This paper reviews the issues concerning the agenda around the relationship between universities in Europe and industry. It places the discussion in the context of the European Union’s Lisbon Agenda (2000) of raising national expenditures on research and development to create the ‘Europe of Knowledge’ and the Bologna Agreement of 1999 on the European Higher Education Area. It sets out to consider what factors might inhibit the success of such strategies designed at overcoming Europe’s problems at the interface between universities and industry, hence universities’ potential impact on innovation and economic development. Examples from some of the EU15 countries illustrate the problems for Europe in developing an integrated strategy.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BalconiM.BreschiS.LissoniF. (2004). ‘Networks of innovators and the role of academia: An exploration of Italian patent data’, Research Policy, 33(1), 127–145.
2.
BachtlerJ. (2004). ‘Innovation-led regional development: Policy trends and issues’ Paper presented at the OECD conference on Innovation and Regional Development: Transition Towards a Knowledge-based Economy, Florence, Italy, 25–26November (Unpublished).
3.
BatyP. (2005). ‘£300m Science Central aims to boost businesses and jobs.’Times Higher Educational Supplement, July15, p. 9. London: THES.
ChapmanC. (2005). ‘Bid to create German Ivy League receives a £1.3bn shot in the arm’. Times Higher Educational Supplement, July15, 10–11. London: THES.
6.
CharlesD.R. (2003). ‘Universities and territorial development: reshaping the regional role of UK universities’. Local Economy, 18(1), 7–20.
7.
CharlesD.ConwayC. (2001). Higher education-business interaction survey. Research Report, 01/68. Newcastle: CURDS. Available at www.hefce.ac.uk.
8.
CharlesD.HowellsJ. (1992). Technology Transfer in Europe: Public and Private Networks. London: Belhaven Press.
9.
CookeP. (2004). ‘The molecular biology revolution and the rise of bioscience megacentres’, Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 22(2), 161–178.
10.
CowanR.JonardN. (2003). ‘The Workings of Scientific Communities’, in GeunaA.SalterA.SteinmuellerW. E. (2003). (eds) Science and Innovation. Rethinking the Rationales for Funding and Governance. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
11.
CurtisP. (2004). ‘Dire warnings as chemistry departments close’, Education Guardian. February2. Available at: http://education.guardian.co.uk/universitiesincrisis/story/0,12028,1137231,00.html
12.
DavisC. (2003). ‘London to incubate bioscience’, Times Higher Educational Supplement. August1, 10. London: THES.
13.
The Dearing Report (1997). Higher Education in the Learning Society. Report of the National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education, chaired by Sir Ron (now Lord) Dearing, July23, House of Lords Papers, 1997–98. London: The Stationery Office, August.
14.
Df ES (2003). The Future of Higher Education. London: Df ES. Available at: www.dfes.gov.uk/highereducation/hestrategy/heandb.shtml
15.
DTI (1988). DTI – The Department for Enterprise. London: Department of Trade and Industry.
16.
DTI (1993). Realising Our Potential: A Strategy for Science, Technology and Engineering. London: Department of Trade and Industry.
17.
DTI (1998). Our Competitive Future. London: Department of Trade and Industry.
18.
DTI (2000). Excellence and Opportunity: A Science and Innovation Policy for the 21st century. London, HMSO.
19.
DTI (2003). Bioscience 2015: Improving National Health, Increasing National Wealth. London: Department of Trade and Industry (HMSO).
20.
EdqvistO. (2003). ‘Layered science and science policies’, Minerva, 41(3), 207–221.
21.
EtzkowitzH. (2003). ‘Research Groups as quasi-firms: the invention of the entrepreneurial university’, Research Policy, 32(1), 109–121.
22.
EtzkowitzH.WebsterA.GebhardtC.TerraB.R. (2000). ‘The future of the university and the university of the future: Evolution from ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm’, Research Policy, 29(2), 313–330.
23.
European Commission (2001a). 2001 Innovation Scoreboard. Commission Staff Working Paper, SEC, 1414, Brussels.
24.
European Commission (2001b). Communication from the Commission: The Regional Dimensionof the European Research Area. Brussels, 03.10.2001 COM, 549 final.
25.
European Commission (2003a). ‘Communication from the Commission: The role of the universities in the Europe of knowledge’. Brussels, COM, 58 final.
26.
European Commission (2003b). Third European Report on S&T Indicators 2003: Towards a Knowledge-based Economy. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, EUR 20025 EN. Available at: www.cordis.lu/indicators/third_report.htm.
27.
European Commission (2004). ‘Innovation in Europe, Iceland and Norway: Overview of the third Community Innovation Survey’. Luxembourg: CEC. Available at: www.cordis.lu/innovation-smes/src/cis.htm.
28.
GeorghiouL.KuhlmannS. (2002). ‘Future policy instruments: Evaluation of the socio-economic effects of the European Research Area’, in PoltW.RojoJ.ZinöckerK.FahrenkrogG.TübkeA. (eds) RTD Evaluation Tool Box – Assessing the Socio-Economic Impact of RTD Policies. Brussels, Luxembourg (EUROPEAN COMMISSION, Joint Research Centre, Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, CSC-EEC-EAEC)(IPTS Technical Report Series, EUR 20382 EN), 203–210. Available at: http://epub.jrc.es/docs/EUR-20382-EN.pdf).
29.
GeunaA. (1998). ‘Determinants of university participation in EU-funded R&D cooperative projects’, Research Policy, 26(6), 677–687.
30.
GeunaA.NestaL. (2003). ‘University patenting and its effects in academic research’, SEWPS Working Paper, No. 99, June.
31.
GeunaA.SalterA.J.SteinmuellerW.E. (2003). ‘General introduction’, in GeunaA.SalterA.J.SteinmuellerW.E., W.E. (eds) Science and Innovation: Rethinking the Rationales for Funding and Governance. London: Edward Elgar.
32.
GeunaA. (2001). ‘The changing rationale for European university research funding: Are there negative unintended consequences?’, Journal of Economic Issues, 35(3), 607–632.
33.
GoddardJ.CharlesD.PikeA.PottsG.BradleyD. (1994). Universities and Communities. London: Committee of Vice Chancellors and Principals.
34.
GuilluameH. (1998). ‘Rapport de Mission sur la technologie et l’innovation’. Paris: MRET.
35.
HagueD.OakleyK. (2000). Spin-offs and Start-ups in UK Universities. London: CVCP.
36.
HenleyJ (2004). ‘Top French scientists in threat to quit’. The Guardian, Tuesday, 13January, 14.
37.
HM Treasury (2003). Lambert Review of Business-University Collaboration (The Lambert Report). Available at: www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/consultations_and_legislation/lambert/consult_lambert_index.cfm.
38.
HughesA. (2003). ‘Knowledge transfer, entrepreneurship and economic growth: Some reflections and implications for policy in the Netherlands’. ESRC Centre for Business Research, University of Cambridge, Working Paper No. 273.
39.
KreijenM.Van der LaagA. (2003). ‘Spin-offs as a bridge between two worlds: A policy perspective’, in van der LaagA.SnijderJ. (eds) Entrepeneurship inthe Netherlands: Knowledge Transfer, Developing High-tech Ventures. The Hague, the Netherlands: Ministry of Economic Affairs and EIM Business and Policy Research.
40.
Lanciano-MorandatC.NoharaH. (2002). ‘Academic spin-offs in France: the construction of the societal between national and local: First comparative approach’. SASE Conference, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 27–30June.
41.
Lawton SmithH. (2000). Technology Transfer and Industrial Change in Europe. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
42.
Lawton SmithH.GlassonJ.SimmieJ.ChadwickA.ClarkG. (2003). Enterprising Oxford: The Growth of the Oxfordshire High-tech Economy. Oxford: Oxford Economic Observatory.
43.
LeifnerI.SchatzlL.SchroderT. (2004). ‘Reforms in German higher education: Implementing and adapting Anglo-American organizational and management structures at German universities’, Higher Education Policy, 17, 23–28.
44.
LlerenaP.MattM.SchaefferV. (2003). ‘Evolutions of the French innovation policies and the impacts on the universities’, in GeunaA.SalterA.J.SteinmuellerW. E. (eds) Science and Innovation: Rethinking the Rationales for Funding and Governance. London: Edward Elgar.
45.
MasonG.BeltramoJ.-P.PaulJ.-J. (2004). ‘External knowledge sourcing in different national settings: a comparison of electronics establishments in Britain and France’, Research Policy, 33(1), 53–72.
46.
MuizerA (2003). ‘Knowledge transfer to innovative start-ups’, in van der LaagA.SnijderJ. (eds) Entrepeneurship in the Netherlands: Knowledge Transfer, Developing High-tech Ventures. EIM Business and Policy Research, Ministry of Economic Affairs, the Hague, the Netherlands.
47.
NollR.G. (1998). ‘The American research university: An introduction’, Chapter 1, in NollR. G. (ed.) Challenges to Research Universities. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 1–30.
48.
OECD (1999). The Response of Higher Education Institutions to Regional Needs. IHME Report. Paris: OECD.
49.
OECD (2004). Innovation-led Policies for Regional Competitiveness. Paris: OECD.
50.
PammolliF.RiccaboniM.GambardellaA.MarianiM.OrsenigoL. (2001). ‘Innovation and competitiveness in the European biotechnology industry’. Report Commissioned by the European Commission, DG Enterprise, as a Background Paper for the Competitiveness Report.
51.
Sainsbury Report (1999). Biotechnology Clusters: Report of a team led by Lord Sainsbury, Minister for Science. London: Department of Trade and Industry.
52.
SBS (2003). ‘Investing in the future.’Save British Science Newsletter. No. 37, July, London: Save British Science. Available at: www.savebritishscience.org.uk.
53.
SenkerJ. (2005). ‘Assessing the capitalisation of knowledge: the need for a broad policy approach’, paper presented at the Fifth Triple Helix Conference, Turin, 18–21May.
54.
SternbergR. (1999). ‘Innovative linkages and proximity: Empirical results from recent surveys of small and medium-sized firms in German regions’, Regional Studies, 33(6), 529–540.
55.
StevensonL. (2002). ‘Innovation and entrepreneurship: Dutch policy in an international context’, in van der LaagA.SnijderJ. (eds) Entrepeneurship in the Netherlands: Knowledge Transfer, Developing High-tech Ventures. The Hague, the Netherlands: Ministry of Economic Affairs and EIM Business and Policy Research.
56.
Times Higher Education Supplement (2003). ‘EU ruling in stem cells smoothes research path’. Opinion, July18, 14. London: THES.
57.
Times Higher Education Supplement (2004). World University Rankings, 5November. London: THES.
58.
VialeR.GhiglioneB. (1998). The Triple Helix Model: A Tool for the Study of European Regional Socio Economic Systems. The IPTS Report, 29, November. Available at: www.jrces/pages/iptsreport/vol29/english/REG1E296.htm.
59.
WalshokM.L. (2002). ‘Introduction’, Industry and Higher Education, 16(1), 7–8.
60.
WaasdorpP. (2002). ‘Innovative entrepreneurship: A Dutch Policy Perspective’, in van der LaagA.SnijderJ. (eds) Entrepeneurship in the Netherlands: Knowledge Transfer, Developing High-tech Ventures. The Hague, the Netherlands: Ministry of Economic Affairs and EIM Business and Policy Research.
61.
World Economic Forum (2004). The Lisbon Review 2004: An Assessment of Policies and Reforms in Europe. Geneva, Switzerland. Available at: http://www.weforum.org/pdf/Gcr/LisbonReview/Lisbon_Review_2004.pdf.
62.
YoungS.BrownR. (2002). ‘Globalisation and the knowledge economy’, in HoodN.PeatJ.PetersE.YoungS. (eds) Scotland in a Global Economy: The 2020 Vision. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
