METHODOLOGICAL DEBATE ON THE ‘REGIONAL INNOVATION SCOREBOARD’.
METHODOLOGICAL DEBATE ON THE ‘REGIONAL INNOVATION SCOREBOARD’.
BIBLI- OGRA- PHY
Ács, Z. J., Autio, E., and Szerb, L. (2014). National systems of entrepreneurship: Measurement issues and policy implica- tions. Research Poli- cy, 43 (3), 476-494. Álvarez, I., Barbero, J., and Zofío, J. L. (2016). A data en - velopment analysis toolbox for MATLAB, Journal of Statisti- cal Software, 95 (3), 1-49. Arundel, A. (2007). Innovation Survey Indicators: What Impact on Innova- tion Policy? En OECD (Ed.), From Science, Technology and In- novation Indicators in a Changing World (pp. 49-64). OECD. Arundel, A., and Hol - landers, H. (2008). Innovation score- boards: indicators and policy use. En C. Nauwelaers and R. Wintjes (Eds.), Innovation Policy in Europe. Measure - ment and Strategy (pp. 29-52). Edward Elgar. Barbero, J., Zaba - la-Iturriagagoitia, J. M., and Zofío, J. L. (2021). Is more always better? On the relevance of de-
creasing returns to scale on innovation. Technovation, (107), 102314. Barbosa, N., and Faria, A. P. (2011). Innovation across Europe: How impor- tant are institutional differences. Re- search Policy, (40), 1157-1169. Becker, W., Saisana, M., Paruolo, P., and Vandecasteele., I. (2017). Weights and Importance in Com- posite Indicators: Closing the Gap. Ecological Indica- tors, (80), 12-22. Carayannis, E. G., Goletsis, Y., and Grig - oroudis, E. (2018). Composite innova- tion metrics: MCDA and the Quadruple Innovation Helix framework. Techno- logical Forecasting and Social Change, (131), 4-17. Castellacci, F., and Natera, J. M. (2013). The dynamics of national innovation systems: A panel cointegration anal- ysis of the coevolu- tion between inno- vative capability and absorptive capacity. Research Policy, 42(3), 579-594.
Charnes, A., Cooper, W. W., and Rhodes, E. (1978). Measur - ing the efficiency of decision making units. European Journal of Opera - tional Research, 2 (6), 429-444. Cooper, W. W., Ruiz, J. L., and Sirvent, I. (2011). Choices and uses of DEA weights. En W.W. Cooper, L. M. Seiford and J. Zhu (Eds.), Handbook on data envelopment anal- ysis (pp. 93-126). Springer. Davenport, S., and Bibby, D. (1999). Rethinking a national innovation system: The small country as «SME». Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 11 (3), 431-462. Innovation indicators throughout the inno- vation process: An extensive literature analysis. Technova- tion, (80-81), 3-29. Edler, J., and Fa - gerberg, J. (2017). Innovation policy: what, why, and how. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 33(1), 2-23. Dziallas, M., and Blind, K. (2019).
Edquist, C. (2011). Design of innovation policy through diag- nostic analysis: iden- tification of systemic problems (or fail- ures). Industrial and Corporate Change, 20 (6), 1725-1753. Edquist, C. (2014). Striving towards a Holistic Innovation Policy in European countries – But linearity still prevails! STI Policy Review, 5 (2), 1-19. Edquist, C., and Laatsit, M. (2022). From the Systems of Innovation Approach to a General The- ory of Innovation: Do Activities and Functions Reflect what Happens in Innovation Systems? Papers in Innovation Studies, (2022/07). CIRCLE, Lund Uni- versity, Sweden. Edquist, C., and Zabala-Iturriagag - oitia, J. M. (2015). The Innovation Union Scoreboard is Flawed: The case of Sweden – not being the innovation leader of the EU. Papers in Innovation Studies, (2015/16). CIRCLE, Lund University, Sweden.
82
83
Made with FlippingBook - Online Brochure Maker