ArticlePloS one2024
Less-advanced regions in EU innovation networks: Could nanotechnology represent a possible trigger for path upgrading?
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This paper examines whether nanotechnology projects funded under the European Union (EU) Framework Programmes (FPs) are a possible trigger for path upgrading (i.e., infusion of new technologies in existing traditional sectors) in less-advanced regions. First, the adoption of cluster analysis and a set of key indicators (i.e., technological intensity, scientific excellence, human capital, and research and development expenditure) allowed us to distinguish between 79 more-advanced and 127 less-advanced EU regions. Subsequently, through social network analysis and nonparametric testing we were able to demonstrate how the less-advanced EU regions (average degree centrality: 40.5) play a marginal role compared with the more-advanced ones (average degree centrality: 98.5) in the nanotechnology network created within Horizon 2020-i.e., the EU programming cycle implemented in the 2014-2020 period. Despite this, we observed that a few less-advanced regions (33 out of 127) were able to score higher than the EU median in terms of participation in the targeted nanotechnology network, thus benefiting from relevant knowledge flows potentially leading to re-industrialization processes. The adoption of qualitative comparative analysis allowed us to determine which combinations of key innovation, scientific and socioeconomic factors could facilitate such beneficial interregional interactions and related knowledge exchange in these types of regions (i.e., primarily what we defined as "relative innovativeness," excellence in nanotechnology research and a comparatively high level of gross domestic product per capita). Our empirical results provided some clear policy implications. For instance, the necessity to I) remove the barriers impeding a more balanced participation to promote a widespread renewal of traditional industries in less-advanced regions and II) implement coordinated EU and domestic actions designed to encourage the involvement of the great majority of the less-advanced regions, which remain marginal in the periodically launched FPs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.