Resumen La citricultura valenciana constituye un sistema sectorial-regional de producción y de innovación (SICIVA) en el que son esenciales las relaciones entre sistema científico-tecnológico (CI) y sistema productivo. El artículo integra los enfoques de los sistemas de innovación y de los sistemas territoriales de producción estudiando la organización del sistema y las relaciones dinámicas entre: 1) la posición del sector en la cadena de valor y el tipo de actividades de las empresas con los CI y 2) la naturaleza de las relaciones empresas -CI. Se evidencia el carácter estratégico de las actividades distintas de la I+D y de las relaciones informales. Palabras clave: innovación, territorio, sistema público de I+D, citricultura.

27 Reads
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The concept sectoral system of innovation and production provides a multidimensional, integrated and dynamic view of sectors. It is proposed that a sectoral system is a set of products and the set of agents carrying out market and non-market interactions for the creation, production and sale of those products. A sectoral systems has a specific knowledge base, technologies, inputs and demand. Agents are individuals and organizations at various levels of aggregation. They interact through processes of communication, exchange, co-operation, competition and command, and these interactions are shaped by institutions. A sectoral system undergoes change and transformation through the co-evolution of its various elements.
    Research Policy 02/2002; 31(2-31):247-264. DOI:10.1016/S0048-7333(01)00139-1 · 2.85 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: One practical result of the advent of the knowledge society has been an increased reliance on academic-industry partnerships as important sources for the creation of economic value. This paper argues that this renewed emphasis on knowledge has led to a shift in the nature of the relations between the academy and industry from sponsorship to partnership and the formation of new research institutions that allow researchers and practitioners to engage in continuous rather than problem based dialogue. These developments are illustrated by providing a case study based on the experience of one research team with its industrial partners. The paper presents results pertaining to some of the issues and challenges raised by continuous dialogue in partnerships, and emphasises the creative yet demanding implications of close collaboration between the two communities.
    R&amp D Management 06/2000; 30(3):255 - 262. DOI:10.1111/1467-9310.00176 · 2.51 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The question of exactly how science is commercialized is an important one. While the social structures of “science” and “technology” are distinctive, recent work suggests that scientific and technological ideas in fact co-evolve. This paper addresses the dynamics of such co-evolution: are scientific networks deeply co-mingled with networks through which technology is created and if so how? It does so in a study of an emerging area of biomedicine—tissue engineering. The research is based on a novel methodology that takes advantage of the fact that an idea is often inscribed in both a patent and paper, thus forming a patent–paper pair. Starting with the pair, it is possible to trace the citation network of patents, papers, inventors and authors, combining traditional bibliometric analysis with in-depth interviews to provide new insights. The results show that for this case there exist distinctive scientific and technological networks. Furthermore, while there is evidence of overlap, it is neither co-publishing nor citation as might be predicted from current literature. Rather co-mingling exists through founding, licensing, consulting and advising. This has implications for our understanding of the processes through which spillovers arise, the way in which commercialization and technology transfer should be structured and for recent debates on conflict of interest in biomedicine.
    Research Policy 12/2002; 31(8-31):1389-1403. DOI:10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00070-7 · 2.85 Impact Factor
Show more


27 Reads
Available from