University technology transfer: How (in)efficient are French universities?

Cambridge Journal of Economics

Volumn 36, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 629-654

  Curi, Claudia ^a   Daraio, Cinzia ^a   Llerena, Patrick ^a  

^a UNIVERSITÉ DE STRASBOURG   (France)

Author keywords

Bootstrap; Data envelopment analysis; French university system; Regional growth; Technical efficiency; Technology transfer offices

Indexed keywords

BOOTSTRAPPING; DATA ENVELOPMENT ANALYSIS; HIGHER EDUCATION; REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT; RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT; TECHNICAL EFFICIENCY; TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER;

FRANCE;

EID: 84861168947     PISSN: 0309166X     EISSN: 14643545     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/cje/bes020     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Anderson, T. R., Daim, T. U. and Lavoie, F. F. 2007. Measuring the efficiency of university technology transfer, Technovation, vol. 27, 306-18.
2. Assemblée Nationale. 2005. First implementation of the New Law on budgeting-LOLF. http://www.minefi.gouv.fr/lolf/5_1.htm.
3. Bach, L. and Llerena, P. 2006. 'Les Activités de Recherche Contractuelle et de Transfert de Technologie dans les É tablissements Francxais d'Enseignement Supérieur', Final Report to MESR (Ministère de l'Enseignement Supérieur et de la Recherche), Paris.
4. Bach, L. and Llerena, P. 2007. Indicators of higher-education institutes and public-research organizations technology transfer activities: insights from France, Science and Public Policy, vol. 34, no. 10, 709-21.
5. Bach, L. and Llerena, P. 2008. 'Les Activités de Recherche Contractuelle et de Transfert de Technologie dans les Établissements Francxais d'Enseignement Supérieur', Final Report to MESR (Ministère de l'Enseignement Supérieur et de la Recherche), Paris.
6. Bach, L. and Llerena, P. 2010. 'Les Activités de Recherche Contractuelle et de Transfert de Technologie dans les Établissements Francxais d'Enseignement Supérieur', Final Report to MESR (Ministère de l'Enseignement Supérieur et de la Recherche), Paris.
7. Badin, L., Daraio, C. and Simar, L. 2011. 'How to Measure the Impact of Environmental Factors in a Nonparametric Production Model?', Discussion Paper no. 2011/19, ISBA, UCL, Louvain-la-Neuve.
8. Bonaccorsi, A. and Daraio, C. 2007 A. Theoretical perspectives on university strategy, pp. 3-30 in Bonaccorsi, A. and Daraio, C. (eds), Universities and Strategic Knowledge Creation. Specialization and Performance in Europe, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar.
9. Bonaccorsi, A. and Daraio, C. 2007B. Universities as strategic knowledge creators. Some preliminary evidence, pp. 31-84, in Bonaccorsi, A. and Daraio, C. (eds), Universities and Strategic Knowledge Creation. Specialization and Performance in Europe, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar.
10. Caldera, A. and Debande, O. 2010. Performance of Spanish universities in technology transfer: an empirical analysis, Research Policy, vol. 39, no. 9, 1160-73.
11. Chapple, W., Lockett, A., Siegel, D. S. and Wright, M. 2005. Assessing the relative performance of university technology transfer office in UK: parametric and non-parametric evidence, Research Policy, vol. 34, no. 3, 369-84.
12. Daraio, C., Bonaccorsio, A., Geuna, A., Lepori, B., Bach, L., Bogetoft, P., Cardoso, M. F., Castro-Martinez, E., Crespi, G., Fernandez de Lucio, I., Fried, H., Garcia-Aracil, A., Jongbloed, B., Kempkes, G., Llerena, P., Matt, M., Olivares, M., Pohl, C., Raty, T., Rosa, M. J., Sarrico, C. S., Simar, L., Slipersaeter, S., Teixeira, P. N. and Vanden Eeckaut, P. 2011. The European university landscape: a micro characterization based on evidence from the Aquameth project, Research Policy, vol. 40, 148-64.
13. Daraio, C. and Simar, L. 2007. Advanced Robust and Nonparametric Methods in Efficiency Analysis. Methodology and Applications, New York, Springer.
14. Daraio, C., Simar, L. and Wilson, P. 2010. 'Testing whether Two-stage Estimation is Meaningful in Nonparametric Models of Production', Discussion Paper no. 1030, Institut de Statistique, UCL, Louvain-la-Neuve.
15. Deiaco, E., Holmén, M. and McKelvey, M. 2009. What does it mean conceptually that universities compete? pp. 300-28, in McKelvey, M. and Holmén, M. (eds), Learning to Compete in European Universities, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar.
16. Etzkowitz, H. 2002. Incubation of incubators: innovation as a triple helix of university-industry- government networks, Science and Public Policy, vol. 29, 115-28.
17. European Commission. 2004. Improving Institutions for the Transfer of Technology from Science to Enterprise, Best Project ITTE 1.11/2002.DGEnterprise, Brussels, European Commission.
18. European Commission. 2008. Commission Recommendation on the Management of Intellectual Property in Knowledge Transfer Activities and Code of Practice for Universities and other Public Organizations, 10.4.2008, C(2008) 1329, Brussels, European Commission.
19. Farrell, M. J. 1957. The measurement of productive efficiency, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, vol. 120, 253-81.
20. Mowery, D., Nelson, R., Sampat, B. and Ziedonis, 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, vol. 30, 99-119.
21. Mustar, P. and Larédo, P. 2002. Innovation and research policy in France (1980-2000) or the disappearance of the Colbert state, Research Policy, vol. 31, 55-72.
22. OST. 2006, 2008, 2010. Rapport de l'Observatoire des Sciences et des Techniques, Paris, Economia.
23. Shephard, R. W. 1970. Theory of Cost and Production Function, Princeton, Princeton University Press.
24. Siegel, D. 2007. Technology transfer offices and commercialization of university intellectual property: performance and policy implications, Oxford Review of Economic Policy, vol. 23, no. 4, 640-60.
25. Siegel, D., Waldman, D. and Link, A. 2003. Assessing the impact of organizational practices on the relative productivity of university technology transfer offices: an exploratory study, Research Policy, vol. 32, 27-48.
26. Siegel, D.,Wright, M., Chapple,W. and Lockett, A. 2008. Assessing the relative performance of university technology transfer in the US and UK: a stochastic distance function approach, Economics of Innovation and New Technology, vol. 17, 717-29.
27. Simar, L. and Wilson, P. W. 2000. A general methodology for bootstrapping in non-parametric frontier models, Journal of Applied Statistics, vol. 27, 779-802.
28. Simar, L. and Wilson, P. W. 2002. Non-parametric tests for returns to scale, European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 139, 115-32.
29. Simar, L. and Wilson, P. W. 2007. Estimation and inference in two-stage, semi-parametric models of production processes, Journal of Econometrics, vol. 136, no. 1, 31-64.
30. Thursby, J. G. and Kemp, S. 2002. Growth and productive efficiency of university intellectual property licensing, Research Policy, vol. 31, 109-24.
31. Thursby, J. G. and Thursby, M. C. 2002. Who is selling the ivory tower? Sources of growth in university licensing, Management Science, vol. 48, no. 1, 90-104.
32. Van der Ploeg, F. and Veugelers, R. 2008. Towards evidence-based reform of European universities, CESifo Economic Studies, vol. 5, no. 2, 99-120.