University knowledge transfer: Private ownership, incentives, and local development objectives

Journal of Law and Economics

Volumn 52, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 111-144

  Belenzon, Sharon ^a   Mark Schankerman, ^b  

^a DUKE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b LONDON SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 66149119025     PISSN: 00222186     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1086/595763     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Adams, James. 1990. Fundamental Stocks of Knowledge and Productivity Growth. Journal of Political Economy 98:673-702.
2. Agarwal, Ajay, and Rebecca Henderson. 2002. Putting Patents in Context: Exploring Knowledge Transfer from MIT. Management Science 48:44-60.
3. Aghion, Philippe, Mathias Dewatripont, and Jeremy Stein. 2005. Academic Freedom, Private-Sector Focus and the Process of Innovation.Working Paper No. 11542. National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, Mass.
4. Association of University Technology Managers. 2005. FY 2004 Licensing Survey: Full Report, edited by Ashley Stevens. Deerfield, Ill.: AUTM.
5. Audretsch, David, and Paula Stephan. 1996. Company-Scientist Locational Links: The Case of Biotechnology. American Economic Review 86:641-52.
6. Baker, George, Robert Gibbons, and Kevin Murphy. 1994. Subjective Performance Measures in Optimal Incentive Contracts. Quarterly Journal of Economics 109:1125-56.
7. Bandiera, Oriana, Iwan Barankay, and Imran Rasul. 2005. Social Preferences and the Response to Incentives: Evidence from Personnel Data. Quarterly Journal of Economics 120:917-62.
8. -. 2007. Incentives for Managers and Inequality among Workers: Evidence from a Firm Level Experiment. Quarterly Journal of Economics 122:729-75.
9. Bernheim, Douglas, and Michael Whinston. 1986. Common Agency. Econometrica 54: 923-42.
10. Besley, Timothy, and Maitreesh Ghatak. 2005. Competition and Incentives with Motivated Agents. American Economic Review 95:616-36.
11. Blundell, Richard, Rachel Griffith, and John Van Reenen. 1999. Market Shares, Market Value and Innovation in a Panel of British Manufacturing Firms. Review of Economic Studies 66:529-54.
12. Blundell, Richard, Rachel Griffith, and Frank Windmeijer. 2002. Individual Effects and Dynamic Feedback in Count Data Models. Journal of Econometrics 108:113-31.
13. Dasgupta, Partha, and Paul David. 1994. Toward a New Economics of Science. Research Policy 23:487-521.
14. Devol, Ross, and Perry Wong. 1999. America's High-Tech Economy: Growth, Development and Risks for Metropolitan Areas. Santa Monica, Calif.: Milken Institute.
15. Di Gregorio, Dante, and Scott Shane. 2003. Why Do Some Universities Generate More Start-ups than Others? Research Policy 32:209-27.
16. Dixit, Avinash. 1997. Power of Incentives in Private vs Public Organizations. American Economic Review: Papers and Proceedings 87:378-82.
17. Elfenbein, Dan. 2004. Contract Structure and Performance of Technology Transfer Agreements: Evidence from University Licenses. Working paper. University of California, Berkeley.
18. Francois, P. 2000. Public Service Motivation as an Argument for Government Provision. Journal of Public Economics 78:275-99.
19. Gertler, Mric, Richard Florida, Gary Gates, and Tara Vinodrai. 2002. Competing on Creativity: A Report Prepared for the Ontario Ministry of Entrerprise, Opportunity and Innovation and the Institute for Competitiveness and Prosperity. http://www.creativeclass.org/acrobat/jan2003-canada.pdf.
20. Hall, Bronwyn H., Adam B. Jaffe, and Manuel Trajtenberg. 2001. The NBER Patent Citations Data File: Lessons, Insights, and Methodological Tools. Working Paper No. 8498. National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, Mass.
21. Henderson, Rebecca, Adam Jaffe, and Manuel Trajtenberg. 1998. Universities as a Source of Commercial Technology: A Detailed Analysis of University Patenting 1965-1988. Review of Economics and Statistics 80:119-27.
22. Holmstrom, Bengt, and Paul Milgrom. 1991. Multi-task Principal-Agent Analysis: Linear Contracts, Asset Ownership and Job Design. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 7:24-52.
23. Hoppe, Heidrun, and Emre Ozdenoren. 2005. Intermediation in Innovation. Discussion Paper No. 4891. Centre for Economic Policy Research, London.
24. Hoppe, Heidrun, and Emre Ozdenoren. 2005. Intermediation in Innovation. Discussion Paper No. 4891. Centre for Economic Policy Research, London. Jaffe, Adam. 1989. Real Effects of Academic Research. American Economic Review 79: 957-70.
25. Jaffe, Adam, and Josh Lerner. 2001. Reinventing Public R&D: Patent Policy and the Commercialization of National Laboratory Technologies. RAND Journal of Economics 32:167-98.
26. Jaffe, Adam, Manuel Trajtenberg, and Rebecca Henderson. 1993. Geographic Localization of Knowledge Spillovers as Evidenced by Patent Citations. Quarterly Journal of Economics 108:577-98.
27. Jensen, Richard, and Marie Thursby. 2001. Proofs and Prototypes for Sale: The Licensing of University Inventions. American Economic Reivew 91:240-59.
28. Jensen, Richard, Jerry Thursby, and Marie Thursby. 2001. Objectives, Characteristics and Outcomes of University Licensing: A Survey of Major U.S. Universities. Journal of Tehcnology Transfer 26:59-72.
29. -. 2003. The Disclosure and Licensing of University Inventions: "The Best We Can Do with the S**TWe Get toWorkWith." International Journal of IndustrialOrganization 21:1271-1300.
30. Lach, Saul, and Mark Schankerman. 2008. Incentives and Invention in Universities. RAND Journal of Economics 39:403-33.
31. Lazear, Edward. 2000a. Performance Pay and Productivity. American Economic Review 90: 1346-61.
32. -. 2000b. The Power of Incentives. American Economic Review: Papers and Proceedings 90:410-14.
33. Macho-Stadler, Inez, Daniel Perez-Castrillo, and Reinhilde Veugelers. 2007. Licensing of University Innovations: The Case of a Technology Transfer Office. International Journal of Industrial Organization 25:483-510.
34. Markman, Gideon, Peter Gianiodis, and Philip Phan. 2007. An Agency Theoretic Study of the Relationship between Knowledge Agents and University Technology Transfer Offices. Working paper. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, N.Y.
35. Mowery, David, and Arvids Zeidonis. 2001. Numbers, Quality and Entry: How Has the Bayh-Dole Act Affected U.S. University Patenting and Licensing? Pp. 187-220 in Innovation Policy and the Economy, vol. 1, edited by Adam Jaffe, Josh Lerner, and Scott Stern. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
36. Murray, Fiona, and Scott Stern. 2007. Do Formal Intellectual Property Rights Hinder the Free Flow of Scientific Knowledge? An Empirical Test of the Anti-commons Hypothesis. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 63:648-87.
37. Prendergast, Canice. 2002. The Tenuous Trade-off between Risk and Incentives. Journal of Political Economy 110:1071-1102.
38. Siegel, Donald, Reinhilde Veugelers, and Michael Wright. 2007. Technology Transfer Offices and Commercialization of University Intellectual Property: Performance and Policy Implications. Oxford Review of Economic Policy 23:640-60.
39. Siegel, Donald, David Waldman, and Albert Link. 2003. Assessing the Impact of Organizational Practices on the Relative Productivity of University Technology Transfer Offices: An Exploratory Study. Research Policy 32:27-48.
40. Thursby, Jerry, and Scott Kemp. 2002. Growth and Productive Efficiency of University Intellectual Property Licensing. Research Policy 31:109-24.
41. Thursby, Jerry, and Marie Thursby. 2002. Who Is Selling the Ivory Tower? Sources of Growth in University Licensing. Management Science 48:90-104.