Scientific production and technological innovation are evolving at an unprecedented speed. Digitalization, artificial intelligence, and global research networks are reshaping how knowledge is created, shared, and commercialized. At the same time, geopolitical tensions, climate transitions, and public health challenges are redefining the strategic role of science in economic development.
In this rapidly transforming landscape, understanding the organization, incentives, and diffusion of scientific knowledge has never been more crucial. Scientific research, whether conducted in universities or corporate laboratories and funded publicly or privately, operates within institutional and economic frameworks that influence the direction of discovery and the circulation of knowledge. As such, it has become a central focus for economists of innovation, management scholars and policy analysts. A growing body of work examines the influence of organisational structures and collaborative practices on research productivity. A relevant area in this realm concerns the evolution of the role of companies in the production of science. From a centralized model, where the firm covers each side of the innovation process, has evolved an open ecosystem, where the division of innovative labor between universities, startups, and established firms is the new paradigm. How do these structural shifts and dynamics redefine the innovation ecosystem? At the same time, attention has turned to global mobility and international networks and how they redefine knowledge flows. Moreover, literature on the effect of diversity on team dynamics and scientific outcomesis flourishing, as well as the mechanisms, such as technology
Scientific production and technological innovation are evolving at an unprecedented speed. Digitalization, artificial intelligence, and global research networks are reshaping how knowledge is created, shared, and commercialized. At the same time, geopolitical tensions, climate transitions, and public health challenges are redefining the strategic role of science in economic development.
In this rapidly transforming landscape, understanding the organization, incentives, and diffusion of scientific knowledge has never been more crucial. Scientific research, whether conducted in universities or corporate laboratories and funded publicly or privately, operates within institutional and economic frameworks that influence the direction of discovery and the circulation of knowledge. As such, it has become a central focus for economists of innovation, management scholars and policy analysts. A growing body of work examines the influence of organisational structures and collaborative practices on research productivity. A relevant area in this realm concerns the evolution of the role of companies in the production of science. From a centralized model, where the firm covers each side of the innovation process, has evolved an open ecosystem, where the division of innovative labor between universities, startups, and established firms is the new paradigm. How do these structural shifts and dynamics redefine the innovation ecosystem? At the same time, attention has turned to global mobility and international networks and how they redefine knowledge flows. Moreover, literature on the effect of diversity on team dynamics and scientific outcomes is flourishing, as well as the mechanisms, such as technology transfers and intellectual property regimes, that govern appropriation, and consequently, the diffusion of innovation across regions and industries.
Track 1 – Gender and Science: Within the realm of the Economics of Science, a key area of investigation centers on understanding gender differences within academia. Despite strides in gender equality, ongoing research consistently uncovers disparities in citation rates and publication outputs between male and female researchers (Huang et al., 2020; Larivière et al., 2013; Bikard et al., 2025). These gender gaps extend across various dimensions, including research funding, academic career advancement, collaboration networks, authorship positions and peer recognition. Understanding gender gaps in research is fueled by the recognition of the diverse advantages of gender diversity in research; as it sparks innovation (Yang et al., 2022), leads to more diverse and impactful work (Nielsen et al., 2017) and broadens the perspectives in problem-solving settings (Wooley et al., 2015).
Track 2 – Policy, Innovation and Technology diffusion: Within the economics of innovation, escalating environmental challenges have given rise to specialised research streams centred on the green transition. Policy intervention is widely recognised as a critical large‑scale lever to accelerate the diffusion of eco‑innovations (Antonelli, 2022). Yet their hindered diffusion is partly rooted in structural and knowledge‑based barriers. Green technologies rely on distinctive knowledge recombination processes—marked by diversity, relatedness, complexity, and novelty—which set them apart from conventional technologies. Empirical evidence shows that the presence of, and the ability to recombine, advanced local capabilities is a prerequisite for achieving sustainability transitions across their economic, social, and environmental dimensions. At the same time, dealing with such technological complexity entails intensified R&D efforts, significant barriers to replication, and spatial concentration, often clustering in high‑capacity productive regions (Mewes and Broekel, 2022). These dynamics resonate strongly with the broader literature on innovation and technology diffusion. A substantial body of work has long examined how new technologies emerge and spread, emphasising that diffusion depends on a varied set of dimensions, including knowledge recombination, technological complexity, spatial dynamics, and institutional conditions (Berger & Ostermeyer, 2025; Comin et al., 2012; Rosenberg, 1972; Tsiachtsiras et al., 2022). Seen through this lens, the challenges surrounding green technologies are not an exception but rather an intensified expression of general diffusion mechanisms. This track therefore welcomes theoretical and empirical contributions that explore the determinants, mechanisms, and consequences of innovation and technology diffusion across firms, regions, and countries.
Track 3 – Corporate Science: This track examines the evolving role of private firms within the scientific ecosystem and the diverse linkages between industry and academia (Arora et al., 2018; Cohen et al., 2002). We welcome contributions exploring the strategic incentives for corporate scientific engagement and the mechanisms of knowledge diffusion between private and public research (Cockburn & Henderson, 1998; Rosenberg, 1990). Submissions may address the organizational, institutional, or individual determinants of industrial research, as well as the impact of science-based strategies on firm innovation and broader technological change (Bikard et al., 2019; Fleming & Sorenson, 2004).
Track 4 – Other topics within the realm of the Economics of Science and Innovation: We warmly invite young researchers and scholars to contribute papers exploring the broader realm of the Economics of Science and Innovation. Topics may include but are not limited to the academic job market, geography of innovation, corporate science, science in developing countries, refugee science, intellectual property and innovation incentives, public policy evaluation, etc. We encourage submissions from diverse perspectives and areas within the field.
References:
- Arora, A., Belenzon, S., & Patacconi, A. (2018). The decline of American corporate research. Strategic Management Journal, 39(1), 3–32. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2691
- Berger, T., & Ostermeyer, V. (2025). Institutional Innovation and the Adoption of New Technologies: The Case of Steam. The Journal of Economic History, 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022050725100855
- Bikard, M., Fernandez-Mateo, I., & Mogra, R. (2025). Standing on the shoulders of (male) giants: Gender inequality and the technological impact of scientific ideas. Administrative Science Quarterly, 70(3), 695-732.
- Breschi, S., Lawson, C., Lissoni, F., Morrison, A., & Salter, A. (2020). STEM migration, research, and innovation. Research Policy, 49(9), 104070.
- Bikard, M., Vakili, K., & Teodoridis, F. (2019). When and why do firms publish? Management Science, 65(2), 935–953. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2017.2934
- Cohen, W. M., Nelson, R. R., & Walsh, J. P. (2002). Links and Impacts: The Influence of Public Research on Industrial R&D. Management Science, 48(1), 1–23. [suspicious link removed]
- Comin, D., Dmitriev, M., & Rossi-Hansberg, E. (2012). The Spatial Diffusion of Technology (No. W18534; p. w18534). National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w18534
- Fleming, L., & Sorenson, O. (2004). Science, Specialization, and Strategy. Strategic Management Journal, 25(8/9), 909–928.
- Hunt, J., & Gauthier-Loiselle, M. (2010). How much does immigration boost innovation?. American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, 2(2), 31-56.
- Kahn, S., & MacGarvie, M. (2020). The impact of permanent residency delays for stem PhDs: Who leaves and why. Research Policy, 49(9), 103879.
- Huang, J., Gates, A. J., Sinatra, R., & Barabási, A.-L. (2020). Historical comparison of gender inequality in scientific careers across countries and disciplines. PNAS Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 117(9), 4609–4616. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1914221117
- Kim, Scott Daewon and Petra Moser (2023). Women in Science. Lessons from the Baby Boom. Working Paper 29436 National Bureau of Economic Research. URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w29436
- Larivière, Vincent, Chaoqun Ni, Yves Gingras, Blaise Cronin and Cassidy R Sugimoto (2013). “Bibliometrics: Global gender disparities in science.” Nature 504(7479):211–213.
- Nielsen, Mathias Wullum, Sharla Alegria, Love Börjeson, Henry Etzkowitz, Holly J Falk- Krzesinski, Aparna Joshi, Erin Leahey, Laurel Smith-Doerr, Anita Williams Woolley and Londa Schiebinger (2017). “Gender diversity leads to better science.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114(8):1740–1742
- Rosenberg, N. (1972). Factors affecting the diffusion of technology. Explorations in Economic History, 10(1), 3–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/0014-4983(72)90001-0
- Rosenberg, N. (1990). Why do firms do basic research? Research Policy, 19(2), 165–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(90)90042-9
- Tsiachtsiras, G., Yin, D., Moreno, R., & Miguelez, E. (2022). Trains of Thought: High-Speed Rail and Innovation in China.
Organization Committee
- Andriy Romanyuk (University of Insubria and University of Bordeaux, BSE)
- Amal Boughnim (University of Bordeaux, BSE)
- Kevin Souchard (University of Bordeaux, BSE)
- Sara Savini (University of Bordeaux & University of Insubria)
- Lou Zaccaron (University of Bordeaux)
- Nori Meziane (University of Bordeaux)
- Rahmi Can Yamanoglu (Gran Sasso Science Institute)
- Daniel Souza (Polytechnic University of Milan)
Scientific Committee
- Francesco Lissoni (University of Bordeaux, BSE)
- Pascale Roux (University of Bordeaux, BSE)
- Nicolas Carayol (University of Bordeaux, BSE)
- Laurent Berge (University of Bordeaux, BSE)
- Maider Saint-Jean (University of Bordeaux, BSE)
- Valerio Sterzi (University of Bordeaux, BSE)
We are pleased to extend invitations to these esteemed professors to serve as discussants for our upcoming workshop on the Economics of Science and Innovation. All of the mentioned professors are well-recognized figures in the broad field of Economics, with particular expertise in the Economics of Science and Innovation. Their insights are anticipated to enrich the dialogue, offering valuable perspectives to our participants. Additionally, we recognize their exceptional pedagogical qualities, affirming that their engagement will not only elevate the quality of discussions but also contribute significantly to the overall learning experience for all attendees.
