Abstract
Scientific publications tend to influence policymakers significantly. Despite the scientific and social importance of poverty today, the attention the top economic journals (American Economic Review; Econometrica; International Economic Review; Journal of Economic Theory; Journal of Political Economy; Quarterly Journal of Economics; Review of Economic Studies) pay to the matter is not clear, particularly in the so-called "Blue Ribbon" journals (and Review of Economics and Statistics). On the basis of bibliometric techniques, we analyzed all 27,322 articles published in the "Blue Ribbon" journals from 1970 to 2018. This is the first study on the scientific attention paid to poverty by the most influential journals in the field of economics. Two main findings can be highlighted: (i) the scientific attention paid to poverty in the Blue Ribbon journals is relatively meager, but it has observed a positive trend, increasing from a modest 0.36 percent of the total articles published in the 1970s to 1.92 percent of total publications in the 2010s; and (ii) the relative weight of specific poverty subtopics has significantly changed over the last 50 years, shifting from a focus on defining and measuring poverty in the earlier decades to policy-related issues in the most recent period (2000 onward).

Abstract
Whether research output significantly impacts on economic growth, and which research areas/fields of science matter the most to improve the economic performance of countries, stand as fundamental endeavors of scientific inquiry. Although the extant literature has analyzed the impact of research output on economic growth both holistically and by field, the impact of academic knowledge as a capital good (hard and social sciences) versus a final good (medical and humanities) has been largely neglected in analyses involving large sets of countries over a broad period of time. Based on a sample of 65 countries over 36 years (1980 to 2016), and employing system GMM dynamic panel data estimations, four main results are worth highlighting: (1) holistic research output positively and significantly impacts on economic growth; (2) both the academic knowledge of scientific areas that most resemble capital goods (physical sciences, engineering and technology, life sciences or social sciences) or final goods (base clinical, pre-clinical and health or arts and humanities) foster economic performance; (3) the global impact of research output is particularly high in the fields of engineering and technology, social sciences, and physics; and (4) the impact of research output on economic growth occurs mainly through structural change processes involving the reallocation of resources towards the industrial sector.

Abstract
Although considerable research has been devoted to the study of the effect of entrepreneurship on economic growth, fewer studies have analyzed the effect of the types (opportunity vs necessity) of entrepreneurship on economic growth. Moreover, the latter set of studies overlooked the relevance of human capital as a mediating factor in the relation between (types of) entrepreneurship and economic growth. The aim of the present study is to fill in this gap by assessing the extent to which the direct and indirect effect of (the types of) entrepreneurship, via human capital, matters for countries' economic growth. In methodological terms, we resort to fixed effects panel data estimations, involving a large set of (OECD and non-OECD) countries, over a relatively long time span (1990-2016). The results suggest total entrepreneurship has a positive effect on economic growth. Distinguishing between types of entrepreneurship, there is clear evidence that OE fosters economic growth, whereas necessity entrepreneurship inhibits it. Interestingly, human capital tends to mitigate the negative effect of necessity entrepreneurship on economic growth. In the case of opportunity entrepreneurship, the direct positive effect observed is reduced in contexts characterized by high levels of human capital, which might reflect increased opportunity costs.

Abstract
This chapter presents an in-depth critical overview of the theoretical and methodological approaches that have been used to assess the impact of Universities on regional competitiveness and development, including short-term/demand-side (economic) perspective and long-term/supply side (endogenous growth, technological transfer and commercialization, and institutional) perspective. It gives special attention to the potential impacts of universities' technology transfer and entrepreneurship activities on regional competitiveness, considering the ongoing transformation process of universities towards a ‘regional engaged entrepreneurial university' model.

Abstract
Regional income inequality is a topic of increasing relevance worldwide that has received considerable scientific attention. However, a clear-cut, comprehensive view has yet to be put forward of the main determinants of regional income inequality. Indeed, the extant empirical literature on the topic has reported differing results. Thus, this study develops a comprehensive meta-analysis using 33 comparable empirical studies spanning 29 years of research, involving 28 main determinants of which the most frequently mentioned were regional development, human capital, manufacturing/industry share, unemployment, financial development, and trade openness. After adjusting for publication bias and heterogeneity in the results reported by the primary studies, we conclude that the not very frequently addressed institutional related determinants (financial development, fiscal policies and public sector size), substantially contribute to reduce within-region income inequality, particularly in lower-income settings. In a smaller extent, human capital and trade openness also mitigate within-region income inequality. Region level of development, urbanization and, in a lesser extent, technological intensity aggravate within-region income inequality. © 2021, Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.

Abstract
Smart specialisation is a major driver of contemporary regional development policy in the European Union. Politicians, policymakers, and academics enthusiastically wave smart specialisation as the remedy that will fix the problems affecting previous policy rounds. The expectations towards the ‘remedial' effect of smart specialisation bear on the assumption that the policy approach will place the emphasis on what is unique in a given region by means of a so-called entrepreneurial process of discovery, basically a wide participatory process, underpinning a learning mechanism aimed at revealing the R&D and innovation domains in which that region can hope to excel. Universities are generally seen as central organisations in smart specialisation strategies, as made explicit in policy documents and academic papers. The chapter aims at knowing more about the power of smart specialisation policies to induce change in university-industry interactions and the promotion of sustainable growth.