Research expenditures, technology transfer activity, and university licensing revenue

Journal of Technology Transfer

Volumn 36, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 38-60

  Heisey, Paul W ^a   Adelman, Sarah W ^b,c  

^a ECONOMIC RESEARCH SERVICE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND   (United States)

^c MOUNT HOLYOKE COLLEGE   (United States)

Author keywords

Licensing revenue; Research expenditures; Science policy; Technology transfer; Universities

Indexed keywords

EXPLANATORY VARIABLES; RESEARCH EXPENDITURE; SCIENCE POLICIES; TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER ACTIVITIES; TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER OFFICES; TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER PROJECTS; UNIVERSITIES; UNIVERSITY TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER OFFICES;

TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER;

EID: 78751648427     PISSN: 08929912     EISSN: 15737047     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10961-009-9129-z     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Adams, J., & Griliches, Z. (1996). Measuring science: An exploration. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 93, 12664-12670.
2. Adams, J. D., & Griliches, Z. (1998). Research productivity in a system of universities. Annales D'Économie et de Statistique, 49(50), 127-162.
3. Amemiya, T., & MaCurdy, T. E. (1986). Instrumental-variable estimation of an error components model. Econometrica, 54, 869-881.
4. Arellano, M., & Bond, S. (1991). Some tests of specification for panel data: Monte Carlo evidence and an application to employment equations. Review of Economic Studies, 58, 277-297.
5. Arellano, M., & Bover, O. (1995). Another look at the instrumental variable estimation of error-components models. Journal of Econometrics, 68, 29-51.
6. Breusch, T. S., Mizon, G. E., & Schmidt, P. (1989). Efficient estimation using panel data. Econometrica, 57, 695-700.
7. Busch, L., Allison, R., Harris, C., Rudy, A., Shaw, B. T., Ten Eyck, T., et al. (2004). External review of the collaborative research agreement between Novartis Agricultural Discovery Institute, Inc. and The Regents of the University of California. East Lansing, MI: Institute for Food and Agricultural Standards, Michigan State University.
8. Chapple, W., Lockett, A., Siegel, D., & Wright, M. (2005). Assessing the relative performance of UK university technology transfer offices: Parametric and non-parametric evidence. Research Policy, 34, 369-384.
9. Colyvas, J., Crow, M., Gelijns, A., Mazzoleni, R., Nelson, R. R., Rosenberg, N., et al. (2002). How do university inventions get into practice? Management Science, 48, 61-72.
10. Coupé, T. (2003). Science is golden: Academic R& D and university patents. Journal of Technology Transfer, 28, 31-46.
11. David, P. A. (2004). Can "Open Science" be protected from the evolving regime of IPR protections? Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, 160, 9-34.
12. Foltz, J. D., Barham, B. L., & Kim, K. (2007). Synergies or trade-offs in university life sciences research. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 89, 353-367.
13. Hall, B. H., Griliches, Z., & Hausman, J. A. (1986). Patents and R and D: Is there a lag? International Economic Review, 27, 265-283.
14. Hausman, J. A., & Taylor, W. E. (1981). Panel data and unobservable individual effects. Econometrica, 49, 1377-1398.
15. Helfat, C. E., Finkelstein, S., Mitchell, W., Peteraf, M. A., Singh, H., Teece, D. J., et al. (2007). Dynamic capabilities: Understanding strategic change in organizations. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
16. Henderson, R., Jaffe, A. B., & Trajtenberg, M. (1998). Universities as a source of commercial technology: A detailed analysis of university patenting, 1965-1988. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 80, 119-127.
17. Huffman, W. E., & Evenson, R. E. (2006). Science for agriculture: A long-term perspective (2nd ed.). Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press.
18. Jaffé, A. B. (2000). The US patent system in transition: Policy innovation and the innovation process. Research Policy, 29, 531-557.
19. Jensen, R., & Thursby, M. (2001). Proofs and prototypes for sale: The licensing of university inventions. American Economic Review, 91, 240-259.
20. Just, R. E., & Huffman, W. E. (2006). The role of patents, royalties, and public-private partnering in university funding. In M. Holt & J.-P. Chavas (Eds.), Exploring frontiers in applied economic analysis: Essays in honor of Stanley R. Johnson. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Electronic Press. Available on-line at http://www. bepress. com/sjohnson/. Accessed 9 March 2009.
21. Mowery, D. C., Nelson, R. R., Sampat, B. N., & Ziedonis, A. A. (2001). The growth of patenting and licensing by US universities: An assessment of the effects of the Bayh-Dole act of 1980. Research Policy, 30, 99-119.
22. Mowery, D. C., & Sampat, B. N. (2001). University patents and patent policy debates in the USA, 1925-1980. Industrial and Corporate Change, 10, 781-814.
23. Murray, F., & Stern, S. (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, 648-687.
24. National Research Council (NRC). (1996). Colleges of agriculture at the land grant universities: Public service and public policy. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
25. Nelson, R. R. (2001). Observations on the post-Bayh-Dole rise of patenting at American universities. Journal of Technology Transfer, 26, 13-19.
26. Oehmke, J. F., & Schimmelpfennig, D. E. (2004). Quantifying structural change in US agriculture: The case of research and productivity. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 21, 297-315.
27. Pakes, A., & Griliches, Z. (1984). Estimating distributed lags in short panels with an application to the specification of depreciation patterns and capital stock constructs. Review of Economic Studies, 51, 243-262.
28. Pardey, P. G. (1989). The agricultural knowledge production function: An empirical look. Review of Economics and Statistics, 71, 453-461.
29. Plümper, T., & Troeger, V. E. (2007). Efficient estimation of time-invariant and rarely changing variables in finite sample panel analyses with unit fixed effects. Political Analysis, 15, 124-139.
30. Siegel, D. S., Veugelers, R., & Wright, M. (2007). Technology transfer offices and commercialization of university intellectual property: Performance and policy implications. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 23, 640-660.
31. Siegel, D. S., 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.
32. Thursby, J. G., Jensen, R., & Thursby, M. C. (2001). Objectives, characteristics and outcomes of university licensing: A survey of major US universities. Journal of Technology Transfer, 26, 59-72.
33. Thursby, J. G., & Kemp, S. (2002). Growth and productive efficiency of university intellectual property licensing. Research Policy, 31, 109-124.
34. Trune, D. R., & Goslin, L. N. (1998). University technology transfer programs: A profit/loss analysis. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 57, 197-204.