FOOD SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY ACROSS EUROPE 15. SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE BASE AND DIFFERENCES IN QUALITY

Yıl 2015, Cilt: 10 Sayı: 1, 0 - 0, 11.01.2016

Manuel Acosta Daniel Coronado Esther Ferrandız Dolores Leon Pedro Moreno

Öz

This paper contributes with some insights into scientific knowledge base in food industry at the regional level in Europe 15. We argue that science production by universities is not enough to create a scientific knowledge base. An additional requirement is counting on some standards of quality for being useful to firms. We explore this line of inquiry by first examining the regional distribution of food science across Europe and its relationship with the production of technology in the European food industry and then by focusing on the role of quality of FS&T and its determining factors. The methodology relies on rolling correlation and panel data models. Our sample consists of about 13 thousand papers in the field of “Food Science & Technology” (FS&T), covering the period from 1998 to 2004. The results show that only regions with high-quality published papers on food science present a significant relationship with the production of food technology. Furthermore, funding, research tradition and specialization are the main factors affecting the quality of FS&T, while the demand for science from the region does not play any role. The paper concludes with some policy implications for strengthening the regional knowledge-base economy in the food industry. Keywords: Food science, Food industry, Knowledge-base, Citations, Patents

Kaynakça

• Alene, A. D. and Coulibaly, O., 2009. The impact of agricultural research on productivity and poverty in subSaharan
• Africa. Food Policy 34, 198–209.
• Alfranca, O., Rama, R. and von Tunzelmann, N., 2004. Combining different brands of in-house knowledge:
• technological capabilities in food, biotechnology, chemicals and drugs in agri-food multinationals.
• Science and Public Policy 31, 227–244.
• Alston, J. M., Norton, G. W. and Pardey, P. G., 1995. Science under Scarcity: Principles and Practice for
• Agricultural Evaluation and Priority Setting. Cornell University Press, New York.
• Alston, J. M., 2002. Spillovers. The Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 46, 315–346.
• Arias-Aranda, D. and Romerosa-Martínez, M. M., 2010. Innovation in the functional foods industry in a
• peripheral region of the European Union: Andalusia (Spain). Food Policy 35, 240–246.
• Audretsch, D. and Feldman, M. P., 1996. R&D spillovers and the geography of innovation and production.
• American Economic Review 86, 630–640.
• Avermaete, T. and Viaene, J., 2002. On Innovation and Meeting Regulation—the Case of the Belgian Food
• Industry. DRUID Summer Conference on Industrial Dynamics of the New and Old Economy-Who is
• Embracing Whom?, Copenhagen, 6–8 June.
• Byerlee, D., 2000. Targeting poverty alleviation in priority setting for agricultural research. Food Policy 25,
• –445.
• Carew, R., 2005. Science policy and agricultural biotechnology in Canada. Review of Agricultural Economics
• , 300–316.
• Fryer, P. and Versteeg, J., 2008. Processing technology innovation in the food industry. Innovation:
• Management, Policy & Practice 10, 74–90.
• Griliches, Z., 1990. Patent statistics as economic indicators: a survey. Journal of Economic Literature 28, 1661–
• Hertzfeld, H.R., A.N. Link and N.S. Vonortas (2006) Intellectual property protection mechanisms in research
• partnerships. Research Policy 35, 825-38.
• Hoffmann, S., 2010. Food Safety Policy and Economics: A Review of the Literature. Resources for the Future,
• Discussion Paper, Washington, DC. www.rff.org.
• Hosseini, S. M. and Rezaei, R., 2009. Factors affecting the perceptions of Iranian agricultural researchers
• towards nanotechnology. Public Understanding of Science 1, 1–12.
• Huffman, W. E. and Just, R. E., 1999. Agricultural research: benefits and beneficiaries of alternative funding
• mechanisms. Review of Agricultural Economics 21, 2–18.
• Kalpana Sastry, R., Rashmi, H. B., Rao, N. H. and Ilyas, S. M., 2009. Integrating nanotechnology into agri-food
• systems research in India: A conceptual framework. Technological Forecasting & Social Change,
• doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2009.11.008.
• Kinsey, J. D., 2001. The new food economy: Consumers, farms, pharms, and science. American Journal of
• Agricultural Economics 83, 1113–1130.
• Klerkx, L. and Leeuwis, C., 2008. Matching demand and supply in the agricultural knowledge infrastructure:
• Experiences with innovation intermediaries. Food Policy 33, 260–276.
• Muscio, A., Nardone, G. and Dottore, A., 2010. Understanding demand for innovation in the food industry.
• Measuring Business Excellence 14, 35–48.
• Pingali, P. L. and Traxler, G., 2002. Changing locus of agricultural research: Will the poor benefit from
• biotechnology and privatization trends? Food Policy 27, 223–238.
• Sarkar, S. and Costa, A. I. A., 2008. Dynamics of open innovation in the food industry. Trends in Food Science
• & Technology 19, 574–580.
• Schmoch, U., 1993. Tracing the knowledge transfer from science to technology as reflected in patent indicators.
• Scientometrics 26, 193–211.
• Smale, M., 2007. Assessing the impact of technical innovations in African agriculture. Research Report of the
• International Food Policy Research Institute, 3–11.
• Traill, W. B. and Meulenberg, M., 2002. Innovation in the food industry. Agribusiness 18, 1–21.
• Wijnands, J., B. van der Meulen and K. Poppe (2007) Competitiveness of the European Food Industry. Office
• for Official Publications of the European Community, Luxemburg.
• Wilkinson, J., 1998. The R&D priorities of leading food firms and long t