Have a personal or library account? Click to login
The Legal Implications of Public Support Policies Targeting Research, Development and Innovation in the European Union Cover

The Legal Implications of Public Support Policies Targeting Research, Development and Innovation in the European Union

Open Access
|Nov 2021

References

  1. Aghion, P. & Tirole, J. (1994), ‘The management of innovation,’ The Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 109, no. 4, pp. 1185–1209. https://doi.org/10.2307/211836010.2307/2118360
  2. Andrijevskaja, J.; Varblane, U. & Mets, T. (2010), ‘Knowledge-based entrepreneurship in Estonia,’ CASE Network Studies and Analyses, No. 407. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.167013810.2139/ssrn.1670138
  3. Atlanta Fruchthandelsgesellschaft mbH and others v. Bundesamt für Ernährung und Forstwirtschaft [1991], ECJ, C-465/93, ECLI:EU:C:1995:369, 9.11.1995.
  4. Basberg, B. (1987), ‘Patents and the measurement of technological change: A survey of the literature,’ Research Policy, vol. 16, nos. 2–4, pp. 131–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(87)90027-810.1016/0048-7333(87)90027-8
  5. Ben-Menahem, S. M.; von Krogh, G.; Erden, Z. & Schneider, A. (2016), ‘Coordinating knowledge creation in multidisciplinary teams: Evidence from early-stage drug discovery,’ Academy of Management Journal, vol. 59, no. 4, pp. 1308–1338. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2013.121410.5465/amj.2013.1214
  6. Blind, K.; Edler, J.; Frietsch, R. & Schmoch, U. (2006), ‘Motives to patent: Empirical evidence from Germany,’ Research Policy, vol. 35, no. 5, pp. 655–672. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2006.03.00210.1016/j.respol.2006.03.002
  7. Cambridge Dictionary (n.d.), ‘Lead time’. Retrieved from https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/lead-time [accessed 1 Jul 2021]
  8. Catalán, M.; Clayton, M. & Nowak, A. (2019), ‘Third party rights and the State aid procedures revisited by the European courts: An ever-sounder State aid control,’ Journal of European Competition Law & Practice, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 212–223. https://doi.org/10.1093/jeclap/lpz03310.1093/jeclap/lpz033
  9. Commission Regulation (EU) No. 651/2014 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the internal market in application of Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty Text with EEA relevance, OJ L 187, 26.6.2014, pp. 1–78.
  10. Commission Regulation (EU) 2020/972 amending Regulation (EU) no. 1407/2013 as regards its prolongation and amending Regulation (EU) no. 651/2014 as regards its prolongation and relevant adjustments, C/2020/4349, OJ L 215, 7.7.2020, pp. 3–6.
  11. Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, OJ L 248, 24.9.2015, pp. 9–29.
  12. Czarnitzki, D.; Ebersberger, B. & Fier, A. (2007), ‘The relationship between R&D collaboration, subsidies and R&D performance: Empirical evidence from Finland and Germany,’ Journal of Applied Econometrics, vol. 22, no. 7, pp. 1347–1366. https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.99210.1002/jae.992
  13. Davis, M. H.; Hall, J. A. & Mayer, P. S. (2016), ‘Developing a new measure of entrepreneurial mindset: Reliability, validity, and implications for practitioners,’ Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, vol. 68, no. 1, pp. 21–48. https://doi.org/10.1037/cpb000004510.1037/cpb0000045
  14. Decision SA.45185 (2017/N) – Germany – Repayable advances for the research and development programme of the Airbus X6 helicopter. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/cases/269260/269260_1958220_81_2.pdf [accessed 1 Jul 2021]
  15. Decision SA.49781 (2019/EV) – Italy Evaluation plan for large R&D&I aid scheme under the Fund for Sustainable Growth. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/cases1/20217/279093_2245543_138_2.pdf [accessed 1 Jul 2021]
  16. Decision SA.56245 (2020/EV) – Germany Evaluation plan for the block-exempted R&D tax incentive scheme “Forschungszulagengesetz” for a detailed overview of the evaluation process. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/cases1/20216/284301_2242214_192_2.pdf [accessed 1 Jul 2021]
  17. Dragos, D. C. & Racolţa, B. (2017), ‘Comparing legal instruments for R&D&I: State aid and public procurement,’ European Procurement & Public Private Partnership Law Review, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 408–421. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.314344710.2139/ssrn.3143447
  18. Dutt, P. K.; Ferraro, S.; Chochia, A. & Muljar, R. (2018), ‘Using patent development, education policy and research and development expenditure policy to understand differences between countries: The case of Estonia and Finland,’ Baltic Journal of European Studies, vol. 8, no. 1(24), pp. 123–153. https://doi.org/10.1515/bjes-2018-000810.1515/bjes-2018-0008
  19. Dutt, P. K.; Nyman-Metcalf, K. & Kerikmäe, T. (2021), ‘A review of different theoretical approaches towards sustainable development goals in the area of research, development and innovation,’ Retfærd, vol. 4, no. 167, pp. 89−109.
  20. Dutt, P. K.; Wahl, M. & Kerikmäe, T. (2019), ‘Using patent development, education policy and research and development expenditure policy to understand differences between countries: The case of Estonia and Germany,’ International and Comparative Law Review, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 190−233. https://doi.org/10.2478/iclr-2019-000710.2478/iclr-2019-0007
  21. Eesti Pagar AS v. Ettevõtluse Arendamise Sihtasutus [2019], ECJ, C-349/17 ECLI:EU:C:2019:172, 5.3.2019.
  22. European Commission (n.d.), Definition of State Aid. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/overview/index_en.html [accessed 1 Jul 2021]
  23. European Commission (2010), Europe 2020 Strategy. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/eu2020/pdf/COMPLET%20EN%20BARROSO%20%20%20007%20-%20Europe%202020%20-%20EN%20version.pdf [accessed 1 Jul 2021]
  24. European Commission (2015a), Guide to Cost-Benefit Analysis of Investment Projects: Economic Appraisal Tool for Cohesion Policy 2014–2020, DG for Regional and Urban Policy, Brussels.
  25. European Commission (2015b), State aid support schemes for RDI in the EU’s international competitors in the fields of Science, Research and Innovation, edited by Bird & Bird Brussels. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/sites/horizon2020/files/full_einri_final_study_report.pdf [accessed 1 Jul 2021]
  26. European Commission (2018), Code of Best Practices for the conduct of State aid control procedures, C(2018) 4412. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/reform/best_practise/en.pdf [accessed 1 Jul 2021]
  27. European Commission (2019a), Study on the Enforcement of State Aid Rules and Decisions by National Courts. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/competition/publications/reports/kd0219428enn.pdf [accessed 1 Jul 2021]
  28. European Commission (2019b), Towards A Sustainable Europe by 2030. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/towards-sustainable-europe-2030_en [accessed 1 Jul 2021]
  29. European Commission (2020), Fitness Check Report. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/fitness_check_-_main_report_-part1_en.pdf [accessed 1 Jul 2021]
  30. Ferraro, S.; Dutt, P. K. & Kerikmäe, T. (2017), ‘Using patent development, education policy and research and development expenditure policy to increase technological competitiveness of small European Union Member States,’ Croatian International Relations Review, vol. 23, no. 78, pp. 97−126. https://doi.org/10.1515/cirr-2017-000910.1515/cirr-2017-0009
  31. Ferreira, J.; Fernandes, C.; Alves, H. & Raposo, M. (2015), ‘Drivers of innovation strategies: Testing the Tidd and Bessant (2009) model,’ Journal of Business Research, vol. 68, no. 7, pp. 1395–1403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.01.02110.1016/j.jbusres.2015.01.021
  32. Ferri, D. (2020), ‘The role of EU State aid law as a “risk management tool” in the COVID-19 crisis,’ European Journal of Risk Regulation, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 176–195. https://doi.org/10.1017/err.2020.7110.1017/err.2020.71
  33. Framework for State Aid for Research and Development and Innovation, OJ C 198, 27.6.2014, pp. 1–29.
  34. Gilson, R. J. (1999), ‘The legal infrastructure of high technology industrial districts: Silicon Valley, Route 128, and covenants not to compete,’ 74 New York University Law Review, vol. 74, no. 3, pp. 575–629. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.12450810.2139/ssrn.124508
  35. Griliches, Z. (1958), ‘Research costs and social returns: Hybrid corn and related innovations,’ Journal of Political Economy, vol. 66, no. 5, pp. 419–431. https://doi.org/10.1086/25807710.1086/258077
  36. Griliches, Z. (1979), ‘Issues in assessing the contribution of research and development to productivity growth,’ The Bell Journal of Economics, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 92–116. https://doi.org/10.2307/300332110.2307/3003321
  37. Groen, A. J. (2005), ‘Knowledge intensive entrepreneurship in networks: Towards a multi-level/multi-dimensional approach,’ Journal of Enterprising Culture, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 69–88. https://doi.org/10.1142/S021849580500006910.1142/S0218495805000069
  38. Groen, A. J.; De Weerd-Nederhof, P. C.; Kerssens-van Drongelen, I. C.; Badoux, R. A. J. & Olthuis, G. P. (2002), ‘Creating and justifying research and development value: Scope, scale, skill and social networking of R&D,’ Creativity and Innovation Management, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 2–16. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8691.0023210.1111/1467-8691.00232
  39. Groen, A. J.; Wakkee, I. & De Weerd-Nederhof, P. (2008), ‘Managing tensions in a high-tech start-up: An innovation journey in social system perspective,’ International Small Business Journal, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 57–81. https://doi.org/10.1177/026624260708465910.1177/0266242607084659
  40. Grossman, S. & Hart, O. (1986), ‘The costs and benefits of ownership: A theory of vertical and lateral integration,’ Journal of Political Economy, vol. 94, no. 4, pp. 691–719. https://doi.org/10.1086/26140410.1086/261404
  41. Hellmann, T. (2007), ‘When do employees become entrepreneurs?’ Management Science, vol. 53, no. 6, pp. 919–933. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1060.064810.1287/mnsc.1060.0648
  42. Holmstrom, B. (1982), ‘Moral hazard in teams,’ The Bell Journal of Economics, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 324–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/300345710.2307/3003457
  43. Kattel, R. & Stamenov, B. (2018), Research and Innovation Observation Country Report 2017: Estonia, EUR 29153 EN, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.
  44. Kelli, A.; Värv, A.; Mets, T.; Mantrov, V.; Birštonas, R. & Ginter, C. (2016), ‘Different regulatory models of transfer of industrial property rights in the Baltic States: A plea for harmonized approach,’ International Comparative Jurisprudence, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 8–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icj.2016.05.00110.1016/j.icj.2016.05.001
  45. Kirwan, P.; Van der Sijde, P. & Groen, A. (2007), ‘Early-stage networking: how entrepreneurs use their social capital to establish and develop high-technology start-ups,’ in J. Ulijn, D. Drillon & F. Lasch (eds.) Entrepreneurship, Cooperation and the Firm: The Emergence and Survival of High-Technology Ventures in Europe, Cheltenham & Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 391–414. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781847207227.0002210.4337/9781847207227.00022
  46. Landes, W. M. & Posner, R. A. (2003), The Economic Structure of Intellectual Property Law, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv1q3z2pn10.2307/j.ctv1q3z2pn
  47. Landier, A. (2005), ‘Entrepreneurship and the stigma of failure,’ Entrepreneurship & Finance eJournal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.85044610.2139/ssrn.850446
  48. Leloux, M. & Groen, A. (2009), ‘Estimating business value of academic research outcomes: Towards a multi-dimensional approach,’ International Journal of Technology Transfer and Commercialisation, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 3–21. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTTC.2009.02343210.1504/IJTTC.2009.023432
  49. McConville, M. & Chui, W. (2017), Research Methods for Law, 2nd ed., Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
  50. Mets, T.; Kaarna, K. & Kelli, A. (2010), ‘Intellectual property–lever or barrier to the globalization of knowledge-intensive SMEs of small country origin,’ Engineering Economics, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 387–398.
  51. Nikulainen, T. (2008), A Historical Perspective on Patents and Industry Growth in Finland: Connections and Lags, ETLA Discussion Paper, no. 1159, Helsinki: Elinkeinoelämän Tutkimuslaitos.
  52. Nyman-Metcalf, K.; Dutt, P. K. & Chochia, A. (2014), ‘The freedom to conduct business and the right to property: The EU technology transfer block exemption regulation and the relationship between intellectual property and competition law,’ in T. Kerikmäe (ed.) Protecting Human Rights in the EU: Controversies and Challenges of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, Heidelberg: Springer Verlag, pp. 37–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-38902-3_410.1007/978-3-642-38902-3_4
  53. Palinkas, L. A.; Horwitz, S. M.; Green, C. A.; Wisdom, J. P.; Duan, N. & Hoagwood, K. (2015), ‘Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research,’ Administration and Policy in Mental Health, vol. 42, no. 5, pp. 533–544. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-013-0528-y10.1007/s10488-013-0528-y401200224193818
  54. Paré, G.; Trudel, M.-C.; Jaana, M. & Kitsiou, S. (2015). ‘Synthesizing information systems knowledge: A typology of literature reviews,’ Information & Management, vol. 52, no. 2, pp. 183–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2014.08.00810.1016/j.im.2014.08.008
  55. Parsons, T. (1964), The Social System, New York: The Free Press.
  56. Plaumann & Co. v. Commission [1963], ECJ, C-25/62, ECLI:EU:C:1963:17, 15.7.1963.10.1080/00845566.1963.10396368
  57. de Rassenfosse, G. & van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, B. (2009), ‘A policy insight into the R&D—patent relationship,’ Research Policy, vol. 38, no. 5, pp. 779–792. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2008.12.01310.1016/j.respol.2008.12.013
  58. Sanso-Navarro, M. & Vera-Cabello, M. (2018), ‘The long-run relationship between R&D and regional knowledge: The case of France, Germany, Italy and Spain,’ Regional Studies, vol. 52, no. 5, pp. 619–631. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2017.136047610.1080/00343404.2017.1360476
  59. Schwartz, S. (2012), ‘An overview of the Schwartz theory of basic values,’ Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 1–20. https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.111610.9707/2307-0919.1116
  60. Scuola Elementare Montessori v. Commission [2018], ECJ, C-622/16 P, ECLI:EU:C:2018:873, 6.11.2018.
  61. Shane, S.; Locke, E. & Collins, C. (2003), ‘Entrepreneurial motivation,’ Human Resource Management Review, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 257–279. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1053-4822(03)00017-210.1016/S1053-4822(03)00017-2
  62. Syndicat français de l’Express international (SFEI) and Others v. La Poste and Others [1996], ECJ, C-39/94, ECLI:EU:C:1996:285, 11.7.1996.
  63. Tidd, J. & Bessant, J. (2009), Managing Innovation: Integrating Technological, Market and Organizational Change, Chichester: Wiley.
  64. TWD Textilwerke Deggendorf GmbH v. Bundesrepublik Deutschland [1994], ECJ, C-188/92, ECLI:EU:C:1994:90, 9.3.1994.
  65. Van der Veen, M. & Wakkee, I. (2004), ‘Understanding the entrepreneurial process,’ in D. Watkins (ed.) ARPENT, Annual Review of Progress in Entrepreneurship Research, Brussels: European Foundation for Management Development, pp. 114–152.
  66. Värv, A.; Pisuke, H.; Mets, T.; Vasamäe, E. & Kelli, A. (2010), ‘Trade secrets in the intellectual property strategies of entrepreneurs: The Estonian experience,’ Review of Central and East European Law, vol. 35, pp. 315–339. https://doi.org/10.1163/157303510X1265037824047610.1163/157303510X12650378240476
  67. Yitshaki, R. & Kropp, F. (2018), ‘Revisiting entrepreneurial motivation and opportunity recognition,’ in M. Brännback & A. L. Carsrud (eds.) A Research Agenda for Entrepreneurial Cognition and Intention, Cheltenham & Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 122–141. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781784716813.0001110.4337/9781784716813.00011
  68. Zollner, M.; Fritsch, M. & Wyrwich, M. (2016), ‘An evaluation of German active labor market policies and its entrepreneurship promotion,’ Jena Economic Research Papers. Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena, vol. 22, pp. 1–55.
  69. Zuckerfabrik Süderdithmarschen AG v. Hauptzollamt Itzehoe and Zuckerfabrik Soest GmbH v. Hauptzollamt Paderborn [1991], ECJ, C-143/88, ECLI:EU:C:1991:65, 21.2.1991.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/bjes-2021-0017 | Journal eISSN: 2674-4619 | Journal ISSN: 2674-4600
Language: English
Page range: 102 - 129
Published on: Nov 15, 2021
Published by: Tallinn University of Technology
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 2 issues per year

© 2021 Pawan Kumar Dutt, Katrin Nyman-Metcalf, published by Tallinn University of Technology
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.