Last chance for Europe in the digital saloon? CEPS Commentary, 29 May 2015

With the rise of the digital economy over the past decade and as internet platforms and ‘over-the-top’ players take centre stage, Europe has struggled to compete with other regions. The new Juncker Commission has kept its promise to propose legislative steps towards a connected Digital Single Market, but will the member states buy into this strategy and will it be enough to reignite Europe’s ailing digital economy, asks Colin Blackman in this new CEPS Commentary.

How mobile is tech talent? A case study of IT professionals based on data from LinkedIn. CEPS Special Report No. 140, July 2016

This study aims to provide independent and in-depth insights into how IT professionals move from one region to another within Europe and beyond. This study was carried out by Mikkel Barslund, Research Fellow, and Matthias Busse, Researcher in the Economic Policy research unit at CEPS. The work was commissioned by the business networking website LinkedIn, whose data analysts kindly provided the data used in this study, aggregated by region and in relative and anonymised terms. The authors are solely responsible for the findings and opinions expressed in this study. CEPS is an independent policy research institute in Brussels, whose mission is to produce sound policy research leading to constructive solutions to the challenges facing Europe today. The views expressed in this study are solely those of the authors and should not be attributed to CEPS or to any other institution with which they are associated or to the business networking website LinkedIn.

Commerce, Justice, science, and related agencies appropriations for 2012 : hearings before a subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives, One Hundred Twelfth Congress, first session /

Shipping list number: 2011-0317-P (pt. 2A), 2011-0318-P (pt. 2B), 2011-0285-P (pt. 3, 4), 2011--0325-P (pt. 5), 2011-0410-P (pt. 6), 2012-0013-P (pt. 7), 2011-0383-P (pt. 8), 2011-0295-P (pt. 9).

Meeting the challenge : a research agenda for America's health, safety, and food.

"February 1996."

Concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1989 : hearings before the Committee on the Budget, United States Senate, One Hundredth Congress, second session.

Item 1035-A-1, 1035-A-2 (microfiche).

Explaining variations in the knowledge economy in three small wealthy countries

At a broad level, it has been shown that different institutional contexts, policy regimes and business systems affect the kinds of activities in which a nation specialises. This paper is concerned with the way in which different national business systems affect the nature of participation of a nation in the knowledge economy. The paper seeks to explain cross-national variations in the knowledge economy in the Australia, Denmark and Sweden with reference to dominant characteristics of the business system. Although Australia, Denmark and Sweden are all small wealthy countries, they each have quite distinctive business systems. Australia has been regarded as a variant of the competitive business system and has generally been described as an entrepreneurial economy with a large small firm population. In contrast Sweden has a coordinated business system that has favoured large industrial firms. The Danish variant of the coordinated model, with its well-developed vocational training system, is distinguishable by its large population of networked small and medium size enterprises. The three countries also differ significantly on two dimensions of participation in the knowledge economy. First, there is cross-national variation in patterns of specialisation in knowledge intensive industries and services. Second, the institutional infrastructure of the knowledge economy (or the existing stock of knowledge and competence in the economy, the potential for generation and diffusion a new knowledge and the capacity for commercialisation of new ideas) differs across the three countries. This paper seeks to explain variations in these two dimensions of the knowledge economy with reference to characteristics of the business system in the three countries.

An invitation to an alcohol industry lobby to help decide public funding of alcohol research and professional training: a decision that should be reversed

No Abstract

Comparing the conditions for small business and entrepreneurship in Sweden and Australia: Lessons for the European Charter for Small Enterprises

A growing body of literature is concerned with explaining cross-national performance of small business and entrepreneurs in advanced economies. This literature has considered a range of policy and institutional variables which create an environment supportive of small firms and entrepreneurial activities including macroeconomic variables such as taxation, labour market regulation, social security and income policy; regulatory factors such as establishment legislation, bankruptcy policy, administrative burdens, compliance costs, deregulation and competition policy; and cultural factors such as social and cultural norms that support entrepreneurship. However, this literature has not always distinguished between the policy environment of small firms operating in different industry sectors. The purpose of this paper is to examine the institutional and policy environment of small firms in knowledge intensive sectors. The characteristics of the business environment of particular relevance to knowledge intensive firms are somewhat different from the conditions for entrepreneurship and small business success more generally. This paper compares the science, technology and industry infrastructure of Australia, Denmark, Sweden with other OECD countries. The purpose of the paper is to identify cross-national differences in the business environment of small knowledge intensive firms. The paper seeks to explore whether particular institutional environments appear to be more supportive of small firms in knowledge intensive sectors.

Social control and knowledge in democratic societies

In this article we introduce the notions of knowledge policy and the politics of knowledge. These have to be distinguished from the older, well-known terms of research policy, or science and technology policy. While the latter aim to foster the development of innovations in knowledge and its applications, the former is aware of side effects of new knowledge and tries to address them. While research policy takes the aims of innovations as largely unproblematic (insofar as they help improving national competitiveness), knowledge policy tries to govern (regulate, control, restrict, or even forbid) the production of knowledge.