The contribution of university research to the growth of academic start-ups: An empirical analysis

Journal of Technology Transfer

Volumn 35, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 113-140

  Colombo, Massimo G ^a   D'Adda, Diego ^a   Piva, Evila ^a  

^a POLITECNICO DI MILANO   (Italy)

Author keywords

Academic start ups; Growth; New technology based firms; University research

Indexed keywords

ACADEMIC START-UPS; EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS; GEOGRAPHICAL AREA; HIGH QUALITY; NEW TECHNOLOGY-BASED FIRMS; PANEL DATA MODELS; SCIENTIFIC RESEARCHES; UNIVERSITY RESEARCH;

GROWTH (MATERIALS); GROWTH RATE; INDUSTRY; RESEARCH; SOCIETIES AND INSTITUTIONS;

EDUCATION;

EID: 76049083240     PISSN: 08929912     EISSN: 15737047     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10961-009-9111-9     Document Type: Article

References (70)

1. Acs, Z. J., Audretsch, D. B., & Feldman, M. P. (1992). Real effects of academic research. The American Economic Review, 82(1), 363-367.
2. Acs, Z. J., Audretsch, D. B., & Feldman, M. P. (1994). R& D spillovers and recipient firm size. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 76(2), 336-340. doi: 10. 2307/2109888.
3. Agrawal, A. (2001). University-to-industry knowledge transfer: Literature review and unanswered questions. International Journal of Management Reviews, 3(4), 285-302. doi: 10. 1111/1468-2370. 00069.
4. Aldrich, H. E., Kallenberg, A., Marsden, P., & Cassell, J. (1989). In pursuit of evidence: Sampling procedures for locating new businesses. Journal of Business Venturing, 4(6), 367-386. doi: 10. 1016/0883-9026(89)90008-6.
5. Anselin, L., Varga, A., & Acs, Z. J. (1997). Local geographic spillovers between University research and high technology innovations. Journal of Urban Economics, 42(3), 422-448. doi: 10. 1006/juec. 1997. 2032.
6. Arellano, M., & Bond, S. (1991). Some tests of specification for panel data: Monte Carlo evidence and an application to employment equations. The Review of Economic Studies, 58(2), 277-297. doi: 10. 2307/2297968.
7. Argyres, N. S., & Liebeskind, J. P. (1998). Privatizing the intellectual commons: Universities and the commercialization of biotechnology. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 35(4), 427-454. doi: 10. 1016/S0167-2681(98)00049-3.
8. Arrow, K. (1962). Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for invention. In R. Nelson (Ed.), The rate and direction of inventive activity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
9. Audretsch, D. B., Keilbach, M., & Lehmann, E. E. (2005). Entrepreneurship and economic growth. London: Oxford University Press.
10. Audretsch, D. B., & Lehmann, E. E. (2005a). Does the knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship hold for regions? Research Policy, 34(8), 1191-1202. doi: 10. 1016/j. respol. 2005. 03. 012.
11. Audretsch, D. B., & Lehmann, E. E. (2005b). Mansfield's missing link: The impact of knowledge spillovers on firm growth. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 30(1-2), 207-210. doi: 10. 1007/s10961-004-4367-6.
12. Audretsch, D. B., & Lehmann, E. E. (2006). Entrepreneurial access and absorption of knowledge spillovers: Strategic board and managerial composition for competitive advantage. Journal of Small Business Management, 44(2), 155-166. doi: 10. 1111/j. 1540-627X. 2006. 00161. x.
13. Audretsch, D. B., Lehmann, E. E., & Warning, S. (2004). University spillovers: Does the kind of knowledge matters? Industry and Innovation, 11(3), 193-205. doi: 10. 1080/1366271042000265375.
14. Audretsch, D. B., & Stephan, P. E. (1996). Company-scientist locational links: The case of biotechnology. The American Economic Review, 86(3), 641-652.
15. Bade, F., & Nerlinger, E. A. (2000). The spatial distribution of new technology-based firms. Papers in Regional Science, 79(2), 155-176. doi: 10. 1007/s101100050041.
16. Barringer, B. R., Jones, F. F., & Neubaum, D. O. (2005). A quantitative content analysis of the characteristics of rapid-growth firms and their founders. Journal of Business Venturing, 20(5), 663-687. doi: 10. 1016/j. jbusvent. 2004. 03. 004.
17. Bertoni, F., Colombo, M. G., & Grilli, L. (2007). Venture capital financing and the growth of new technology-based firms: A longitudinal analysis. Working paper.
18. Birley, S. (1984). Finding the new firm. Proceedings of the Academy of Management Meetings, 47, 64-68.
19. Blundell, R., & Bond, S. (1998). Initial conditions and moment conditions in dynamic panel data models. Journal of Econometrics, 87(1), 115-143. doi: 10. 1016/S0304-4076(98)00009-8.
20. Bond, S. (2002). Dynamic panel data models: A guide to micro data methods and practice. Portuguese Economic Journal, 1(2), 141-162. doi: 10. 1007/s10258-002-0009-9.
21. Breno, E., Fava, G. A., Guardabasso, V., & Stefanelli, M. (2002). La ricerca scientifica nelle università italiane. Una prima analisi delle citazioni della banca dati ISI (Scientific research in Italian Universities. A first analysis of citations from ISI database). CRUI: Roma.
22. Caves, R. (1998). Industrial organization and new findings on the turnover and mobility of firms. Journal of Economic Literature, 36(4), 1947-1982.
23. Cockburn, I., & Henderson, R. (1998). Absorptive capacity, coauthoring behavior, and the organization of research in drug discovery. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 46(2), 157-182.
24. Cohen, W. M., Florida, R., Randazzese, L., & Walsh, J. (1998). Industry and the academy: Uneasy partners in the cause of technological advance. In R. G. Noll (Ed.), Challenges to research universities (ch. 7). Washington, DC: Brookings Institute Press.
25. Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1989). Innovation and learning: The two faces of R& D. The Economic Journal, 99(397), 569-596. doi: 10. 2307/2233763.
26. Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128-152. doi: 10. 2307/2393553.
27. Colombo, M. G., & Delmastro, M. (1999). Some stylized facts on organisation and its evolution. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 40(3), 252-274. doi: 10. 1016/S0167-2681(99)00067-0.
28. Colombo, M. G., & Grilli, L. (2005). Founders' human capital and the growth of new technology-based firms: A competence-based view. Research Policy, 34(6), 795-816. doi: 10. 1016/j. respol. 2005. 03. 010.
29. Colombo, M. G., & Piva, E. (2008a). Strenghts and weaknesses of academic start-ups: A conceptual model. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 55(1), 37-49. doi: 10. 1109/TEM. 2007. 912807.
30. Colombo, M. G., & Piva, E. (2008b). Firms' genetic characteristics, competence enlarging strategies and performances: A comparison between academic and non-academic high-tech start-ups. Working paper.
31. Dasgupta, P., & David, P. (1994). Towards a new economics of science. Research Policy, 23(5), 487-521. doi: 10. 1016/0048-7333(94)01002-1.
32. Del Barrio-Castro, T., & García-Quevedo, J. (2005). Effects of university research on the geography of innovation. Regional Studies, 39(9), 1217-1229. doi: 10. 1080/00343400500389992.
33. Di Gregorio, D., & Shane, S. (2003). Why do some universities generate more start-ups than others? Research Policy, 32(2), 209-227. doi: 10. 1016/S0048-7333(02)00097-5.
34. Drucker, J., & Goldstein, H. A. (2007). Assessing the regional economic development impacts of universities: A review of current approaches. International Regional Science Review, 30(1), 20-46. doi: 10. 1177/0160017606296731.
35. Evans, D. S. (1987a). The relationship between firm growth, size, and age: Estimates for 100 manufacturing industries. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 35(4), 567-581. doi: 10. 2307/2098588.
36. Evans, D. S. (1987b). Tests of alternative theories of firm growth. The Journal of Political Economy, 95(4), 657-674. doi: 10. 1086/261480.
37. Feeser, H. R., & Willard, G. E. (1990). Founding strategy and performance: A comparison of high and low growth high tech firms. Strategic Management Journal, 11(2), 87-98. doi: 10. 1002/smj. 4250110202.
38. Feldman, M. P., & Florida, R. (1994). The geographic sources of innovation: Technological infrastructure and product innovation in the United States. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 84(2), 210-229. doi: 10. 1111/j. 1467-8306. 1994. tb01735. x.
39. Fischer, E., & Reuber, R. (2003). Support for rapid growth firms: A comparison of the views of founders, government policy makers and private sector resource providers. Journal of Small Business Management, 41(4), 346-365.
40. Fischer, M. M., & Varga, A. (2003). Spatial knowledge spillovers and university research: Evidence from Austria. The Annals of Regional Science, 37(2), 303-322. doi: 10. 1007/s001680200115.
41. Gimeno, J., Folta, T., Cooper, A., & Woo, C. (1997). Survival of the fittest? Entrepreneurial human capital and the persistence of underperforming firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(4), 750-783. doi: 10. 2307/2393656.
42. Goldstein, H. A., & Drucker, J. (2006). The economic development impacts of universities on regions: Do size and distance matter? Economic Development Quarterly, 20(1), 22-43. doi: 10. 1177/0891242405283387.
43. Goldstein, H. A., & Renault, C. S. (2004). Contributions of universities to regional economic development: A quasi-experimental approach. Regional Studies, 38(7), 733-746. doi: 10. 1080/0034340042000265232.
44. Hart, P. E., & Oulton, N. (1996). Growth and size of firms. The Economic Journal, 106(438), 1242-1252. doi: 10. 2307/2235518.
45. Jaffe, A. B. (1989). Real effects of academic research. The American Economic Review, 79(5), 957-970.
46. Jaffe, A. B., Trajtenberg, M., & Henderson, R. (1993). Geographic localization of knowledge spillovers as evidenced by patent citations. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 108(3), 577-598. doi: 10. 2307/2118401.
47. Klepper, S. (2007). Disagreements, spinoffs, and the evolution of Detroit as the capital of the U. S. automobile industry. Management Science, 53(4), 616-631. doi: 10. 1287/mnsc. 1060. 0683.
48. Lim, K. (2000). The many faces of absorptive capacity: Spillovers of copper interconnect technology for semiconductor chips. Mimeo: MIT.
49. Little, A. D. (1977). New Technology-based firms in the United Kingdom and the federal Republic of Germany. London: Wilton House.
50. Moulton, B. R. (1990). An illustration of a pitfall in estimating the effects of aggregate variables on micro units. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 72(2), 334-338. doi: 10. 2307/2109724.
51. Mowery, D. C., & Ziedonis, A. A. (2001). The geographic reach of market and non-market channels of technology transfer: Comparing citations and licenses of university patents. NBER Working Paper 8568.
52. Murray, F. (2004). The role of academic inventors in entrepreneurial firms: sharing the laboratory life. Research Policy, 33(4), 643-659. doi: 10. 1016/j. respol. 2004. 01. 013.
53. Nelson, R. (1959). The simple economics of basic scientific research. The Journal of Political Economy, 67(3), 297-306. doi: 10. 1086/258177.
54. O'Shea, R. P., Allen, T. J., Chevalier, A., & Roche, F. (2005). Entrepreneurial orientation, technology transfer and spin-off performance of US universities. Research Policy, 34(7), 994-1009. doi: 10. 1016/j. respol. 2005. 05. 011.
55. Piergiovanni, R., Santarelli, E., & Vivarelli, M. (1997). From which source do small firms derive their innovative inputs? Some evidence from Italian industry. Review of Industrial Organization, 12(2), 243-258. doi: 10. 1023/A: 1007781501147.
56. Powers, J. B., & McDougall, P. P. (2005). University start-up formation and technology licensing with firms that go public: A resource-based view of academic entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 20(3), 291-311. doi: 10. 1016/j. jbusvent. 2003. 12. 008.
57. Roberts, E. B. (1991). High tech entrepreneurs: Lessons from MIT and beyond. New York: Oxford University Press.
58. Roberts, E. B., & Malone, D. (1996). Policies and structures for spinning off new companies from research and development organizations. R & D Management, 26(1), 17-48. doi: 10. 1111/j. 1467-9310. 1996. tb00927. x.
59. Rodríguez-Pose, A., & Refolo, M. C. (2003). The link between local production systems and public and university research in Italy. Environment & Planning A, 35(8), 1477-1492. doi: 10. 1068/a35297.
60. Rosenberg, N., & Nelson, R. (1994). American universities and technical advance in industry. Research Policy, 23(3), 323-348. doi: 10. 1016/0048-7333(94)90042-6.
61. Stern, S. (2004). Do scientists pay to be scientists? Management Science, 50(6), 835-853. doi: 10. 1287/mnsc. 1040. 0241.
62. Storey, D. J. (1994). Understanding the small business sector. London: Thomson Learning.
63. Stuart, T. E., Ozdemir, S. Z., & Ding, W. W. (2007). Vertical alliance networks: The case of university-biotechnology-pharmaceutical alliance chains. Research Policy, 36(4), 477-498. doi: 10. 1016/j. respol. 2007. 02. 016.
64. Sutton, J. (1997). Gibrat's legacy. Journal of Economic Literature, 35(1), 40-59.
65. Varga, A. (2000). Local academic knowledge transfers and the concentration of economic activity. Journal of Regional Science, 40(2), 289-309. doi: 10. 1111/0022-4146. 00175.
66. Wright, M., Birley, S., & Mosey, S. (2004). Entrepreneurship and university technology transfer. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 29(3-4), 235-246. doi: 10. 1023/B: JOTT. 0000034121. 02507. f3.
67. Zahra, S. A., & George, G. (2002). Absorptive capacity: A review, reconceptualization, and extension. Academy of Management Review, 27(2), 185-203. doi: 10. 2307/4134351.
68. Zucker, L. G., Darby, M. R., & Armstrong, J. S. (1998). Intellectual capital and the firm: The technology of geographically localized knowledge spillovers. Economic Inquiry, 36, 65-86.
69. Zucker, L. G., Darby, M. R., & Armstrong, J. S. (2000). University science, venture capital and the performance of U. S. biotechnology firms. Mimeo, Los Angeles: University of California.
70. Zucker, L. G., Darby, M. R., & Brewer, M. (1999). Intellectual capital and the birth of U. S. biotechnology enterprises. The American Economic Review, 88(1), 290-306.