University spillovers into small technology-based firms: Channel, mechanism, and geography

Journal of Technology Transfer

Volumn 38, Issue 4, 2013, Pages 415-431

  Fukugawa, Nobuya ^a  

^a TOHOKU UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

Author keywords

Cooperative research; Japan; Small firms; Spillover; University

Indexed keywords

GEOGRAPHICAL PROXIMITY; JAPAN; SMALL FIRM; SPILLOVER; TECHNOLOGY-BASED FIRMS; UNIVERSITY; UNIVERSITY SPILLOVER; UNIVERSITY-INDUSTRY RESEARCH COLLABORATIONS;

INDUSTRY; PUBLIC POLICY; RESEARCH; TECHNOLOGY;

ENGINEERING EDUCATION;

EID: 84880513146     PISSN: 08929912     EISSN: 15737047     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10961-012-9247-x     Document Type: Article

References (92)

1. Acs, Z., Audretsch, D., & Feldman, M. (1992). Real effects of academic research: comment. American Economic Review, 82(1), 363-367.
2. Acs, Z., Audretsch, D., & Feldman, M. (1994). R&D spillovers and recipient firm size. Review of Economics and Statistics, 76(2), 336-340.
3. Acs, Z., Anselin, L., & Varga, A. (2002). Patents and innovation counts as measures of regional production of new knowledge. Research Policy, 31(7), 1069-1085.
4. Agrawal, A. (2001). University-to-industry knowledge transfer: literature review and unanswered questions. International Journal of Management Review, 3(4), 285-302.
5. Almeida, P., & Kogut, B. (1997). The exploration of technological diversity and the geographic localization of innovation. Small Business Economics, 9(1), 21-31.
6. Almeida, P., & Kogut, B. (1999). Localization of knowledge and the mobility of engineers in regional networks. Management Science, 45(7), 905-917.
7. Almeida, P., Dokko, G., & Rosenkopf, L. (2003). Startup size and the mechanisms of external learning: Increasing opportunity and decreasing ability. Research Policy, 32(2), 301-315.
8. Anand, B., & Khanna, T. (2000). Do firms learn to create value? The case of alliances. Strategic Management Journal, 21(3), 295-315.
9. Anselin, L., Varga, A., & Acs, Z. (1997). Local geographic spillovers between university research and high technology innovations. Journal of Urban Economics, 42(3), 422-448.
10. Arrow, K. (1962). Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for invention. In R. Nelson (Ed.), The rate and direction of inventive activity: Economic and social factors (pp. 609-626). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
11. Arundel, A., van de Paal, G., & Soete, L. (1995). Innovation strategies of Europe's largest industrial firms: results of the PACE survey on information sources, public research, protection of innovations, and government programmes, MERIT, Maastricht.
12. Arvanitis, S., Sydow, N., & Woerter, M. (2008). Is there any impact of university-industry knowledge transfer on innovation and productivity? an empirical analysis based on Swiss firm data. Review of Industrial Organization, 32(2), 77-94.
13. Audretsch, D., & Feldman, M. (1996). R&D spillovers and the geography of innovation and production. American Economic Review, 86(3), 630-640.
14. Audretsch, D., & Stephan, P. (1996). Company-scientist locational links: The case of biotechnology. American Economic Review, 86(3), 641-652.
15. Audretsch, D., & Vivarelli, M. (1996). Firms size and R&D spillovers: Evidence from Italy. Small Business Economics, 8(3), 249-258.
16. Autant-Bernard, C. (2001). Science and knowledge flows: Evidence from the French case. Research Policy, 30(7), 1069-1078.
17. Bacchiocchi, E., & Montobbio, F. (2009). Knowledge diffusion from university and public research: A comparison between US. Japan and Europe using patent citations. Journal of Technology Transfer, 34(2), 169-181.
18. Balconi, M., Breschi, S., & Lissoni, F. (2004). Networks of inventors and the role of academia: An exploration of Italian patent data. Research Policy, 33(1), 127-145.
19. Baum, J., Calabrese, T., & Silverman, B. (2000). Don't go it alone: alliance network composition and startups' performance in Canadian biotechnology. Strategic Management Journal, 21(3), 267-294.
20. Beise, M., & Stahl, H. (1999). Public research and industrial innovations in Germany. Research Policy, 28(4), 397-422.
21. Bozeman, B. (2000). Technology transfer and public policy: A review of research and theory. Research Policy, 29(4-5), 627-655.
22. Branstetter, L., & Sakakibara, M. (1998). Japanese research consortia: A microeconometric analysis of industrial policy. Journal of Industrial Economics, 46(2), 207-233.
23. Branstetter, L., & Sakakibara, M. (2002). When do research consortia work well and why? Evidence from Japanese panel data. American Economic Review, 92(1), 143-159.
24. Breschi, S., & Lissoni, F. (2001). Knowledge spillovers and local innovation systems: A critical survey. Industrial and Corporate Change, 10(4), 975-1005.
25. Brouwer, E., & Kleinknecht, A. (1999). Innovative output and a firm's propensity to patent: An exploration of CIS micro data. Research Policy, 28(6), 615-624.
26. Cassi, L., Corrocher, N., Malerba, F., & Vonortas, N. (2008). Research networks as infrastructure for knowledge diffusion in European regions. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 17(7-8), 663-676.
27. Cockburn, I., & Henderson, R. (1998). Absorptive capacity, coauthoring behavior, and the organization of research in drug discovery. Journal of Industrial Economics, 46(2), 157-182.
28. Cohen, W. (1995). Empirical studies of innovative activity. In P. Stoneman (Ed.), Handbook of the economics of innovation and technological change (pp. 182-264). Oxford: Blackwell.
29. Cohen, W., & Klepper, S. (1996). A reprise of size and R&D. Economic Journal, 106(437), 925-951.
30. Cohen, W., & Levinthal, D. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128-152.
31. Cohen, W., Nelson, R., & Walsh, J. (2000) Protecting their intellectual assets: appropriability conditions and why U. S. manufacturing firms patent (nor not), NBER working paper #7522.
32. Collins, S., & Wakoh, H. (2000). Universities and technology transfer in Japan: Recent reforms in historical perspective. Journal of Technology Transfer, 25(2), 213-222.
33. Dickson, P., Weaver, K., & Hoy, F. (2006). Opportunism in the R&D alliances of SMEs: The roles of the institutional environment and SME size. Journal of Business Venturing, 21(4), 487-513.
34. Dyer, J., & Nobeoka, K. (2000). Creating and managing a high-performance knowledge-sharing network: The Toyota case. Strategic Management Journal, 21(3), 345-367.
35. Feldman, M., & Audretsch, D. (1999). Innovation in cities: Science-based diversity, specialization and localized competition. European Economic Review, 43(2), 409-429.
36. Fontana, R., Geuna, A., & Matt, M. (2006). Factors affecting university-industry R&D projects: The importance of searching, screening and signaling. Research Policy, 35(2), 309-323.
37. Frisch, M., & Lukas, R. (2001). Who cooperates on R&D? Research Policy, 30(2), 297-312.
38. Fukugawa, N. (2005). Characteristics of knowledge interactions between universities and small firms in Japan. International Small Business Journal, 23(4), 379-401.
39. Gittelman, M. (2007). Does geography matter for science-based firms? Epistemic communities and the geography of research and patenting in biotechnology. Organization Science, 18(4), 724-741.
40. Giuri, P., Mariani, M. et al. (2005). Everything you always wanted to know about inventors (but never asked): Evidence from the PatVal-EU survey, LEM working paper no. 2005/20.
41. Griliches, Z. (1990). Patent statistics as economic indicators: A survey. Journal of Economic Literature, 28(4), 1661-1707.
42. Heckman, J. (1976). The common structure of statistical models of truncation, sample selection, and limited dependent variables and a simple estimator for such models. Annals of Economic and Social Measurement, 5(4), 475-492.
43. Irwin, D., & Klenow, P. (1996). High-tech R&D subsidies: Estimating the effects of Sematech. Journal of International Economics, 40(3-4), 323-344.
44. Izushi, H. (2003). Impact of the length of relationships upon the use of research institutes by SMEs. Research Policy, 32(5), 771-788.
45. Jaffe, A. (1989). Real effects of academic research. American Economic Review, 79(5), 957-970.
46. Jensen, R., & Thursby, M. (2001). Proofs and prototypes for sale: The licensing of university inventions. American Economic Review, 91(1), 240-259.
47. Kale, P., Singh, H., & Perlmutter, H. (2000). Learning and protection of proprietary assets in strategic alliances: Building relational capital. Strategic Management Journal, 21(3), 217-237.
48. Kamien, M., & Zang, I. (2000). Meet me halfway: Research joint ventures and absorptive capacity. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 18(7), 995-1012.
49. Katz, M. (1986). An analysis of cooperative research and development. Rand Journal of Economics, 17(4), 527-543.
50. Khanna, T., Gulati, R., & Nohria, N. (1998). The dynamics of learning alliances: Competition, cooperation, and relative scope. Strategic Management Journal, 19(3), 193-210.
51. Kneller, R. (2007a). Bridging islands: Venture companies and the future of Japanese and American industry. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
52. Kneller, R. (2007b). The beginning of university entrepreneurship in Japan: TLO's and bioventures lead the way. Journal of Technology Transfer, 32(4), 435-456.
53. Kollmer, H., & Dowling, M. (2004). Licensing as a commercialisation strategy for new technology-based firms. Research Policy, 33(8), 1141-1151.
54. Levin, R., Klevorick, A., Nelson, R., & Winter, S. (1984). Survey research on R&D appropriability and technological opportunity. New Haven: Yale University Press.
55. Libaers, D, Hicks, D, & Porter, A. (forthcoming). A taxonomy of small firm technology commercialization, Industrial and Corporate Change.
56. Link, A., & Bauer, L. (1989). Cooperative research in U. S. manufacturing: Assessing policy initiatives and corporate strategies. Lexington: Lexington Books.
57. Link, A., & Rees, J. (1990). Firm size, university based research, and the returns to R&D. Small Business Economics, 2(1), 25-31.
58. Link, A., Paton, D., & Siegel, D. (2002). An analysis of policy initiatives to promote strategic research partnerships. Research Policy, 31(8-9), 1459-1466.
59. Lotti, F., & Schivardi, F. (2006). Cross country differences in patent propensity: A firm-level investigation, CEPR working paper.
60. Mansfield, E. (1991). Academic research and industrial innovation. Research Policy, 20(1), 1-12.
61. Mansfield, E. (1995). Academic research underlying industrial innovations: Sources, characteristics, and financing. Review of Economics and Statistics, 77(1), 55-65.
62. Markman, G., Gianiodis, P., Phan, P., & Balkin, D. (2004). Entrepreneurship from the ivory tower: Do incentive systems matter? Journal of Technology Transfer, 29(3-4), 353-364.
63. Molina-Morales, F. X., & Martínez-Fernández, M. T. (2010). Social networks: Effects of social capital on firm innovation. Journal of Small Business Management, 48(2), 258-279.
64. Motohashi, K. (2005). University-industry collaborations in Japan: The role of new technology-based firms in transforming the national innovation system. Research Policy, 34(5), 583-594.
65. Mowery, D., & Sampat, B. (2005). Universities in national innovation systems. In J. Fagerberg, D. Mowery, & R. Nelson (Eds.), Oxford handbook of innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.
66. Mowery, D., Oxley, J., & Silverman, B. (1996). Strategic alliances and interfirm knowledge transfer. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 77-91.
67. Muscio, A. (2007). The impact of absorptive capacity on SMEs' collaboration. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 16(8), 653-668.
68. Nagaoka, S., & Walsh, J. (2009). Commercialization and other uses of patents in Japan and the U. S.: Major findings from the RIETI-Georgia Tech inventor survey, RIETI Working Paper 09E011.
69. National Institute of Science and Technology Policy. (2003). University-industry collaborations 1983-2002. National Institute of Science and Technology Policy: Tokyo.
70. Nishimura, J., & Okamuro, H. (2011). Subsidy and networking: the effects of direct and indirect support programs of the cluster policy. Research Policy, 40(5), 714-727.
71. Nooteboom, B. (1999). Innovation, learning and industrial organization. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 23(2), 127-150.
72. Odagiri, H., & Kato, Y. (1998). University-industry research collaboration in the biotechnology industry: An empirical analysis. Business Review, 45, 62-80.
73. Odagiri, H., Nakamura, Y., & Shibuya, M. (1997). Research consortia as a vehicle for basic research: The case of fifth generation computer project in Japan. Research Policy, 26(2), 191-207.
74. Perkmann, M., & Walsh, K. (2008). Engaging the scholar: Three types of academic consulting and their impact on universities and industry. Research Policy, 37(10), 1884-1891.
75. 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.
76. Romijn, H., & Albaladejo, M. (2002). Determinants of innovation capability in small electronics and software firms. Research Policy, 31(7), 1053-1067.
77. Rothaermel, F., & Deeds, D. (2004). Exploration and exploitation alliances in biotechnology: A system of new product development. Strategic Management Journal, 25(3), 201-221.
78. Rothaermel, F., Agung, S., & Jiang, L. (2007). University entrepreneurship: A taxonomy of the literature. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16(4), 691-791.
79. Sakakibara, M. (1997). Heterogeneity of firm capabilities and cooperative research and development: An empirical examination of motives. Strategic Management Journal, 18(S1), 143-164.
80. Sakakibara, M. (2003). Knowledge sharing in cooperative research and development. Managerial and Decision Economics, 24(2-3), 117-132.
81. Santoro, M., & Chakrabarti, A. (2002). Firm size and technology centrality in industry-university interactions. Research Policy, 31(7), 1163-1180.
82. Schartinger, D., Schibany, A., & Gassler, H. (2001). Interactive relations between universities and firms: Empirical evidence from Austria. Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(3), 255-268.
83. Shane, S. (2002). Selling university technology: Patterns from MIT. Management Science, 48(1), 122-137.
84. Siegel, D., 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(1), 27-48.
85. Stankiewicz, R. (1994). Spin-off companies from universities. Science and Public Policy, 21(2), 99-108.
86. Teece, D. (1986). Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy. Research Policy, 15(6), 285-305.
87. Trajtenberg, M. (1990). A penny for your quotes: Patent citations and the value of innovations. Rand Journal of Economics, 21(1), 172-187.
88. Varga, A. (1998). University research and regional innovation: A spatial econometric analysis of academic technology transfers. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
89. Veugelers, R., & Cassiman, B. (2005). R&D cooperation between firms and universities: Some empirical evidence from Belgian manufacturing. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 23(5-6), 355-379.
90. von Hippel, E. (1994). Sticky information and the locus of problem solving: Implications for innovation. Management Science, 40(4), 429-439.
91. Westhead, P., & Batstone, S. (1999). Perceived benefits of a managed science park location. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 11(2), 129-154.
92. Zucker, L., & Darby, M. (2001). Capturing technological opportunities via Japan's star scientists: From Japanese firms' biotech patents and products. Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(1-2), 37-58.