Public and private universities: Unequal sources of regional innovation?

Economic Development Quarterly

Volumn 19, Issue 4, 2005, Pages 373-386

  Hegde, Deepak ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Economic development; Patents; Public universities; Regional innovation

Indexed keywords

EDUCATION;

EID: 27344442246     PISSN: 08912424     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0891242405280111     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Abelson, P. H. (1986). Evolving state-university-industry relations. Science, 231(4736), 317.
2. Adams, J., & Griliches, Z. (1998). Research productivity in a system of universities. Annales D'Economie et de Statistique, 49/50, 127-162.
3. Apple, R. D. (1989). Patenting university research. Isis, 80, 375-394.
4. Audretsch, D., & Feldman, M. (1996). R&D spillovers and the geography of innovation and production. American Economic Review, 63(3), 630-640.
5. Bresnahan, T. F., & Trajtenberg, M. (1995). General purpose technologies: Engines of growth? Journal of Econometrics, 65(1), 83-108.
6. Coburn, C., & Brown, D. (1997) Response: A state-federal partnership in support of science and technology. Economic Development Quarterly, 11(4), 296-310.
7. Eisinger, P. K. (1988). The rise of the entrepreneurial state: State and local economic development policy in the United States. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
8. Eisinger, P. K. (1995). State economic development in the 1990s: Politics and policy learning. Economic Development Quarterly, 9(2), 146-158.
9. Feldman, M. (1994). The university and economic development: The case of Johns Hopkins University and Baltimore. Economic Development Quarterly, 8(1), 67-76.
10. Feldman, M. (1999). The new economics of innovation, spillovers and agglomeration: A review of empirical studies. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 8, 5-25.
11. Feller, I. (1990). Universities as engines of R&D-based economic growth: They think they can. Research Policy, 19, 335-348.
12. Feller, I. (1992). American state governments as models for national science policy. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 11(2), 288-389.
13. Feller, I. (1997). Federal and state government roles in science and technology. Economic Development Quarterly, 11(4), 283-296.
14. Georgia Institute of Technology. (2005). The strategic plan of Georgia Tech. Atlanta: Author, Office of the President.
15. Graham, D., & Diamond, N. (1997). The rise of American research universities. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
16. Henderson, R., Jaffe, A., & Trajtenberg, M. (1998). Universities as a source of commercial technology: A detailed analysis of university patenting, 1965-1988. Review of Economics and Statistics, 80, 119-127.
17. Hicks, D., Breitzman, T., Olivastro, D., & Hamilton, K. (2001). The changing composition of innovative activity in the U.S.: A portrait based on patent analysis. Research Policy, 30, 681-703.
18. Hill, E., & Lendel, I. (2004). The impact of the reputation of bio-life science and engineering doctoral programs on regional economic development. Manuscript submitted for publication.
19. Jaffe, A. (1989). Real effects of academic research. American Economic Review, 79(5), 957-970.
20. Jaffe, A., & Trajtenberg, M. (2002). Patents, citations and innovation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
21. Jaffe, A., Trajtenberg, M., & Henderson, R. (1993). Geographic localization of knowledge spillovers as evidenced by patent citations. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 108(3), 577-598.
22. Lombardi, J., Craig, D., Capaldi, E., & Gater, D. (2002). The top American research universities: An annual report from the Lombardi Program on measuring university performance. Gainesville: University of Florida.
23. Martinez, M. (1999). The states and higher education: Legislative views on the governance of public colleges and universities: Enhancing the public interest. Review of Higher Education, 22, 247-263.
24. Mowery, D., & Sampat, B. (2001a). Patenting and licensing university inventions: Lessons from the history of the research corporation. Industrial and Corporate Change, 10, 317-355.
25. Mowery, D., & Sampat, B. (2001b). University patents, patent policies, and patent policy debates: 1925-1980. Industrial and Corporate Change, 10, 781-814.
26. Mowery, D., Nelson, R., Sampat, B., & Ziedonis, A. (2001). The growth of patenting and licensing by U.S. universities: An assessment of the effects of the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980. Research Policy, 30, 99-119.
27. National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges. (1995, March). The land-grant tradition. Washington, DC: Author.
28. National Research Council, Office of Scientific and Engineering Personnel. (1995). Research-doctorate programs in the United States: Continuity and change. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
29. National Science Foundation. (2004). Academic research and development expenditures: Fiscal year 2002 (Report No. NSF 04-330). Arlington, VA: Author, Division of Science Resources Statistics.
30. Porter, M. E. (1990). The competitive advantage of nations. New York: Basic Books.
31. Reamer, A., Icerman, L., & Youtie, J. (2003). Technology transfer & commercialization: Their role in economic development. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, Economic Development Administration.
32. Rosenberg, N., & Nelson, R. (1994). American universities and technical advance in industry. Research Policy, 23, 323-348.
33. Sabloff, P. (1997). Another reason why state legislatures will continue to restrict public university autonomy. Review of Higher Education, 20, 141-162.
34. Saxenian, A. (1994). Regional advantage: Culture and competition in Silicon Valley and Route 128. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
35. Siegel, D., Waldman, D., & Link, A. (2003). Assessing the impact of organizational practices on the relative productivity of university technology transfer offices: An exploratory study. Research Policy, 32, 27-48.
36. Sine, W., Shane, S., & Gregorio, D. (2003). The halo effect and technology licensing: The influence of institutional prestige on the licensing of university inventions. Management Science, 49, 478-496.
37. Stock, J. H., & Watson, M. W. (2003). Introduction to econometrics. Boston: Addison Wesley Longman.
38. Thursby, J., & Kemp, S. (2002). Growth and productive efficiency of university intellectual property licensing. Research Policy, 31, 109-124.
39. Trajtenberg, M., Henderson, R., & Jaffe, A. (2002). University vs. corporate patents: A window to the basicness of their inventions. In A. Jaffe & M. Trajtenberg (Eds.), Patents, citations and innovations (p. 60). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
40. Zucker, L., & Darby, M. (1997). The economists'case for biomedical research: Academic scientist-entrepreneurs and commercial success in biotechnology. In C. Barfield & B. Smith (Eds.), The future of biomedical research (pp. 42-72). Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research.