Effektmåling af Programstøttemidler
En model for effektmåling i og evaluering af de tre grønne Udviklings- og Demonstrationsprogrammer
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.7146/cfasr.v16i6.170937Keywords:
Evalueringsmodel, Udviklings- og Demonstrationsprogram (UDP), Effekt, Impact, IndikatorerAbstract
Denne rapport præsenterer en fælles model for effektmåling og evaluering af de tre grønne Udviklings- og Demonstrationsprogrammer (UDP’er): Energiteknologisk Udviklings- og Demonstrationsprogram (EUDP), Grønt Udviklings- og Demonstrationsprogram (GUDP) og Miljøteknologisk Udviklings- og Demonstrationsprogram (MUDP). Rapporten er udarbejdet af Dansk Center for Forskningsanalyse (CFA) ved Aarhus Universitet, og rekvireret af Energistyrelsen, Miljøstyrelsen og Landbrugs- og Fiskeristyrelsen.
References
EUDP. 2019. EUDP-loven. LBK nr 895 af 28/08/2019. Bekendtgørelse af lov om et Energiteknologisk Udviklings- og demonstrationsprogram og om Green Labs DK-programmet. Klima-, Energi- og Forsyningsministeriet. https://www.retsinformation.dk/eli/lta/2019/895
GUDP: 2017. GUDP-loven. LBK nr 23 af 04/01/2017. Bekendtgørelse af lov om Grønt Udviklings- og Demonstrationsprogram. Ministeriet for Fødevarer, Landbrug og Fiskeri. https://www.retsinformation.dk/eli/lta/2017/23
MUDP. 2017. MUDP-loven. LBK nr 101 af 26/01/2017. Bekendtgørelse af lov om Miljøteknologisk Udviklings- og Demonstrationsprogram. Miljø- og Ligestillingsministeriet. https://www.retsinformation.dk/eli/lta/2017/101
Epinion og Amsterdam Data Collective. 2023. Evaluering af EUDP – Energiteknologisk Udviklings- og demonstrationsprogram.
EUDP.dk. https://eudp.dk/
EUDP. 2020. EUDP og GLDK Strategi 2020-2030: Det Energiteknologiske Udviklings- og Demonstrationsprogram og Green Labs DK (2020). https://eudp.dk/files/media/document/EUDP%20OG%20GLDK%20strategi%202030.pdf
EUDP. 2024. EUDP og GLDK Strategi 2024-2017: Det Energiteknologiske Udviklings- og Demonstrationsprogram og Green Labs DK (2024). Strategi 2020-2030, Revideret version for perioden 2024-2027. https://eudp.dk/files/media/document/EUDP%20og%20GLDK%20Strategi%202024.pdf
Damvad Analytics og Muusmann. 2021. Evaluering af GUDP. https://www.ft.dk/samling/20211/almdel/MOF/bilag/353/2532985.pdf
GUDP.dk: GUDP. https://gudp.dk/
GUDP. 2025. GUDP Handlingsplan 2025: Grønt Udviklings- og Demonstrationsprogram og Ministeriet for Fødevarer, Landbrug og Fiskeri. https://gudp.dk/Media/638695219448653150/GUDP_Handlingsplan_2025.pdf
GUDP Strategi 2023-2027: Grønt Udviklings- og Demonstrationsprogram og Ministeriet for Fødevarer, Landbrug og Fiskeri. https://lfst.dk/Media/638695185995207388/GUDP-strategi%202023-2027.pdf
GUDP. 2023. TRL-Technology Readiness Level. https://lbst.dk/Media/638592350547362507/TRL-guide.pdf
GUDP Årsberetning 2023: Grønt Udviklings- og Demonstrationsprogram og Ministeriet for Fødevarer, Landbrug og Fiskeri (2023). https://gudp.dk/Media/638693708276296455/GUDP_%C3%85rsberetning_2023.pdf
Implement Consulting Group. 2023. Evaluering af Miljøteknologisk Udviklings- og Demonstrationsprogram. https://mudp.dk/media/guzhzqcl/mudp-evaluering-evalueringsrapport-2023-juli-2023.pdf
MUDP.dk MUDP, https://mudp.dk/
MUDP. 2025. MUDP Handlingsplan og Årshjul 2025: Miljøteknologisk Udviklings- og Demonstrationsprogram og Miljø- og Ligestillingsministeriet. https://mudp.dk/media/inhfzqyn/handlingsplan-og-aarshjul-2025.pdf
MUDP. 2024. MUDP Strategi 2024-2027: Miljøteknologisk Udviklings- og Demonstrationsprogram og Miljøministeriet. https://mudp.dk/media/bmchdgqk/mudp-strategi-2024_screen-004.pdf
DØR. 2024. F&U-støtte, innovation og grøn teknologi. Kapitel III i Økonomi og Miljø 2024, De Økonomiske Råd, Formandskabet. https://dors.dk/files/media/M24_Kapitel_III.pdf
OES. 2024. Økonomistyrelsen. Vejledning om effektiv tilskudsforvaltning. https://oes.dk/media/absivgjh/vejledning-om-effektiv-tilskudsforvaltning-juni-2024.pdf
Rigsrevisionen. 2024. Gennemsigtighed i effekter af tilskud fra grønne programmer. Rigsrevisionens beretning afgivet til Folketinget med Statsrevisorernes bemærkning. https://cdn.rigsrevisionen.dk/rigsrevisionen/Media/638463557708128905/SR1123.pdf
Innovationsfonden, EUDP, GUDP, MUDP. 2025. Fundinglandskab. Energi, Miljø og Grøn Udvikling. https://www.eudp.dk/files/media/document/Fundinglandskab%20%E2%80%93%20energi%2C%20milj%C3%B8%20og%20gr%C3%B8n%20udvikling.pdf (Tilgået juni 2025).
Abadie, A. & Imbens, G. W. 2016. Matching on the Estimated Propensity Score. Econometrica, 84 (2): 781-807. https://doi.org/10.3982/ECTA11293
Aldieri, L., Carlucci, F., Vinci, C.P., Yigitcanlar, T. 2019. Environmental innovation, knowledge spillovers and policy implications: A systematic review of the economic effects literature . J. Clean. Prod., 239 (2019), Article 118051,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118051
Al-Ubaydli, O., List, J. A., & Suskind, D. L. 2017. What Can We Learn from Experiments? Understanding the Threats to the Scalability of Experimental Results. American Economic Review 107 (5): 282-86. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.p20171115
Baer, W.S., Johnson, L., Merrow, E.W. 1976. Analysis of federally funded demonstration projects: final report. RAND Corporation, Santa Monica.
Bakhshi, H., Edwards, J., Roper, S., Scully, J., Shaw, D., Morley, L., & Rathbone, N. 2013. Creative credits: a randomized controlled industrial policy experiment. London (UK): National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts (NESTA).
Becker, B., Roper, S., Vanino, E. 2023. Assessing innovation spillovers from publicly funded R&D and innovation support: Evidence from the UK. Technovation, 128, 102860. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2023.102860
Bioret, L., Zhu, Y., Krupnick, A., Bergman, A. 2023. Tracking and Evaluation of Research, Development, and Demonstration Programs at the US Department of Energy. Resources for the Future (RFF) Report 23-17. November 2023. Accessed April 25, 2025.
Bjerke, M.B., Renger, R. 2017. Being smart about writing SMART objectives. Evaluation and Program Planning 61, 125-127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2016.12.009
Blamey, A., Mackenzie, M. 2007. Theories of Change and Realistic Evaluations. Evaluation 13:4, 439-455. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356389007082129
Blom-Hansen, J., Houlberg, K., Serritzlev, S. and Treisman, D. 2016. Jurisdiction Size and Local Government Policy Expenditure: Assessing the Effect of Municipal Amalgamation. American Political Science Review, 110(4), 812-831. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055416000320
Boni, A., Giachi, S., Molas-Gallart, J. 2019. Towards a framework for transformative innovation policy evaluation. TIPC Research Report.
Borrás, S., Laatsit, M. 2019. Towards system oriented innovation policy evaluation? Evidence from EU28 member states. Research Policy 48(1), 312-321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.08.020
Bossink, B.A.G. 2015. Demonstration projects for diffusion of clean technological innovation: a review. Clean Techn Environ Policy 17, 1409-1427. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-014-0879-4
Bossink, B. 2020. Learning strategies in sustainable energy demonstration projects: What organizations learn from sustainable energy demonstrations. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 131, 110025. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2020.110025
Bossink, B., Blankesteijn, M.L., Hasanefendic, S. 2023. Upscaling sustainable energy technology: From demonstration to transformation. Energy Research & Social Science, 103, 103208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2023.103208
Brown, J., Hendry, C. 2009. Public demonstration projects and field trials: accelerating commercialisation of sustainable technology in solar photovoltaics. Energy Policy 37(9), 2560-2573. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2009.01.040
Brown, M.A., Livesay, H.C., Lux, D.S., Wilson, C.R. 1993. Demonstrations: the missing link in government-sponsored energy technology deployment. Technology in Society 15(2), 185-205. https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-791X(93)90002-6
Buijs, A., Silvester, S. 1996. Demonstration projects and sustainable housing. Building Research & Information, 24(4):195-202. https://doi.org/10.1080/09613219608727529
Cerulli, G., Corsino, M., Gabriele, R., & Giunta, A. 2022. A dose-response evaluation of a regional R&D subsidies policy. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 31(3), 173-190. https://doi.org/10.1080/10438599.2020.1792604
Cin, B.C., Kim, Y.J. & Vonortas, N.S. 2017. The impact of public R&D subsidy on small firm productivity: evidence from Korean SMEs. Small Bus Econ 48, 345-360. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-016-9786-x
Cohen J. 1992. A power primer. Psychological bulletin, 112(1), 155-159. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155
Cohen, L.R., Noll, R. 1991. The Technology Pork Barrel. Brookings Institution, Washington, DC (1991).
Collin, E., Sandström, C., Wennberg, K. 2022. Evaluating Evaluations of Innovation Policy: Exploring Reliability, Methods, and Conflicts of Interest. In: Wennberg, K., Sandström, C. (eds) Questioning the Entrepreneurial State. International Studies in Entrepreneurship, vol 53. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-94273-1_9
Criscuolo, C., Martin, R., Overman, H. G., & Van Reenen, J. 2019. Some causal effects of an industrial policy. American Economic Review, 109(1), 48-85. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20160034
Cunningham, S. 2021. Causal Inference: The Mixtape. Yale University Press. https://doi.org/10.12987/9780300255881
de Blasio, G., Fantino, D., & Pellegrini, G. 2015. Evaluating the impact of innovation incentives: Evidence from an unexpected shortage of funds. Industrial and Corporate Change, 24(6), 1285-1314. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtu027
de Chaisemartin, C., & D'Haultfoeuille, X. 2020. Two-Way Fixed Effects Estimators with Heterogeneous Treatment Effects. American Economic Review 110 (9): 2964-96. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20181169
DFiR. 2019. Innovationsmodne virksomheder (IMV'er) - en ny målgruppe for innovationsfremmeindsatsen.
Dolmer Alnor, E. 2023. Danske virksomheder, der køber FoU i GTS-systemet, og deres udbytte. Faglig rapport fra Dansk Center for Forskningsanalyse, Institut for Statskundskab, Aarhus BSS, Aarhus Universitet. https://doi.org/10.7146/cfasr.v14i1.153030
Doran, G. T. 1981. There's a S.M.A.R.T. Way to Write Management's Goals and Objectives. Management Review 70, 35-36.
EC. 2024. European Commission (EC) Evaluation Handbook. International Partnerships.
Edler, J., Berger, M., Dinges, M., Gök, A. 2012. The practice of evaluation in innovation policy in Europe. Research Evaluation 21(3), 167-182. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvs014
Egerod, B., & Hollenbach, F. M. 2024. How many is enough? Sample Size in Staggered Difference-in-Differences Designs. OSF Preprints. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/ac5ru
EIP Evaluation. 2010. Evaluation of the Indicators of the Entrepreneurship and Innovation Programme (EIP). Final Report by the Centre for Strategy & Evaluation Services.
Essén, A., Krohwinkel, A., Wennberg, K. 2022. Assessing Whether Mission-Driven Innovation Makes a Difference: Mission Impossible? Developing a Guiding Framework for the Evaluation of Five Mission Driven Environments for Health in Sweden. Pre-study report commissioned by Vinnova. SSE Working Paper Series in Business Administration No 2022:2 May, 2022.
Feliciani, T., Luo, J., & Shankar, K. 2024. Funding lotteries for research grant allocation: An extended taxonomy and evaluation of their fairness. Research Evaluation, 33, rvae025. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvae025
Feller, I. 2007. Mapping the frontiers of evaluation of public-sector R&D programs. Science and Public Policy 34(10), 681-690. https://doi.org/10.3152/030234207X258996
Fevolden, A.M., Coenen, L., Hansen, T., Klitkou, A. 2017. The Role of Trials and Demonstration Projects in the Development of a Sustainable Bioeconomy. Sustainability, 9(3), 419. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9030419
Flanagan, K., Uyarra, E., Laranja, M. 2011. Reconceptualising the 'policy mix' for innovation. Research Policy 40(5), 702-713. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2011.02.005
Flanagan, K., Uyarra, E. 2016. Four dangers in innovation policy studies - and how to avoid them. Industry and Innovation 23(2), 177-188. https://doi.org/10.1080/13662716.2016.1146126
Frishammar, J., Söderholm, P., Bäckström, K., Hellsmark, H., Ylinenpää, H. 2014. The role of pilot and demonstration plants in technological development: synthesis and directions for future research. Technol Anal Strateg Manag. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2014.943715
Gelman, A., & Carlin, J. 2014. Beyond Power Calculations: Assessing Type S (Sign) and Type M (Magnitude) Errors. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9(6), 641-651.https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691614551642
Gelman, A., Hill, J., & Vehtari, A. 2020. Regression and Other Stories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139161879
Gelman, A., & Imbens, G. 2018. Why High-Order Polynomials Should Not Be Used in Regression Discontinuity Designs. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 37(3), 447-456. https://doi.org/10.1080/07350015.2017.1366909
Gibbons, C., Suárez Serrato, J. & Urbancic, M. 2018. Broken or Fixed Effects? Journal of Econometric Methods, 8(1).
https://doi.org/10.1515/jem-2017-0002
Glennan, T.K., Hederman, W.F., Johnson, L.L., Rettig, R.A. 1978. The role of demonstrations in federal R&D policy. RAND Corporation, Santa Monica.
Goodman-Bacon, A. 2021. Difference-in-differences with variation in treatment timing. Journal of Econometrics, 225(2), 254-277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2021.03.014
Haddad, C.R., Bergek, A. 2023. Towards an integrated framework for evaluating transformative innovation policy. Research Policy 52(2), 104676. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2022.104676
Haddad, C.R., Nakić, V., Bergek, A., Hellsmark, H. 2022. Transformative innovation policy: A systematic review. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 43, 14-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2022.03.002
Hainmueller, J. 2012. Entropy Balancing for Causal Effects: A Multivariate Reweighting Method to Produce Balanced Samples in Observational Studies. Political Analysis, 20(1), 25-46. https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpr025
Ham, W. D. & Miratrix, L. 2022. Benefits and costs of matching prior to a Difference in Differences analysis when parallel trends does not hold. stat.ME.
Hansen, J.A. and Tummers, L. 2020. A Systematic Review of Field Experiments in Public Administration. Public Admin Rev, 80: 921-931. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13181
Harborne, P., Hendry, C., Brown, J. 2007. The development and diffusion of radical technological innovation: the role of bus demonstration projects in commercializing fuel cell technology. Technol Anal Strateg Manag 19(2):167-188. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537320601168060
Harborne, P., Hendry, C. 2009. Pathways to commercial wind power in the US, Europe and Japan: the role of demonstration projects and field trials in the innovation process. Energy Policy 37(9):3580-3595. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2009.04.027
Hart, D. M. 2018. Beyond the Technology Pork Barrel? An assessment of the Obama administration's energy demonstration projects. Energy Policy 119, 367-376. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2018.04.047
Hausman, C., & Rapson, D. S. 2018. Regression discontinuity in time: Considerations for empirical applications. Annual Review of Resource Economics, 10(1), 533 -552. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-resource-121517-033306
Hellsmark, H., Frishammar, J., Söderholm, P., Ylinenpää, H. 2016. The role of pilot and demonstration plants in technology development and innovation policy. Research Policy, 45(5), 1743-1761. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2016.05.005
Hendry, C., Harborne, P., Brown, P. 2010. So what do innovating companies really get from publicly funded demonstration projects and trials? Innovation lessons from solar photovoltaics and wind. Energy Policy 38(8):4507-4519. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2010.04.005
Heyard, R., Ott, M., Salanti, G., & Egger, M. 2022. Rethinking the funding line at the Swiss national science foundation: Bayesian ranking and lottery. Statistics and Public Policy, 9(1), 110-121. https://doi.org/10.1080/2330443X.2022.2086190
Imbens, G. W., & Wooldridge, J. M. 2009. Recent Developments in the Econometrics of Program Evaluation. Journal of Economic Literature 47 (1): 5-86. https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.47.1.5
Impello Management og Menon Economics. 2018. Effekter av energiforskningen. Hovedrapport for Norges Forskningsråd.
Innovate UK. 2017. Catapult Programme: A Framework for Evaluating Impact. Authors: Hannah Lockley, Khalid Khan from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS), in collaboration with David Legg and Dan Hodges at Innovate UK.
Innovate UK. 2018. Evaluation Framework. Authors: T. Allas, A. Bravo-Biosca, J. Phipp, M. Hart, M. Laatsit, S. Roper and analysts from the Department of Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy.
Innovation Metrics Review. 2022. Improving innovation indicators: Better data to track innovation in Australia. Published by the Office of the Chief Economist, Department of Industry, Innovation and Science, Australian Government.
Jaffe, A,B., Newell, R.G., Stavins, R.N. 2004. Technology Policy for Energy and the Environment. Innovation Policy and the Economy 4: 35-68. https://doi.org/10.1086/ipe.4.25056161
Karhunen, H. & Huovari, J. 2015. R&D subsidies and productivity in SMEs. Small Bus Econ 45, 805-823. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-015-9658-9
Karlström, M., Sandén, B.A. 2004. Selecting and assessing demonstration projects for technology assessment: The cases of fuel cells and hydrogen systems in Sweden. Innovation, 6(2), 286-293. https://doi.org/10.5172/impp.2004.6.2.286
Kemp, R., Schot, J., Hoogma, R. 1998. Regime shifts to sustainability through processes of niche formation: the approach of strategic niche management. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 10(2), pp. 175-195. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537329808524310
Kimura, O. 2010. Public R&D and commercialization of energy-efficient technology: A case study of Japanese projects. Energy Policy 38(11), 7358-7369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2010.08.012
King, G., & Nielsen, R. 2019. Why Propensity Scores Should Not Be Used for Matching. Political Analysis, 27(4), 435-454.
https://doi.org/10.1017/pan.2019.11
Kongsted. 2018. Review af viden om økonomiske effekter af virkemidler til fremme af privat FoU. Notat til regeringens tværministerielle udvalg vedr. effekterne af den eksisterende forskningsindsats.
Lee, Y.N. 2015. Evaluating and extending innovation indicators for innovation policy. Research Evaluation 24(4), 471-488. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvv017
Lee, D. S., & Lemieux, T. 2010. Regression Discontinuity Designs in Economics. Journal of Economic Literature 48 (2): 281-355. https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.48.2.281
Leth Olsen, A. 2014. Tærskelvariable og tærskelværdier. Politica, 46(1), 42-59. https://doi.org/10.7146/politica.v46i1.69760
Levinsohn, J., and A. Petrin. 2003. Estimating production functions using inputs to control for unobservables. Review of Economic Studies 70: 317-341. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-937X.00246
Link, A.N., Tassey, G. 1989. Cooperative Research and Development: the industry-university-government relationship. Dordrecht: Kluwer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-2522-9
Macey, S.M., Brown M.A. 1990. Demonstrations as a policy instrument with energy technology examples. Sci Commun 11(3):219-236. https://doi.org/10.1177/107554709001100301
Magro, E., Wilson, J. R. 2013. Complex innovation policy systems: Towards an evaluation mix. Research Policy 42(9), 1647-1656. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2013.06.005
Markusson, N., Ishii, A., Stephens, J.C. 2011. The social and political complexities of learning in carbon capture and storage demonstration projects. Glob Environ Change 21(2): 293-302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.01.010
Martin, B.R. 2007. Assessing the Impact of Basic Research on Society and the Economy. Invited presentation at the FWF-ESF International Conference on 'Science Impact: Rethinking the Impact of Basic Research on Society and the Economy', Vienna, 11 May 2007.
Martin, S., Scott, J.T. 2000. The nature of innovation market failure and the design of public support for private innovation. Research Policy 29(4-5): 437-447. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00084-0
Martin, B. R. 2016. R&D policy instruments - a critical review of what we do and don't know. Industry and Innovation 23(2), 157-176. https://doi.org/10.1080/13662716.2016.1146125
Mason, P., Barnes, M. 2007. Constructing theories of change: methods and sources. Evaluation 13, pp. 151-170.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1356389007075221
McElreath, R. 2020. Statistical Rethinking: A Bayesian Course with Examples in R and STAN (2nd ed.). Chapman and Hall/CRC. https://doi.org/10.1201/9780429029608
Menon Economics & Multiconsult. 2025. Effekter av energiforskning. Delrapport 1 for Norges Forskningsråd.
MFLF. 2025. Vejledning om brug af effektmåling i Plantefondens Projekter. Fonden for Plantebaserede Fødevarer. Ministeriet for Fødevarer, Landbrug og Fiskeri, Landbrugs og Fiskeristyrelsen.
Molas-Gallart, J., Davies, A. 2006. Toward Theory-Led Evaluation: The Experience of European Science, Technology, and Innovation Policies. American Journal of Evaluation, 27(1), 64-82. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214005281701
Myers, K. R., & Lanahan, L. 2022. Estimating spillovers from publicly funded R&D: Evidence from the US Department of Energy. American Economic Review, 112(7), 2393-2423. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20210678
Nemet, G.F., Zipperer, V., Kraus, M. 2018. The valley of death, the technology pork barrel, and public support for large demonstration projects. Energy Policy 119 (154-167). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2018.04.008
Norberg-Bohm, V. 2000. Creating incentives for environmentally enhancing technological change: lessons from 30 years of US energy policy. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 65, 125-148. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0040-1625(00)00076-7
Nordqvist, S., Frishammar, J. 2019. Knowledge types to progress the development of sustainable technologies: a case study of Swedish demonstration plants. Int Entrep Manag J 15, 75-95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-018-0547-y
Norn, M.T. 2016. Hvad ligger under overfladen? En gennemgang af litteraturen om samarbejde mellem den offentlige forskning og private virksomheder. Rapport fra Tænketanken DEA, gennemført på foranledning og delvist finansieret af Danmarks Forsknings- og Innovationspolitiske Råd (DFiR).
Olley, G. S., and A. Pakes. 1996. The dynamics of productivity in the telecommunications equipment industry. Econometrica 64: 1263-1297. https://doi.org/10.2307/2171831
Oslo Manual. 2018. Guidelines for Collecting, Reporting and Using Data on Innovation. 4th Edition.
Peikes, D. N., Moreno, L., & Orzol, S. M. 2008. Propensity Score Matching: A Note of Caution for Evaluators of Social Programs. The American Statistician, 62(3), 222-231.¨ https://doi.org/10.1198/000313008X332016
Pluss Leadership 2024. Effektmåling af Energy Cluster Denmarks projektportefølje. Rapport for Energy Cluster Denmark.
Raff, S., Murray, F.E., Frølund, L., Murmann, M. 2024. What is "Deep Tech" and why should corporate innovators care? MIT Sloan REAP Faculty Publication.
Rogge, K.S., Kern, F., Howlett, M., 2017. Conceptual and empirical advances in analysing policy mixes for energy transitions. Energy Research & Social Science 33, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2017.09.025
Rolfe, S. 2019. Combining theories of change and realist evaluation in practice: lessons from a research on evaluation study. Evaluation 25, 294-316. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356389019835229
Rosenbaum, P. R., & Rubin, D. B. 1983. The Central Role of the Propensity Score in Observational Studies for Causal Effects. Biometrika, 70(1), 41-55. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/70.1.41
Rubin, D. B. 2005. Causal Inference Using Potential Outcomes: Design, Modeling, Decisions. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 100(469), 322-331. https://doi.org/10.1198/016214504000001880
Rubin, D. B. 1974. Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomized and nonrandomized studies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 66(5), 688-701. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0037350
Rubin, D. B. 2008. For Objective Causal Inference, Design Trumps Analysis. The Annals of Applied Statistics, 2(3). 808-840. https://doi.org/10.1214/08-AOAS187
Ruegg, R., Jordan, G. 2007. Overview of Evaluation Methods for R&D Programs - A Directory of Evaluation Methods Relevant to Technology Development Programs. Prepared for U.S. Department of Energy Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy March 2007 by Rosalie Ruegg, TIA Consulting, Inc. Gretchen Jordan, Sandia National Laboratories.
Russell, S., Markusson, N., Scott, V. 2012. What will CCS demonstrations demonstrate? A research agenda. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change 17:651-668. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-011-9313-y
Romme, A.G.L., Bell, J. & Frericks, G. 2023. Designing a deep-tech venture builder to address grand challenges and overcome the valley of death. Journal of Organization Design 12, 217-237. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41469-023-00144-y
Rozansky, R., Hart, D.M. 2020. More and Better: Building and Managing a Federal Energy Demonstration Project Portfolio. May 1, 2020. Available at SSRN. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3905532
Santoleri, P., Mina, A., Di Minin, A., & Martelli, I. 2024. The causal effects of R&D grants: Evidence from a regression discontinuity. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 106(6), 1495-1510. https://doi.org/10.1162/rest_a_01233
Scandura, A. 2016. University-industry collaboration and firms' R&D effort. Research Policy, 45(9), 1907-1922.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2016.06.009
Sjöö, K., Frishammar, J. 2019. Demonstration projects in sustainable technology: The road to fulfillment of project goals. Journal of Cleaner Production, 228, 331-340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.302
Stommes, D., Aronow, P. M., & Sävje, F. 2023. On the reliability of published findings using the regression discontinuity design in political science. Research & Politics, 10(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/20531680231166457
Tassey, G. 1991. The functions of technology infrastructure in a competitive economy. Research Policy 20(4): 345-361. https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(91)90094-7
Tassey, G. 2005. Underinvestment in public good technologies. Journal of Technology Transfer 30(1-2): 89-113. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-004-4360-0
Van Criekingen et al. 2021. RTO Firm Effects: A review of academic literature on firm effects of interactions with Research and Technology Organizations. https://doi.org/10.7146/cfasr.v12i1.152978
Vanino, E., Roper, S. & Becker, B. 2019. Knowledge to money: Assessing the business performance effects of publicly-funded R&D grants. Research Policy, 48(7), 1714-1737. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2019.04.001
Wang, Y., Li, J., & Furman, J. L. 2017. Firm performance and state innovation funding: Evidence from China's Innofund program. Research Policy, 46(6), 1142-1161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.05.001
Wooldridge, J. 2009. On estimating firm-level production functions using proxy variables to control for unobservables. Economics Letters 104: 112-114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2009.04.026
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
Categories
License
Copyright (c) 2026 CFA Scientific Reports
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
License terms apply for all publications unless specifically stated otherwise on the publication.
