Scholarship and inventive activity in the university: Complements or substitutes?

Economics of Innovation and New Technology

Volumn 18, Issue 8, 2009, Pages 743-756

  Goldfarb, Brent ^a   Marschke, Gerald ^b   Smith, Amy ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND   (United States)

^b HARVARD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK   (United States)

Author keywords

Commercialization; Innovation; Science; University

Indexed keywords

EID: 77649106369     PISSN: 10438599     EISSN: 14768364     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10438590802479148     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. AUTM: Association of University Technology Managers. 2002. AUTM licensing survey. Nor- walk, CT.
2. Arellano, M., and S.R. Bond. 1991. Some tests of specification for panel data: Monte Carlo evidence and an application to employment equations. Review of Economic Studies 58: 277-97.
3. Arellano, M., and S. Bond. 1998. Dynamic panel data estimation using dpd98 and gauss: A guide for users. Unpublished Manuscript, December.
4. Arora, A., P.A. David, and A. Gambardella. 1998. Returns to scientific reputation: Funding of research projects by the Italian CNR. Les Annales des Economiques et des Statistiques 49/50: 164-98.
5. Agrawal, A., and R. Henderson. 2002. Putting patents in context: Exploring knowledge transfer from MIT. Management Science 48, no. 1: 44-60.
6. Azoulay, P., W.W. Ding, and T.E. Stuart. Forthcoming. The effect of academic patenting on the rate, quality, and direction of (public) research output. Journal of Industrial Economics.
7. Blumenthal, D., N. Causino, E. Campbell, and K. Seashore Louis. 1996. Relationships between academic institutions and industry in the life sciences. New England Journal of Medicine 334, no. 6: 368-373
8. Branstetter, L., and Y. Ogura. 2005. Is academic science driving a surge in industrial innovation? Evidence from patent citations. Working Paper 11561, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.
9. Breschi, S., F. Lissoni, and F. Montobbio. 2007. The scientific productivity of academic inven- tors: New evidence from italian data. Economics of Innovation and New Technology 16, no. 2: 101-18.
10. Brooks, H., and L. Randazzese. 1998. University-industry relations: The next four years and beyond. In Investing in innovation, ed. L. Branscomb and J. Keller, chapter 14, 361-99. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
11. Carayol, N. 2007. Academic incentives, research organization and patenting at a large French university. Economics of Innovation and New Technology 16, no. 2: 119-38.
12. Cohen, W.M., R. Florida, L. Randazzese, and J. Walsh. 1998. Industry and the academy: Uneasy part- ners in the cause of technological advance. In Challenges to research universities, ed. R.G. Noll, 171-200. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
13. Cole, Stephen. 1978. Scientific reward systems: A comparative analysis. Research in Sociology of Knowledge, Sciences and Art 1: 167-90.
14. Dasgupta, P., and P.A. David. 1994. Toward a new economics of science. Research Policy 23, no. 5: 487-521.
15. Florida, R., and W. Cohen. 1999. Engine or infrastructure? The university role in economic devel- opment. Industrializing knowledge: University-industry linkages in japan and the United States, ed. L.M. Branscomb, F. Kodama and R. Florida, 589-610. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
16. Garfield, E. 1996. The significant scientific literature appears in a small core of journals. The Scientist 10, no. 17: 13.
17. Goldfarb, B. 2008. The effect of government contracting on academic research: Does the source of funding affect scientific output. Research Policy 37, no. 1: 41-58. http://ideas.repec.org/ a/eee/respol/v37y2008i1p41-58.html.
18. Goldfarb, B., D. Kirsch, and M. Pfarrer. 2005. Searching for ghosts: Unmeasured entrepreneurial activity, investment and business survivalin the Dot Comera.UniversityofMaryland,September. http://ssrn.com/abstract=825687.
19. Gompers, P.A., and J. Lerner. 1998. What drives venture capital fundraising? Brookings Papers on Economic Activity: Microeconomics (July): 149-204.
20. Hall, B.H., A.B. Jaffe, and M. Trajtenberg. 2001. The NBER Patent Citations Data File: Lessons, insights and methodological tools. NBER Working Paper 8498, Cambridge, Massachusetts. http://papers.nber.org/papers/w8498.pdf.
21. Henderson, R., A. Jaffe, and M. Trajtenberg. 1998. Universities as a source of commercial technology: A detail edanalysis of university patenting. Review of Economics and Statistics 80,no.1:119-127.
22. Kennedy, D. 1986. Basic research in the universities: How much utility? In Positive sum strategy, ed. Ralph Landau and Nathan Rosenberg, 266-77. Washington, DC: National Academy Press
23. Lenoir, T., N. Rosenberg, H. Rowen, C. Lecuyer, J. Colyvas, and B. Goldfarb. 2006. Inventing the entrepreneurial region: Stanford and the co-evolution of silicon valley. Unpublished Manuscript, Stanford University.
24. Lerner, J. 1999. Venture capital and the commercialization of academic technology: Symbiosis and paradox. In Industrializing knowledge: University-industry linkages in Japan and the United States, ed. L.M. Branscomb, F. Kodama and R. Florida, 385-409. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
25. Levin, S.G., and P.E. Stephan. 1991. Research productivity over the life cycle: Evidence for academic scientists. American Economic Review 81, no. 1: 114-32.
26. Mansfield, E. 1991. Academic research and industrial innovation. Research Policy 20, no. 1: 1-12.
27. Mansfield, E. 1995. Academic research underlying industrial innovations: Sources, characteristics, and financing. The Review of Economics and Statistics 77, no. 1: 55-65.
28. Markiewicz, K., and A. DiMinin. 2005. Commercializing the laboratory: The relationship between faculty patenting and publishing. Working paper, University of California, Berkeley.
29. Merton, R.K. 1957. Social theory and social structure. Toronto: Free Press.
30. Mowery, D. 2002. The changing roles of universities in the 21st-century US R&D system. In AAAS science and technology handbook, ed. A.H. Teich, S.D. Nelson and S.J. Lita, 253-71. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science, May. Based on remarks presented to the AAAS R&D Colloquium.
31. Mowery, D., and B. Sampat. 2001. Patent and licensing university inventions: Lessons from the history of the research corporation. Industrial and Corporate Change 10: 317-355.
32. Mowery, D., R. Nelson, B. Sampat, and A. Ziedonis. 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.
33. Murray, F., and S. 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, no. 4: 648-87.
34. Owen-Smith, J., and W.W. Powell. 2001 Careers and contradictions: Faculty responses to the trans- formation of knowledge and its uses in the life sciences. Research in the Sociology of Work 10: 109-40.
35. Rabin, M. 1998. Psychology and economics. Journal of Economic Literature 36, no. 1: 11-46.
36. Rosenberg, N., and R. Nelson. 1994. Academic universities and technical advance in industry. Research Policy 23: 323-48.
37. Siegel, D.S., D. Waldman, and A. 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.
38. Stephan, P., S. Gurmu, A. Sumell, and G. Black. 2007. Who's patenting in the university? Evidence from the survey of doctorate recipients. Economics of Innovation and New Technology 16, no. 2: 71-99.
39. Stephan, P.E., and S.G. Levin. 1992. Striking the mother lode in science: The importance of age, place and time. New York: Oxford University Press.
40. Stephan, P.E., and S.G. Levin. Career stage, benchmarking and collaborative research. International Journal of Technology Management 22, no. 7/8: 676-87. Presented at the Conference on the Need for a New Economics of Science, University of Notre Dame.
41. Stern, S. 2004. Do scientists pay to be scientists? Management Science 50, no. 6: 835-53.
42. Stokes, D.E. 1997. Pasteur's quadrant: Basic science and technological innovation. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
43. Thursby, J.G., and M.C. Thursby.2004.Arefacultycritical?Theirroleinuniversity-industrylicensing. Contemporary Economic Policy 22, no. 2: 162-178.
44. Windmeijer, F. 2000. Moment conditions for fixed effects count data models with endogenous regressors. Economics Letters 68: 21-4.
45. Windmeijer, F. 2002. EXPEND, a Gauss programme for non-linear GMM estimation of Exponential models with endogenous regressors for cross section and panel (dynamic) count data models. Manuscript, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
46. Windmeijer, F. 2005. A finite sample correction for the variance of linear efficient two-step gmm estimators. Journal of Econometrics 126: 25-51.
47. Windmeijer,F.2008.GMMforpanelcountdatamodels.InTheeconometricsofpaneldatafundamen- tals and recent developments in theory and practice. Vol. 46 of Advanced Studies in Theoretical and Applied Econometrics, ed. L. Mátyás and P. Sevestre, chapter 18. Berlin: Springer.
48. Wooldridge, J. 1991. Multiplicative panel data models without the strict exogeneity assumption. Working Paper 574, MIT, Department of Economics.
49. Wooldridge, J. 1997. Multiplicative panel data models without the strict exogeneity assumption. Econometric Theory 13: 667-78.