Based on university-level data, characteristics of industry-university linkages in Japan were examined. The results of statistical analysis present a contrasting picture regarding the characteristics of knowledge interactions according to the size of industrial partners. On the one hand, on the basis of direct connections, university-based scientists with high research potential are linked with large firms in broad areas through highly interactive spillover channels such as joint research. On the other hand, through the intermediation of liaison offices, university-based scientists with low research potential are linked with small firms, through less interactive spillover channels such as technical consultation.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Acs, Z., Anselin, L. and Varga, A. (2002) ‘Patents and Innovation Counts as Measures of Regional Production of New Knowledge’ , Research Policy31(7): 1069-1085 .
2.
Acs, Z., Audretsch, D. and Feldman, M. (1992) ‘Real Effects of Academic Research: Comment’ , American Economic Review82(1): 363-367 .
3.
Acs, Z., Audretsch, D. and Feldman, M. (1994) ‘R&D Spillovers and Recipient Firm Size’ , Review of Economics and Statistics76(2): 336-340 .
4.
Agrawal, A. and Cockburn, I. (2002) ‘University Research, Industrial R&D, and the Anchor Tenant Hypothesis’, Working Paper No. 9212. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research .
5.
Agrawal, A. and Cockburn, I. (2003) ‘The Anchor Tenant Hypothesis: Exploring the Role of Large, Local, R&D-intensive Firms in Regional Innovation Systems’ , International Journal of Industrial Organization21(9): 1227-1253 .
6.
Ahuja, G. (2000) ‘The Duality of Collaboration: Inducements and Opportunities in the Formation of Interfirm Linkages’ , Strategic Management Journal21(3): 317-343 .
7.
Audretsch, D. and Vivarelli, M. (1996) ‘Firms Size and R&D Spillovers: Evidence from Italy’ , Small Business Economics8(3): 249-258 .
8.
Autant-Bernard, C. (2001) ‘Science and Knowledge Flows: Evidence from the French Case’ , Research Policy30(7): 1069-1078 .
9.
Beise, M. and Stahl, H. (1999) ‘Public Research and Industrial Innovations in Germany’ , Research Policy28(4): 397-422 .
10.
Breschi, S. and Lissoni, F. (2001) ‘Knowledge Spillovers and Local Innovation Systems: A Critical Survey’ , Industrial and Corporate Change10(4): 975-1005 .
11.
Carayol, N. (2003) ‘Objectives, Agreements and Matching in Science-Industry Collaborations: Reassembling the Pieces of the Puzzle’ , Research Policy32(6): 887-908 .
12.
Cohen, W. and Levinthal, D. (1990) ‘Absorptive Capacity: A New Perspective on Learning and Innovation’ , Administrative Science Quarterly35(1): 128-152 .
13.
Colombo, M. and Delmastro, M. (2002) ‘How Effective are Technology Incubators?: Evidence from Italy’ , Research Policy31(7): 1103-1122 .
14.
Henderson, R., Jaffe, A. and Trajtenberg, M. (1998) ‘Universities as a Source of Commercial Technology: A Detailed Analysis of University Patenting 1965-1988’ , Review of Economics and Statistics80(1): 119-127 .
15.
Izushi, H. (2003) ‘Impact of the Length of Relationships upon the use of Research Institutes by SMEs’ , Research Policy32(5): 771-788 .
16.
Jaffe, A. (1989) ‘Real Effects of Academic Research’ , American Economic Review79(5): 957-970 .
17.
Jaffe, A., Trajtenberg, M. and Henderson, R. (1993) ‘Geographic Localization of Knowledge Spillover as Evidenced by Patent Citations’ , Quarterly Journal of Economics108(3): 577-598 .
18.
Japan Small Business Research Institute (2003) White Paper on Small and Medium Enterprises in Japan. Tokyo: Small and Medium Enterprise Agency .
Kamien, M. and Zang, I. (2000) ‘Meet me Halfway: Research Joint Ventures and Absorptive Capacity’ , International Journal of Industrial Organization18(7): 995-1012 .
21.
Kneller, R. (1999a) ‘Intellectual Property Rights and University-Industry Technology Transfer in Japan’ , Science and Public Policy26(2): 113-124 .
22.
Kneller, R. (1999b) ‘Intellectual Property Rights and University-Industry Technology Transfer in Japan’, in L. Branscomb, F. Kodama and R. Florida (eds) Industrializing Knowledge: University-Industry Linkages in Japan and the United States, pp. 307-347. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press .
23.
Lattice (2001) Nationwide List of Research Institutes in Japan. Tokyo: Maruzen .
24.
Link, A. (1981) ‘Basic Research and Productivity Increase in Manufacturing: Additional Evidence’ , American Economic Review71(5): 1111-1112 .
25.
Link, A. and Rees, J. (1990) ‘Firm Size, University Based Research, and the Returns to R&D’ , Small Business Economics2(1): 25-31 .
26.
Löfsten, H. and Lindelöf, P. (2002) ‘Science Parks and the Growth of New Technology-based Firms: Academic-Industry Links, Innovation and Markets’ , Research Policy31(6): 859-876 .
27.
Mansfield, E. (1980) ‘Basic Research and Productivity Increase in Manufacturing’ , American Economic Review70(5): 863-873 .
28.
Mansfield, E. (1991) ‘Academic Research and Industrial Innovation’ , Research Policy20(1): 1-12 .
29.
Mansfield, E. (1995) ‘Academic Research Underlying Industrial Innovations: Sources, Characteristics, and Financing’ , Review of Economics and Statistics77(1): 55-65 .
30.
Mansfield, E. (1998) ‘Academic Research and Industrial Innovation: An Update of Empirical Findings’ , Research Policy26(7-8): 773-776 .
31.
Markman, G., Gianiodis, P., Phan, P. and Balkin, D. (2004) ‘Entrepreneurship from the Ivory Tower: Do Incentive Systems Matter?’ , Journal of Technology Transfer29(3-4): 353-364 .
32.
Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (2000) Census of Manufactures: Report by Cities, Towns and Villages. Tokyo: Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry .
33.
Motohashi, K. (2004) ‘Economic Analysis of University-Industry Collaborations: The Role of New Technology Based Firms in Japanese National Innovation Reform’, Discussion Paper No. 04E001. Tokyo: Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry .
34.
Murray, F. (2004) ‘The Role of Academic Inventors in Entrepreneurial Firms: Sharing the Laboratory Life’ , Research Policy33(4): 643-659 .
35.
Nakayama, Y., Hosono, M., Saito, Y., Fukugawa, N. and Kobayashi, S. (2003) ‘University-Industry Research Cooperation: A Status Report 1983-2001’,Research Material No. 96. Tokyo: National Institute of Science and Technology Policy .
36.
Nooteboom, B. (1999) ‘Innovation, Learning and Industrial Organization’ , Cambridge Journal of Economics23(2): 127-150 .
37.
Odagiri, H. (1999) ‘University-Industry Collaboration in Japan: Facts and Interpretations’, in L. Branscomb, F. Kodama and R. Florida (eds) Industrializing Knowledge: University-Industry Linkages in Japan and the United States, pp. 252-265. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press .
38.
Piergiovanni, R., Santarelli, E. and Vivarelli, M. (1997) ‘From which Source do Small Firms Derive their Innovative Inputs?: Some Evidence from Italian Industry’ , Review of Industrial Organization12(2): 243-258 .
39.
Sakakibara, M. (1997) ‘Heterogeneity of Firm Capabilities and Cooperative Research and Development: An Empirical Examination of Motives’ , Strategic Management Journal18(1): 143-164 .
40.
Santoro, M. and Chakrabarti, A. (2002) ‘Firm Size and Technology Centrality in Industry-University Interactions’ , Research Policy31(7): 1163-1180 .
41.
Schartinger, D., Rammer, C., Fischer, M. and Frohlich, J. (2002) ‘Knowledge Interactions between Universities and Industry in Austria: Sectoral Patterns and Determinants’ , Research Policy31(3): 303-328 .
42.
Siegel, D., Waldman, D. and Link, A. (1999) ‘Assessing the Impact of Organizational Practices on the Productivity of University Technology Transfer Offices’, Working Paper No. 7256. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research .
43.
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 Policy32(1): 27-48 .
44.
Small and Medium Enterprise Agency (2000) Survey of Business Confidence of Small and Medium Enterprise. Tokyo: Small and Medium Enterprise Agency .
45.
Storey, D. and Tether, B. (1998) ‘Public Policy Measures to Support New Technology-based Firms in the European Union’ , Research Policy26(9): 1037-1057 .
46.
Tether, B. and Storey, D. (1998) ‘Smaller Firms and Europe’s High Technology Sectors’ , Research Policy26(9): 947-971 .
47.
Thursby, J. and Kemp, S. (2002) ‘Growth and Productive Efficiency of University Intellectual Property Licensing’ , Research Policy31(1): 109-124 .
48.
Thursby, J. and Thursby, M. (2002) ‘Who is Selling the Ivory Tower? Sources of Growth in University Licensing’ , Management Science48(1): 90-104 .
49.
Van Looy, B., Ranga, M., Callaert, J., Debackere, K. and Zimmermann, E. (2004) ‘Combining Entrepreneurial and Scientific Performance in Academia: Towards a Compounded and Reciprocal Matthew Effect?’ , Research Policy33(3): 425-441 .
50.
Varga, A. (1998) University Research and Regional Innovation: A Spatial Econometric Analysis of Academic Technology Transfers. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers .
51.
Wen, J. and Kobayashi, S. (2001) ‘Exploring Collaborative R&D Network: Some New Evidence in Japan’ , Research Policy30(8): 1309-1319 .
52.
Westhead, P. and Batstone, S. (1999) ‘Perceived Benefits of a Managed Science Park Location’ , Entrepreneurship & Regional Development11(2): 129-154 .
53.
Yoshihara, M. and Tamai, K. (1999) ‘Lack of Incentive and Persistent Constraints: Factors Hindering Technology Transfer at Japanese Universities’, in L. Branscomb, F. Kodama and R. Florida (eds) Industrializing Knowledge: University-Industry Linkages in Japan and the United States, pp. 348-363. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press .
54.
Zucker, L. and Darby, M. (2001) ‘Capturing Technological Opportunities via Japan’s Star Scientists: From Japanese Firms’ Biotech Patents and Products’ , Journal of Technology Transfer26(1-2): 37-58 .
