D results, joint R&D and consulting) to determine if they perceive the environment for academic entrepreneurship differently than those who undertake only some of the activities and those undertaking none at all.

The findings show that less than 1% of academics undertake exclusively spin-offs creation or R&D commercialisation; however, the majority also engage in other entrepreneurial activities such as joint R&D and consulting and even other education and management engagement activities with industry. In addition, entrepreneurial academics in Europe perceive significantly higher motivators and more developed supporting mechanisms for academic entrepreneurship. However, their perceptions of barriers are similar.

At a managerial and policy level, the study results call into question universities prioritising a narrow view of academic entrepreneurship which focusses only on spin-offs creation and R&D commercialisation. Instead, a broader view of academic entrepreneurship is recommended and appropriate mechanisms in place to enable academics to achieve research outcomes from their entrepreneurial activity.

This paper offers an important contribution on how the perception of the environment contributes to the development of entrepreneurial behaviour in individual academics.