We study the extent to which the characteristics of universities and technology transfer offices located within different regional contexts affect the transfer of scientific knowledge, both in the form of licensing and spin-off firm creation. By using data from Spain for the period 2005 to 2008, we show that technology transfer offices with more experienced and expert staff teams and universities with clearly established rules for creating academic startups and with higher patenting records are more likely to obtain better university technology transfer results (i.e., licensing and spin-off firm outcomes). Although the effects of R&D investment and venture capital available in the local region were not significant, the (subnational) regional context seemed to matter for explaining the variation in academic spin-off and licensing outcomes across universities.
AcsZ. J.AudretschD. B.FeldmanM. P. (1992). Real effects of academic research: Comment. American Economic Review, 82, 363-367.
2.
AlemanyL. (2006). Venture capital in Spain: Evolution, characterisation and economic impact analysis. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, 6, 412-428.
3.
ArrowK. J. (1962). Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for invention. In Universities National Bureau Committee for Economic Research (Ed.), The rate and direction of inventive activity: Economic and social factors (pp. 609-626). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
4.
ArthurW. B. (1994). Increasing returns and path dependence in the economy. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
5.
ArthurW. B. (2009). The nature of technology: What it is and how it evolves. New York, NY: Free Press.
6.
AudretschD. B.FeldmanM. P. (1996). R&D spillovers and the geography of innovation and production. American Economic Review, 86, 630-640.
7.
AudretschD. B.LehmannE. E. (2005). Does the knowledge spillover theory of Entrepreneurship hold for regions?Research Policy, 34, 1191-1202.
8.
AudretschD. B.LehmannE. E.WarningS. (2005). University spillovers and new firm location. Research Policy, 34, 1113-1122.
9.
BercovitzJ.FeldmanM. (2006). Entrepreneurial universities and technology transfer: A conceptual framework for understanding knowledge-based economic development. Journal of Technology Transfer, 31, 175-188.
10.
BercovitzJ.FeldmanM.FellerI.BurtonR. (2001). Organizational structure as a determinant of academic patent and licensing behavior: An exploratory study of Duke, Johns Hopkins, and Pennsylvania State Universities. Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(1), 21-35.
11.
BowermanB. L.O’ConnellR. T. (1990). Linear statistical models: An applied approach (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Duxbury Press.
12.
ClarysseB.WrightM.LockettA.Van de VeldeE.VohoraA. (2005). Spinning out new ventures: A typology of incubation strategies from European research institutions. Journal of Business Venturing, 20, 183-216.
13.
CohenW. M.NelsonR. R.WalshJ. P. (2002). Links and impacts: The influence of public research on industrial R&D. Management Science, 48(1), 1-23.
14.
Di GregorioD.ShaneS. (2003). Why do some universities generate more start-ups than others?Research Policy, 32, 209-227.
15.
FeldmanM.FellerI.BercovitzJ.BurtonR. (2002). Equity and the technology transfer strategies of American research universities. Management Science, 48(1), 105-121.
16.
FiniR.GrimaldiR.SantoniS.SobreroM. (2011). Complements or substitutes? The role of universities and local context in supporting the creation of academic spin-offs. Research Policy, 40, 1113-1127.
17.
GeunaA.RossiF. (2011). Changes to university IPR regulations in Europe and the impact on academic patenting. Research Policy, 40, 1068-1076.
18.
GrimaldiR.KenneyM.SiegelD. S.WrightM. (2011). 30 years after Bayh-Dole: Reassessing academic entrepreneurship. Research Policy, 40, 1045-1057.
19.
HegdeD. (2005). Public and private universities: Unequal sources of regional innovation?Economic Development Quarterly, 19, 373-386.
20.
JensenR.ThursbyM. (2001). Proofs and prototypes for sale: The licensing of university inventions. American Economic Review, 91, 240-259.
21.
JensenR. A. (2011). Startups firms from research in U.S. universities. In AudretschD. B. F.FalckO.HeblichS.LedererA. (Eds.), Handbook of research on innovation and entrepreneurship (pp. 273-289). Cheltenham, England: Edward Elgar.
22.
KenneyM.PattonD. (2011). Does inventor ownership encourage university research-derived entrepreneurship? A six university comparison. Research Policy, 40, 1100-1112.
23.
LendelI. (2010). The impact of research universities on regional economies: The concept of university products. Economic Development Quarterly, 24, 210-230.
24.
LiangK.-Y.ZegerS. L. (1986). Longitudinal data analysis using generalized linear models. Biometrika, 73, 13-22.
25.
LinkA. N.ScottJ. T. (2003). U.S. science parks: The diffusion of an innovation and its effects on the academic missions of universities. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 21, 1323-1356.
26.
LockettA.WrightM. (2005). Resources, capabilities, risk capital and the creation of university spin-out companies. Research Policy, 34, 1043-1057.
27.
LockettA.WrightM.FranklinS. (2003). Technology transfer and universities’ spin-out strategies. Small Business Economics, 20, 185-200.
28.
Macho-StadlerI.Pérez-CastrilloD. (2010). Incentives in university technology transfers. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 28, 362-367.
29.
MarkmanG. D.GianiodisP. T.PhanP. H.BalkinD. B. (2005). Innovation speed: Transferring university technology to market. Research Policy, 34, 1058-1075.
30.
MarkmanG. D.PhanP. H.BalkinD. B.GianiodisP. T. (2005). Entrepreneurship and university-based technology transfer. Journal of Business Venturing, 20, 241-263.
31.
MoweryD. C. (2005). The Bayh-Dole Act and high-technology entrepreneurship in U.S. universities: Chicken, egg, or something else? In LibecapG. D. (Ed.), University entrepreneurship and technology transfer (Advances in the Study of Entrepreneurship, Innovation & Economic Growth; Vol. 16, pp. 39-68). Bingley, England: Emerald Group.
32.
NagaokaS. (2009). Does strong patent protection facilitate international technology transfer? Some evidence from licensing contracts of Japanese firms. Journal of Technology Transfer, 34, 128-144.
33.
NelsonR. R. (1959). The simple economics of basic scientific research. Journal of Political Economy, 67, 297-306.
34.
O’SheaR. P.AllenT. J.ChevalierA.RocheF. (2005). Entrepreneurial orientation, technology transfer and spinoff performance of U.S. universities. Research Policy, 34, 994-1009.
35.
PhanP. H.SiegelD. S. (2006). The effectiveness of university technology transfer. Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship, 2, 77-144.
36.
RothaermelF. T.AgungS. D.JiangL. (2007). University entrepreneurship: A taxonomy of the literature. Industrial & Corporate Change, 16, 691-791.
37.
ShaneS. (2001). Technological opportunities and new firm creation. Management Science, 47, 205-220.
38.
ShaneS. (2004). Academic entrepreneurship: University spinoffs and wealth creation. Cheltenham, England: Edward Elgar.
39.
ShaneS.StuartT. (2002). Organizational endowments and the performance of university start-ups. Management Science, 48, 154-170.
40.
SiegelD. S.PhanP. H. (2005). Analyzing the effectiveness of university technology transfer: Implications for entrepreneurship education. In LibecapG. D. (Ed.), University entrepreneurship and technology transfer (Advances in the Study of Entrepreneurship, Innovation & Economic Growth; Vol. 16, pp. 1-38). Bingley, England: Emerald Group.
41.
SiegelD. S.VeugelersR.WrightM. (2007). Technology transfer offices and commercialization of university intellectual property: Performance and policy implications. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 23, 640-660.
42.
SiegelD. S.WaldmanD.LinkA. (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.
43.
SiegelD. S.WaldmanD. A.AtwaterL. E.LinkA. N. (2003). Commercial knowledge transfers from universities to firms: Improving the effectiveness of university-industry collaboration. Journal of High Technology Management Research, 14(1), 111-133.
44.
SiegelD. S.WaldmanD. A.AtwaterL. E.LinkA. 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, 115-142.
45.
SoeteL.PatelP. (1985). Recherche–Développement, importations de technologie et croissance économique: Une tentative de comparaison internationales [Research and development, technology imports and economic growth. An attempt of international comparison]. Revue Économique, 36, 975-1000.
46.
SteinnesD. N. (1987). On understanding and evaluating the university’s evolving economic development policy. Economic Development Quarterly, 1, 214-225.
47.
StudenmundA. H. (2000). Using econometrics: A practical guide (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.
48.
ThursbyJ. G.KempS. (2002). Growth and productive efficiency of university intellectual property licensing. Research Policy, 31, 109-124.
49.
VohoraA.WrightM.LockettA. (2004). Critical junctures in the development of university high-tech spinout companies. Research Policy, 33, 147-175.
50.
WinkelmannR. (2008). Econometric analysis of count data (5th ed.). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
51.
WrightM.ClarysseB.MustarP.LockettA. (2007). Academic entrepreneurship in Europe. Cheltenham, England: Edward Elgar.
52.
WrightM.LockettA.ClarysseB.BinksM. (2006). University spin-out companies and venture capital. Research Policy, 35, 481-501.
