Determinants of the university technology transfer policy-mix: a cross-national analysis of gap-funding instruments

Journal of Technology Transfer

Volumn 41, Issue 6, 2016, Pages 1377-1405

  Munari, Federico ^a   Rasmussen, Einar ^b   Toschi, Laura ^a   Villani, Elisa ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BOLOGNA   (Italy)

^b NORD UNIVERSITY   (Norway)

^c FREE UNIVERSITY OF BOLZANO   (Italy)

Author keywords

Cross country analysis; Gap funding instruments; Policy mix; Proof of concept programs; Technology transfer university seed funds

Indexed keywords

FINANCE; TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER;

CENTRALIZATION AND DECENTRALIZATIONS; CROSS-COUNTRY ANALYSIS; CROSS-NATIONAL ANALYSIS; EUROPEAN COUNTRIES; FUNDING INSTRUMENT; POLICY INSTRUMENTS; PROOF OF CONCEPT; UNIVERSITY TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER;

ENGINEERING EDUCATION;

EID: 84945206144     PISSN: 08929912     EISSN: 15737047     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10961-015-9448-1     Document Type: Article

References (84)

1. 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.
2. Arundel, A., Es-Sadki, N., Barjak, F., Perrett, P., Samuel, O., & Lilischkis, S. (2013): Knowledge transfer study 2010–2012. Final report, Brüssel. http://eskills-guide.eu/fileadmin/KTS/documents/KTS_Respondent_report_2011.pdf.
3. Audretsch, D. B., & Feldman, M. P. (1996). R&D spillovers and the geography of innovation and production. The American Economic Review, 86(3), 630–640.
4. Audretsch, D. B., Lehmann, E. E., & Warning, S. (2005). University spillovers and new firm location. Research Policy, 34(7), 1113–1122.
5. Baier, E., Kroll, H., & Zenker, A, (2013). Regional autonomy with regard to innovation policy: A differentiated illustration of the European status quo. Working Papers Firms and Region No. R3/2013. Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research ISI, Karlsruhe.
6. Bajo, E., Chemmanur, T.J., Simonyan, K., Tehranian, H. (2015). Underwriter networks in initial public offerings. Working paper.
7. Baldini, N. (2006). University patenting and licensing activity: A review of the literature. Research Evaluation, 15(3), 197–207.
8. Baldini, N., Fini, R., Grimaldi, R., & Sobrero, M. (2014). Organizational change and the institutionalization of university patenting activity in Italy. Minerva, 52(1), 27–53.
9. Barjak, F., Es-Sadki, N., & Arundel, A. (2015). The effectiveness of policies for formal knowledge transfer from European universities and public research institutes to firms. Research Evaluation, 24, 4–18.
10. Bercovitz, J., & Feldman, M. (2006). Entpreprenerial universities and technology transfer: A conceptual framework for understanding knowledge-based economic development. Journal of Technology Transfer, 31(1), 175–188.
11. Borrás, S., & Edquist, C. (2013). The choice of innovation policy instruments. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 80(8), 1513–1522.
12. Bowerman, B. L., O’Connell, R. T., & Richard, T. (1993). Forecasting and time series: An applied approach. Wadsworth, CA: Belmont.
13. Bozeman, B. (2000). Technology transfer and public policy: A review of research and theory. Research Policy, 29(4), 627–655.
14. Bradley, S. R., Hayter, C. S., & Link, A. N. (2013). Proof of concept centers in the United States: An exploratory look. Journal of Technology Transfer, 38(4), 349–381.
15. Breschi, S. (2000). The geography of innovation: A cross-sector analysis. Regional Studies, 34(3), 213–229.
16. Bruneel, J., d’Este, P., & Salter, A. (2010). Investigating the factors that diminish the barriers to university–industry collaboration. Research Policy, 39(7), 858–868.
17. Clarysse, B., Wright, M., & Mustar, P. (2009). Behavioural additionality of R&D subsidies: A learning perspective. Research Policy, 38(10), 1517–1533.
18. Colombo, M., Cumming, D., & Vismara, S. (2014). Governmental venture capital for innovative young firms. Journal of Technology Transfer. doi:10.1007/s10961-014-9380-9.
19. Colyvas, J., Crow, M., Gelijns, A., Mazzoleni, R., Nelson, R. R., Rosenberg, N., & Sampat, B. N. (2002). How do university inventions get into practice? Management Science, 48(1), 61–72.
20. Conti, A., & Gaule, P. (2011). Is the US outperforming Europe in university technology licensing? A new perspective on the European Paradox. Research Policy, 40(1), 123–135.
21. Croce, A., Martí, J., & Murtinu, S. (2013). The impact of venture capital on the productivity growth of European entrepreneurial firms: ‘Screening’ or ‘value added’ effect? Journal of Business Venturing, 28(4), 489–510.
22. Cumming, D., & Joahn, S. A. (2008). Preplanned exit strategies in venture capital. European Economic Review, 52(7), 1209–1241.
23. Edquist, C. (2011). Design of innovation policy through diagnostic analysis: Identification of system problems (or failures). Industrial and Corporate Change, 20, 1725–1754.
24. Epure, M., Prior, D., & Serarols, C. (2014). Assessing technology-based spin-offs from university support units. Regional Studies. doi:10.1080/00343404.2014.921669.
25. Etzkowitz, H. (2002). MIT and the rise of entrepreneurial science. London: Routledge.
26. Feldman, M., Feller, I., Bercovitz, J., & Burton, R. (2002). Equity and the technology transfer strategies of American research universities. Management Science, 48(1), 105–121.
27. Flanagan, K., Uyarra, E., & Laranja, M. (2011). Reconceptualising the ‘policy mix’ for innovation. Research Policy, 40(5), 702–713.
28. Franklin, S., Wright, M., & Lockett, A. (2001). Academic and surrogate entrepreneurs in university spin-out companies. Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(1–2), 127–141.
29. Geuna, A., & Muscio, A. (2009). The governance of university knowledge transfer: A critical review of the literature. Minerva, 47(1), 93–114.
30. Geuna, A., & Rossi, F. (2011). Changes to university IPR regulations in Europe and the impact on academic patenting. Research Policy, 40(8), 1068–1076.
31. Giuri, P, Grimaldi, R., & Villani, E. (2014). Supporting academic entrepreneurship: Cross-country evidence in Europe. Journal of Industrial and Business Economics, 41(4), 215–236.
32. Goldfarb, B., & Henrekson, M. (2002). Bottom-up versus top-down policies towards the commercialization of university intellectual property. Research Policy, 32(4), 639–658.
33. Gulbrandsen, M., & Rasmussen, E. (2012). The use and development of indicators for the commercialisation of university research in a national support programme. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 24(5), 481–495.
34. Gulbranson, C. A., & Audretsch, D. B. (2008). Proof of concept centers: Accelerating the commercialization of university innovation. Journal of Technology Transfer, 33(2), 249–258.
35. Harrison, R. T., & Leitch, C. (2010). Voodoo Institution or Entrepreneurial University? Spin-off companies, the entrepreneurial system and regional development in the UK. Regional Studies, 44(9), 1241–1262.
36. Howells, J. (1999). Regional systems of innovation? In D. Archibugi, J. Howells, & J. Michie (Eds.), Innovation systems in a global economy (pp. 67–93). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
37. Howells, J. R. (2002). Tacit knowledge, innovation and economic geography. Urban Studies, 39(5–6), 871–884.
38. Jacobsson, S., Lindholm-Dahlstrand, Å., & Elg, L. (2013). Is the commercialization of European academic R&D weak? A critical assessment of a dominant belief and associated policy responses. Research Policy, 42(4), 874–885.
39. Jensen, R., & Thursby, M. (2001). Proofs and prototypes for sale: The licensing of university inventions. American Economic Review, 91(1), 240–259.
40. Keller, M. R., & Block, F. (2013). Explaining the transformation in the US innovation system: The impact of a small government program. Socio-Economic Review, 11(4), 629–656.
41. Klagge, B., & Martin, R. (2005). Decentralized versus centralized financial systems: Is there a case for local capital markets? Journal of Economic Geography, 5(4), 387–421.
42. Klofsten, M., & Jones-Evans, D. (2000). Comparing academic entrepreneurship in Europe: The case of Sweden and Ireland. Small Business Economics, 14, 299–309.
43. Kochenkova, A., Grimaldi, R., & Munari, F. (2015). Public policy measures in support of knowledge transfer activities: A review of academic literature. Journal of Technology Transfer. doi:10.1007/s10961-015-9416-9.
44. Lambooy, J. G., & Boschma, R. A. (2001). Evolutionary economics and regional policy. Annals of Regional Science, 35(1), 113–131.
45. Lanahan, L. (2015). Multilevel public funding for small business innovation: a review of US state SBIR match programs. Journal of Technology Transfer. doi:10.1007/s10961-015-9407-x.
46. Lanahan, L., & Feldman, M. P. (2015). Multilevel innovation policy mix: A closer look at state policies that augment the federal SBIR program. Research Policy, 44(7), 1387–1402.
47. Langford, C. H., Hall, J., Josty, P., Matos, S., & Jacobson, A. (2006). Indicators and outcomes of Canadian university research: Proxies becoming goals? Research Policy, 35(10), 1586–1598.
48. Laranja, M., Uyarra, E., & Flanagan, K. (2008). Policies for science, technology and innovation: Translating rationales into regional policies in a multi-level setting. Research Policy, 37(5), 823–835.
49. Lerner, J. (2009). Boulevard of broken dreams: Why public efforts to boost entrepreneurship and venture capital have failed—and what to do about it. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
50. Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2010). Government as entrepreneur: Evaluating the commercialization success of SBIR projects. Research Policy, 39(5), 589–601.
51. Lissoni, F. (2013). Academic patenting in Europe: A reassessment of evidence and research practices. Industry and Innovation, 20(5), 379–384.
52. Lockett, A., & Wright, M. (2005). Resources, capabilities, risk capital and the creation of university spin-out companies. Research Policy, 34(7), 1043–1057.
53. Lockett, A., Wright, M., & Wild, A. (2015). The institutionalization of third stream activities in UK higher education: The role of discourse and metrics. British Journal of Management, 26, 78–92.
54. Macho-Stadler, I., Perez-Castrillo, D., & Veugelers, R. (2007). Licensing of university inventions: The role of a technology transfer office. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 25(3), 483–510.
55. Maia, C., & Claro, J. (2013). The role of a Proof of Concept Center in a university ecosystem: An exploratory study. Journal of Technology Transfer, 38(5), 641–650.
56. Marquardt, D. W. (1980). You should standardize the predictor variables in your regression models. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 75, 74–103.
57. Mowery, D., & Rosenberg, N. (1993). The US national innovation system. In R. Nelson (Ed.), National innovation systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
58. Munari, F., Pasquini, M., & Toschi, L. (2014). From the lab to the stock market? The characteristics and impact of university-oriented seed funds in Europe. Journal of Technology Transfer. doi:10.1007/s10961-014-9385-4.
59. Munari, F., & Toschi, L. (2011). Do venture capitalists have a bias against investment in academic spin-offs? Evidence from the micro- and nanotechnology sector in the UK. Industrial and Corporate Change, 20(2), 397–432.
60. Munari, F., & Toschi, L. (2015). Assessing the impact of public venture capital programmes in the United Kingdom: Do regional characteristics matter? Journal of Business Venturing, 30, 205–226.
61. Mustar, P., & Wright, M. (2010). Convergence or path dependency in policies to foster the creation of university spin-off firms? A comparison of France and the United Kingdom. Journal of Technology Transfer, 35(1), 42–65.
62. Paci, R., & Usai, S. (2000). Technological enclaves and industrial districts: an analysis of the regional distribution of innovative activity in Europe. Regional Studies, 34(2), 97–114.
63. Prange, H. (2008). Explaining varieties of regional innovation policies in Europe. European Urban and Regional Studies, 15(1), 39–52.
64. Rasmussen, E. (2008). Government instruments to support the commercialization of university research: Lessons from Canada. Technovation, 28(8), 506–517.
65. Rasmussen, E., & Borch, O. J. (2010). University capabilities in facilitating entrepreneurship: A longitudinal study of spin-off ventures at mid-range universities. Research Policy, 39(5), 602–612.
66. Rasmussen, E., & Gulbrandsen, M. (2012). Government support programmes to promote academic entrepreneurship: A principal-agent perspective. European Planning Studies, 20(4), 527–546.
67. Rasmussen, E., & Rice, M. P. (2012). A framework for government support mechanisms aimed at enhancing university technology transfer: The Norwegian case. International Journal of Technology Transfer and Commercialisation, 11(1), 1–25.
68. Rasmussen, E., & Sørheim, R. (2012). How governments seek to bridge the financing gap for university spin-offs: Proof-of-concept, pre-seed, and seed funding. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 24(7), 663–678.
69. Rogers, E. M. (2002). Diffusion of preventive innovations. Addictive Behaviors, 27, 989–993.
70. Salmenkaita, J. P., & Salo, A. (2002). Rationales for government intervention in the commercialization of new technologies. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 14(2), 183–200.
71. Siegel, D., Veugelers, R., & Wright, M. (2007). Technology transfer offices and commercialization of university intellectual property: Performance and policy implications. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 23(4), 640–660.
72. 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.
73. Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D. A., Atwater, L. E., & Link, A. N. (2004). Toward a model of the effective transfer of scientific knowledge from academicians to practitioners: Qualitative evidence from the commercialization of university technologies. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 21(1), 115–142.
74. Storey, D. J., & Tether, B. S. (1998). Public policy measures to support new technology-based firms in the European Union. Research Policy, 26(9), 1037–1057.
75. Storper, M. (2013). Keys to the city: How economics, institutions, social interaction, and politics shape development. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
76. Tartari, V., Salter, A., & D’Este, P. (2012). Crossing the Rubicon: Exploring the factors that shape academics’ perceptions of the barriers to working with industry. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 36(3), 655–677.
77. Tödtling, F., & Trippl, M. (2005). One size fits all? Towards a differentiated regional innovation policy approach. Research Policy, 34(8), 1203–1219.
78. Uecke, O., Rajendran, L., Schellin, S., & Simons, K. (2010). Enhancing effectiveness in early stages of technology transfer and entrepreneurship: the case of a new Alzheimer’s disease treatment. Conference paper 18th Annual High Technology Small Firms Conference.
79. Väänänen, L. (2003). Public provision of business support services in Finland (No. 850). ETLA Discussion Papers, The Research Institute of the Finnish Economy (ETLA).
80. Van Dierdonck, R., & Debackere, K. (1988). Academic entrepreneurship at Belgian universities. R&D Management, 18(4), 341–353.
81. Van Looy, B., Landoni, P., Callaert, J., van Pottelsberghe, B., Sapsalis, E., & Debackere, K. (2011). Entrepreneurial effectiveness of European universities: An empirical assessment of antecedents and trade-offs. Research Policy, 40(4), 553–564.
82. Villani, E. (2013). How external support may mitigate the barriers to university–industry collaboration. Journal of Industrial and Business Economics, 4, 117–145.
83. Weckowska, D. M., Molas-Gallart, J., Tang, P., Twigg, D., Castro-Martínez, E., & Kijeńska-Dąbrowska, I. et al. (2015). University patenting and technology commercialization: Legal frameworks and the importance of local practice. R&D Management. doi:10.1111/radm.12123.
84. Wright, M., Lockett, A., Clarysse, B., & Binks, M. (2006). University spin-out companies and venture capital. Research Policy, 35(4), 481–501.