Criteria for evaluation of policies for promotion of innovation by enterprises
Keywords:
Innovation, Policy, Evaluation of policies, EnterpriseAbstract
Innovation is one of important factors to help enterprises in enhancing their competition positions and then pushing up fast and sustainable socio-economic development in international competitive markets. This fact is internationally acknowledged largely. In actual global competitive context, enterprises are facing a tough choice: innovation and R&D or bankruptcy. Supports from the State through policies and mechanisms are important driving forces to push enterprises to do innovations for development. The set up of criteria for evaluation of policies for promotion of innovation by enterprises has highly important roles for decision making by individuals or organizations. This paper is to give answers to the following questions: (i) What are policies for promotion of innovation by enterprises? (ii) What are factors which make impacts to policies for promotion of innovation by enterprises? and (iii) What are criteria for evaluation of policies for promotion innovation by enterprises?
Code: 19060701
Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
References
Tiếng Việt
1. Luật Ban hành văn bản quy phạm pháp luật, Luật số 80/2015/QH13 được Quốc hội thông qua ngày 22/6/2015.
2. Nghị định số 34/2016/NĐ-CP ngày 14/5/2016 của Chính phủ Quy định chi tiết một số điều và biện pháp thi hành Luật Ban hành văn bản quy phạm pháp luật.
3. Thông tư số 04/2018/TT-BKHCN ngày 15/5/2018 của Bộ KH&CN Quy định các cuộc điều tra thống kê KH&CN ngoài Chương trình điều tra thống kê quốc gia.
4. Đoàn Thị Thu Hà, Nguyễn Thị Ngọc Huyền, 2010. Giáo trình Chính sách kinh tế. Hà Nội, Nxb Khoa học và Kỹ thuật.
5. Vũ Cao Đàm, 2011. Giáo trình Khoa học chính sách. Hà Nội, Nxb Đại học Quốc gia Hà Nội.
6. Nguyễn Đăng Thành, 2012. “Đánh giá chính sách công ở Việt Nam: vấn đề và giải pháp”. Tạp chí Cộng sản online, xem 17/12/2012, <http://www.tapchicongsan.org.vn/Home/Nghiencuu-Traodoi/2012/19245/Danh-gia-chinh-sach-cong-o-Viet-Nam-vande-va-giai.aspx>.
7. Nguyễn Thị Ngọc Hoa, 2018. “Mối tương quan trong đánh giá chính sách giữa Việt Nam và Nhật Bản”. Học viện Báo chí và Tuyên truyền, xem 27/12/2018, <https://ajc.hcma.vn/Pages/nghien-cuu-khoa-hoc.aspx?CateID=679&ItemID=10311>.
Tiếng Anh
8. OECD, 2005. Guideline for collecting and interpreting innovation data, 3rd edition, Oslo manual.
9. Taylor, Frederick Winslow, 1911. The Principles of Scientific Management, New York, NY, USA and London, UK: Harper & Brothers.
10. Schumpeter, 1934. The Theory of Economic Development: An Inquiry Into Profits, Capital, Credit, Interest, and the Business Cycle, Transaction Publishers.
11. Nisbett, R. and L. Ross, 1980. Human Inference: Strategies and Shortcomings of Social Judgment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Inc.
12. Soderstrom, E.J, 1981. Social Impact Assessment, New York: Praeger Press.
13. DiMento, J.F, 1982. Much ado about Environmental Stressor Research: Policy Implications. In Evans, G. (ed), Environmental Stress. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
14. D. Kahneman, P. Slovic, and A. Tversky (eds), 1982. Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
15. James E. Anderson, 1983. Public Policymaking, Thomson Learning.
16. Rabel J. Burdge, 1987. The Social Impact Assessment Model and the Planning Process, Environmental Impact Assessment Revzew, 7(2), 141-150.
17. Katherine A. Lyon, 1990. Factors influencing public policy maker interpretation of impact assessments, Impact Assessment, 8:1-2, 249-260, DOI:10.1080/07349165.1990.9726041, <https://doi.org/10.1080/07349165.1990.9726041>
18. Lundvall, 1992. National Innovation Systems: Towards a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning, London, Pinter Publishers.
19. Nelson, R. R., 1993. National innovation systems: a comparative analysis, New York, Oxford University Press.
20. Zahra, S. A., & Covin, J. G, 1994. The financial implications of fit between competitive strategy and innovation types and sources, Journal of High Technology Management Research, 5(2), 183-211. DOI: 10.1016/1047-8310(94)90002-7.
21. Chesbrough, Henry William, 2003. Open Innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology, Boston: Harvard Business School Press. ISBN 978-1578518371.
22. POP, 2009. <http://www.popstoolkit.com/riskmanagement/module/step4/policyprocess/influences.aspx>
23. Salahuddin M. Aminuzzaman, 2015. Dynamics of Public Policy: Determinants of Policymaking and Implementation in Bangladesh, Springer International Publishing Switzerland, Governance in South, Southeast, and East Asia, Public Administration, Governance and Globalization 15, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-15218-913.
24. Sabet, SM, Heard, AC, Neilitz, S and Brown, AN, 2017. Assessing the evidence base on science, technology, innovation and partnerships for accelerating development outcomes, 3ie Scoping Paper 6. Washington, DC: International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie).
25. Theodore Henderson, 2017. Why Innovation Is Crucial To Your Organization's LongTerm Success, Forbes Councils.
1. Luật Ban hành văn bản quy phạm pháp luật, Luật số 80/2015/QH13 được Quốc hội thông qua ngày 22/6/2015.
2. Nghị định số 34/2016/NĐ-CP ngày 14/5/2016 của Chính phủ Quy định chi tiết một số điều và biện pháp thi hành Luật Ban hành văn bản quy phạm pháp luật.
3. Thông tư số 04/2018/TT-BKHCN ngày 15/5/2018 của Bộ KH&CN Quy định các cuộc điều tra thống kê KH&CN ngoài Chương trình điều tra thống kê quốc gia.
4. Đoàn Thị Thu Hà, Nguyễn Thị Ngọc Huyền, 2010. Giáo trình Chính sách kinh tế. Hà Nội, Nxb Khoa học và Kỹ thuật.
5. Vũ Cao Đàm, 2011. Giáo trình Khoa học chính sách. Hà Nội, Nxb Đại học Quốc gia Hà Nội.
6. Nguyễn Đăng Thành, 2012. “Đánh giá chính sách công ở Việt Nam: vấn đề và giải pháp”. Tạp chí Cộng sản online, xem 17/12/2012, <http://www.tapchicongsan.org.vn/Home/Nghiencuu-Traodoi/2012/19245/Danh-gia-chinh-sach-cong-o-Viet-Nam-vande-va-giai.aspx>.
7. Nguyễn Thị Ngọc Hoa, 2018. “Mối tương quan trong đánh giá chính sách giữa Việt Nam và Nhật Bản”. Học viện Báo chí và Tuyên truyền, xem 27/12/2018, <https://ajc.hcma.vn/Pages/nghien-cuu-khoa-hoc.aspx?CateID=679&ItemID=10311>.
Tiếng Anh
8. OECD, 2005. Guideline for collecting and interpreting innovation data, 3rd edition, Oslo manual.
9. Taylor, Frederick Winslow, 1911. The Principles of Scientific Management, New York, NY, USA and London, UK: Harper & Brothers.
10. Schumpeter, 1934. The Theory of Economic Development: An Inquiry Into Profits, Capital, Credit, Interest, and the Business Cycle, Transaction Publishers.
11. Nisbett, R. and L. Ross, 1980. Human Inference: Strategies and Shortcomings of Social Judgment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Inc.
12. Soderstrom, E.J, 1981. Social Impact Assessment, New York: Praeger Press.
13. DiMento, J.F, 1982. Much ado about Environmental Stressor Research: Policy Implications. In Evans, G. (ed), Environmental Stress. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
14. D. Kahneman, P. Slovic, and A. Tversky (eds), 1982. Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
15. James E. Anderson, 1983. Public Policymaking, Thomson Learning.
16. Rabel J. Burdge, 1987. The Social Impact Assessment Model and the Planning Process, Environmental Impact Assessment Revzew, 7(2), 141-150.
17. Katherine A. Lyon, 1990. Factors influencing public policy maker interpretation of impact assessments, Impact Assessment, 8:1-2, 249-260, DOI:10.1080/07349165.1990.9726041, <https://doi.org/10.1080/07349165.1990.9726041>
18. Lundvall, 1992. National Innovation Systems: Towards a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning, London, Pinter Publishers.
19. Nelson, R. R., 1993. National innovation systems: a comparative analysis, New York, Oxford University Press.
20. Zahra, S. A., & Covin, J. G, 1994. The financial implications of fit between competitive strategy and innovation types and sources, Journal of High Technology Management Research, 5(2), 183-211. DOI: 10.1016/1047-8310(94)90002-7.
21. Chesbrough, Henry William, 2003. Open Innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology, Boston: Harvard Business School Press. ISBN 978-1578518371.
22. POP, 2009. <http://www.popstoolkit.com/riskmanagement/module/step4/policyprocess/influences.aspx>
23. Salahuddin M. Aminuzzaman, 2015. Dynamics of Public Policy: Determinants of Policymaking and Implementation in Bangladesh, Springer International Publishing Switzerland, Governance in South, Southeast, and East Asia, Public Administration, Governance and Globalization 15, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-15218-913.
24. Sabet, SM, Heard, AC, Neilitz, S and Brown, AN, 2017. Assessing the evidence base on science, technology, innovation and partnerships for accelerating development outcomes, 3ie Scoping Paper 6. Washington, DC: International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie).
25. Theodore Henderson, 2017. Why Innovation Is Crucial To Your Organization's LongTerm Success, Forbes Councils.
Downloads
Published
16-07-2019
How to Cite
Tuan, N. Q., Viet, B. T. H., & Huong, N. T. L. (2019). Criteria for evaluation of policies for promotion of innovation by enterprises. Journal SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICIES AND MANAGEMENT, 8(2), 21–34. Retrieved from https://vietnamstijournal.net/index.php/JSTPM/article/view/297
Issue
Section
STUDIES OF STRATEGIES AND MANAGEMENT
License
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
