Firms' rationales for interaction with research universities and the principles for public co-funding

Journal of Technology Transfer

Volumn 37, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 313-329

  Broström, Anders ^a  

^a ROYAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Public research funding; R D collaboration; Rationales; Research universities; University industry interaction

Indexed keywords

EID: 79957749442     PISSN: 08929912     EISSN: 15737047     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10961-010-9177-4     Document Type: Article

References (57)

1. Adams, J. D. (2006). Learning, internal research, and spillovers. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 15, 5-36. doi: 10. 1080/1043859042000332178.
2. Adams, J. D., Chiang, E. P., & Jensen, J. L. (2003). The influence of federal laboratory R&D on industrial research. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 85, 1003-1020. doi: 10. 1162/003465303772815899.
3. Aghion, P., Dewatripont, M., & Stein, J. C. (2008). Academic freedom, private-sector focus, and the process of innovation. The Rand Journal of Economics, 39, 617-635. doi: 10. 1111/j. 1756-2171. 2008. 00031. x.
4. Arrow, K. J. (1962). Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for inventions. In R. Nelson (Ed.), The rate and direction of inventive activity: Economic and social factors. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
5. Arvanitis, S., Sydow, N., & Woerter, M. (2008). Do specific forms of university-industry knowledge transfer have different impacts on the performance of private enterprises? An empirical analysis based on Swiss data. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 33, 504-533. doi: 10. 1007/s10961-007-9061-z.
6. Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17, 99-120. doi: 10. 1177/014920639101700108.
7. Beise, M., & Stahl, H. (1999). Public research and industrial innovations in Germany. Research Policy, 28, 397-422. doi: 10. 1016/S0048-7333(98)00126-7.
8. Benner, M., & Sandström, U. (2000). Institutionalizing the triple helix: Research funding and norms in the academic system. Research Policy, 29, 291-301. doi: 10. 1016/S0048-7333(99)00067-0.
9. Broström, A. (2007). 'Appendix II: Guide for interviews with firms,' in Collaboration for Competitiveness, Report to Stockholm County Board.
10. Cameron, G., & Wallace, C. (2007). Technology shops: Efficient pricing in business-university collaborations. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 16, 17-30. doi: 10. 1080/10438590600661632.
11. Chesbrough, H. (2003). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Cambridge: Harvard Business School Press.
12. Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1989). Innovation and learning: The two faces of R&D. In A. Geuna, A. J. Salter, & W. E. Steinmueller (Eds.), Science and innovation: Rethinking the rationales for funding and governance. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
13. Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 20, 128-152. doi: 10. 2307/2393553.
14. Cohen, W. M., Nelson, R. R., & Walsh, J. (2002). Links and impacts: The influence of public research on industrial R&D. Management Science, 48, 1-23. doi: 10. 1287/mnsc. 48. 1. 1. 14273.
15. 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. doi: 10. 1287/mnsc. 48. 1. 61. 14272.
16. D'Este, P., & Patel, P. (2007). University-industry linkages in the UK: What are the factors underlying the variety of interactions with industry? Research Policy, 36, 1295-1313. doi: 10. 1016/j. respol. 2007. 05. 002.
17. Eisenhardt, K. M., & Martin, J. A. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic Management Journal, 21, 1105-1121. doi: 10. 1002/1097-0266(200010/11)21: 10/11<1105: AID-SMJ133 3. 0. CO; 2-E.
18. Feldman, M. P., & Kelley, M. R. (2006). The ex ante assessment of knowledge spillovers: Government R&D policy, economic incentives and private firm behaviour. Research Policy, 35, 1509-1521. doi: 10. 1016/j. respol. 2006. 09. 019.
19. Foray, D., & Steinmueller, W. E. (2003). On the economics of R&D and technological collaborations: Insights and results from the project Colline. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 12, 77-91. doi: 10. 1080/10438590303118.
20. Gann, D. M., & Salter, A. J. (2000). Innovation in project-based, service enhanced firms: The construction of complex products and systems. Research Policy, 29, 955-972. doi: 10. 1016/S0048-7333(00)00114-1.
21. Gerybadze, A., & Reger, G. (1999). Globalization of R&D: Recent changes in the management of innovation in transnational corporations. Research Policy, 28, 251-274. doi: 10. 1016/S0048-7333(98)00111-5.
22. Geuna, A. (2001). The changing rationale for European university research funding: Are there negative unintended consequences? Journal of Economic Issues, 35, 607-632.
23. Gibbons, M., Limogenes, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary society. London: Sage Publication.
24. Giebe, T., Grebe, T., & Wolfstetter, E. (2006). How to allocate R&D (and other) subsidies: An experimentally tested policy recommendation. Research Policy, 35, 1261-1272. doi: 10. 1016/j. respol. 2006. 01. 008.
25. Goldfarb, B. (2008). The effect of government contracting on academic research: Does the source of funding affect scientific output? Research Policy, 37, 41-58. doi: 10. 1016/j. respol. 2007. 07. 011.
26. Hagedoorn, J., Link, A. N., & Vonortas, N. S. (2000). Research partnerships. Research Policy, 29, 567-586. doi: 10. 1016/S0048-7333(99)00090-6.
27. Harryson, S., Kliknaite, S., & Dudkowski, R. (2007). Making innovative use of academic knowledge to enhance corporate technology innovation impact. International Journal of Technology Management, 39, 131-157. doi: 10. 1504/IJTM. 2007. 013504.
28. Jacobsson, S. (2002). Universities and industrial transformation: An interpretative and selective literature study with special emphasis on Sweden. Science & Public Policy, 29, 345-365. doi: 10. 3152/147154302781780831.
29. Kaufmann, A., & Tödtling, F. (2001). Science-industry interaction in the process of innovation: The importance of boundary-crossing between systems. Research Policy, 30, 791-804. doi: 10. 1016/S0048-7333(00)00118-9.
30. Klevorick, A. K., Levin, R. C., Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (1995). On the sources and significance of interindustry differences in technological opportunities. Research Policy, 24, 185-205. doi: 10. 1016/0048-7333(93)00762-I.
31. Laursen, K., & Salter, A. (2006). Open for innovation: The role of openness in explaining innovation performance among UK manufacturing firms. Strategic Management Journal, 27, 131-150. doi: 10. 1002/smj. 507.
32. Lee, Y. S. (1998). University-industry collaboration on technology transfer: Views from the ivory tower. Policy Studies Journal: the Journal of the Policy Studies Organization, 26, 69-84. doi: 10. 1111/j. 1541-0072. 1998. tb01925. x.
33. Lee, Y. S. (2000). The sustainability of university-industry research collaboration: An empirical assessment. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 25, 111-133. doi: 10. 1023/A: 1007895322042.
34. Lim, K. (2006). The many faces of absorptive capacity: Spillovers of copper interconnect technology for semiconductor chips. Available at SSRN http://ssrn. com/abstract=562862.
35. Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2001). Public/private partnerships: Stimulating competition in a dynamic market. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 19, 763-794. doi: 10. 1016/S0167-7187(00)00093-X.
36. Lööf, H., & Broström, A. (2008). Does knowledge diffusion between university and industry increase innovativeness? The Journal of Technology Transfer, 33, 73-90. doi: 10. 1007/s10961-006-9001-3.
37. Lundvall, B.-Å. (2007). National innovation systems: Analytical concept and development tool. Industry and Innovation, 14, 95-119. doi: 10. 1080/13662710601130863.
38. Mansfield, E. (1998). Academic research and industrial innovation: An update of empirical findings. Research Policy, 26, 773-776. doi: 10. 1016/S0048-7333(97)00043-7.
39. March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2, 71-87. doi: 10. 1287/orsc. 2. 1. 71.
40. Martin, S., & Scott, J. T. (2000). The nature of innovation market failure and the design of public support for private innovation. Research Policy, 29, 437-448. doi: 10. 1016/S0048-7333(99)00084-0.
41. Merton, R. K. (1942). The normative structure of science. In R. K. Merton (Ed.), The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations. University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL. 1973.
42. Mohnen, P., & Hoareau, C. (2003). What type of enterprise forges close links with universities and government labs? Evidence from CIS 2. Managerial and Decision Economics, 24, 133-145. doi: 10. 1002/mde. 1086.
43. Mowery, D. (1998). The changing structure of the US national innovation system: Implications for international conflict and cooperation in R&D policy. Research Policy, 27, 639-654. doi: 10. 1016/S0048-7333(98)00060-2.
44. Murray, F., Aghion, P., Dewatripont, M., Kolev, J., & Stern, S. (2009). Of mice and academics: Examining the effect of openness on innovation. NBER Working Paper No. w14819.
45. Narin, F., Hamilton, K. S., & Olivastro, D. (1997). The increasing linkage between US technology and public science. Research Policy, 26, 317-330. doi: 10. 1016/S0048-7333(97)00013-9.
46. Pavitt, K. (2001). Public policies to support basic research: What can the rest of the world learn from US theory and practise? (And what should they not learn?). Industrial and Corporate Change, 10, 761-779. doi: 10. 1093/icc/10. 3. 761.
47. Santoro, M. D., & Chakrabarti, A. K. (2002). Firm size and technology centrality in industry-university interactions. Research Policy, 31, 1163-1180. doi: 10. 1016/S0048-7333(01)00190-1.
48. Scott, A. (2001). The influence of social science on innovation: A significant missing element in mode 2/Triple Helix debates? Swedish Journal of Science and Technology, 13, 53-71. VEST.
49. Siegel, D., Waldman, D. A., Atwater, L. E., & Link, A. N. (2003). Commercial knowledge transfers from universities to firms: Improving the effectiveness of university-industry collaboration. The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 14, 111-133. doi: 10. 1016/S1047-8310(03)00007-5.
50. Siegel, D., & Zervos, V. (2002). Strategic research partnerships and economic performance: Empirical issues. Science & Public Policy, 29, 331-343. doi: 10. 3152/147154302781780859.
51. Stokes, D. (1997). Pasteur's quadrant: Basic science and technological innovation. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
52. Teece, D., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18, 509-533. doi: 10. 1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199708)18: 7509: AID-SMJ8823. 0. CO; 2-Z.
53. Teece, D., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (2000). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. In G. Dosi, R. R. Nelson, & S. G. Winter (Eds.), The nature and dynamics of organizational capabilities (pp. 334-362). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
54. Tidd, J., Bessant, J., & Pavitt, K. (2001). Managing innovation: Integrating technological, market and organizational change. Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley.
55. Veugelers, R., & Cassiman, B. (2005). R&D cooperation between firms and universities. Some empirical evidence from Belgian manufacturing. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 23, 355-379. doi: 10. 1016/j. ijindorg. 2005. 01. 008.
56. Zaheer, A., & Bell, G. (2005). Benefiting from network position: Firm capabilities, structural holes, and performance. Strategic Management Journal, 26, 809-825. doi: 10. 1002/smj. 482.
57. Ziman, J. M. (2000). Real science: What it is, and what it means. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.