Universities as research joint venture partners: Does size of the venture matter?

International Journal of Technology Management

Volumn 15, Issue 8, 1998, Pages 895-913

  Baldwin, William L ^a   Link, Albert N ^b  

^a Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT GREENSBORO   (United States)

Author keywords

Business strategy; R D; Research joint ventures; Universities

Indexed keywords

COST EFFECTIVENESS; INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING;

RESEARCH JOINT VENTURES;

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT;

EID: 0031675308     PISSN: 02675730     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1504/IJTM.1998.002637     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Council on Competitiveness (1996), Endless Frontier, Limited Resources: US R&D Policy for Competitiveness, Washington, DC: Council on Competitiveness.
2. Bush, Vannevar (1945), Science - The Endless Frontier, Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.
3. National Science Board (1996), Science & Engineering Indicators - 1996, Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
4. Mowery, David C. and Teece, David J. (1996), 'Strategic alliances and industrial research' in R.S. Rosenbloom and W.J. Spencer, (eds.), Engines of Innovation: US Industrial Research and the End of an Era, Boston: Harvard Business School Press, pp. 111-129.
5. Independently, this question was first addressed by Baldwin and Link [6,7].
6. Baldwin, William L. (1996), 'The US research university and the joint venture: evolution of an institution', Review of Industrial Organization 11, pp.629-653.
7. Link, Albert N. (1996), 'Research joint ventures: patterns from Federal Register Filings', Review of Industrial Organization 11, pp. 617-628.
8. Hagedoorn, John (1996), 'Trends and patterns in strategic technology partnering since the early Seventies', Review of Industrial Organization 11, pp.601-616 presents data on global growth of broadly defined 'strategic technology alliances'.
9. Link, Albert N. and Bauer, Laura L. (1989), Cooperative Research in US Manufacturing: Assessing Policy Initiatives and Corporate Strategies, Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.
10. Scott, John T. (1989), 'Historical and economic perspectives of the National Cooperative Research Act' in A.N. Link and G. Tassey, (eds.), Cooperative Research and Development: The Industry-University-Government Relationship, Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp.65-84.
11. RJVs must refile if their membership changes or if the scope of their activity changes. These refilings are not treated as a new collaborative research arrangement for the purpose of this paper.
12. Link, Albert N. (1996), Evaluating Public Sector Research and Development, Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.
13. We thank John T. Scott for raising this interesting and important point.
14. Bok, Derek (1986), Higher Learning, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
15. Kerr, Clark (1995), The Uses of the University, 4th ed., Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
16. The Council does acknowledge that industry still values fundamental, long-range research, but the implication is that industry is no longer willing to fund it at the level it has in the past.
17. Veblen, Thorstein (1918), The Higher Learning in America, New York: B.W. Heubsch.
18. Langfitt, Thomas W. et al. (1983), Partners in the Research Enterprise: University-Corporate Relations in Science and Technology, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
19. Pelikan, Jaroslav (1992), The Idea of the University: A Reexamination, New Haven: Yale University Press.
20. Mansfield, Edwin (1980), 'Basic research and productivity increase in manufacturing', American Economic Review 70, pp.863-873.
21. Link, Albert N. (1981), 'Basic research and productivity increase in manufacturing: additional evidence', American Economic Review 71, pp. 1111-1112.
22. Griliches, Zvi (1986), 'Productivity, R&D and basic research at the firm level in the 1970s', American Economic Review 76, pp.141-154.
23. However Link [24] does not find that industry eschews the traditional National Science Foundation characterization of R&D as being comprised of basic research, applied research, and development.
24. Link, Albert N. (1996), On the Classification of R&D', Research Policy 25, pp.397-401.
25. Link, Albert N. and Tassey, Gregory (1987), Strategies for Technology-based Competition: Meeting the New Global Challenge, Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.
26. Lee, Yong S. (1996), "Technology transfer' and the research university: a search for the boundaries of university-industry collaboration', Research Policy 25, pp.843-863.
27. Finan, William F. and Link, Albert N. (1994), 'Evaluation of the value of the Semiconductor Research Corporation to its members', Semiconductor Research Corporation Technical Report T94-177.
28. Acs, Zoltan J. and Audretsch, David B. (1990), Innovation and Small Firms, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
29. Link, Albert N. and Rees, John (1990), 'Firm size, university-based research, and the returns to R&D', Small Business Economics 2, pp.25-31.
30. Leyden, Dennis P. and Link, Albert N. (forthcoming), 'Federal laboratories as research partners," International Journal of Industrial Organization.
31. Berman, Evan M. (1990), The economic impact of industry-funded university R&D', Research Policy 19, pp.349-355.
32. US Department of Commerce (1996), Effective Partnering: A Report to Congress on Federal Technology Partnerships, Washington, DC: Office of Technology Policy.
33. The Collaborative REsearch database resides in the Department of Economics at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro. It was constructed, under the sponsorship of the National Science Foundation, from information contained in the Federal Register filings. The CORE database is discussed in Link (1996c) and in National Science Board (1996). The CORE database is updated annually, and is available upon request.
34. These data are available upon request.