This study explores the economic factors that are associated with the success of university spin-offs. Drawing on a unique sample of academic entrepreneurs from research institutions in New York State, the article finds that spin-off success is dependent on both the type and size of the academic entrepreneur’s social network. Specifically, extraregional networks of nonacademic contacts—including investors, researchers from other companies, and advisors—allow academic entrepreneurs access to a broader base of knowledge and other resources important to spin-off success, which leads to regional economic development.
AarstadJ.HauglandS.GreveA. (2010). Performance spillover effects in entrepreneurial networks: Assessing a dyadic theory of social capital. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34, 1003-1019.
2.
AcsZ. J.AudretschD. B. (1990). Innovation and small firms. Cambridge: MIT Press.
3.
AcsZ. J.AudretschD. B.BraunerhjelmP.CarlssonB. (2004). The missing link: The knowledge filter and endogenous growth (Discussion Paper No. 4783). London, England: Center for Economic Policy Research.
4.
AldrichH. E.RosenB.WoodwardW. (1987). The impact of social networks on business foundings and profit: A longitudinal study. In ChurchillN. C.HomadayJ. A.KirchoffB. A.KrasnerO. J.VesperK. H. (Eds.), Frontiers of entrepreneurship research (pp. 158-168). Wellesley, MA: Babson College.
5.
AldrichH. E.ZimmerC. (1986). Entrepreneurship through social networks. In SextonD.SmilerR. (Eds.), The art and science of entrepreneurship (pp. 3-23). New York, NY: Ballinger.
6.
AudretschD. B. (1995). Innovation and industry evolution. Cambridge: MIT Press.
7.
AudretschD. B.FeldmanM. P. (1996). R&D spillovers and the geography of innovation. American Economic Review, 86, 630-640.
8.
AudretschD. B.KeilbachM.LehmannE. E. (2006). Entrepreneurship and economic growth. London, England: Oxford University Press.
9.
AudretschD. B.LehmannE. E. (2005). Does the knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship hold for regions. Research Policy, 34, 1191-1202.
10.
AudretschD. B.LehmannE. E.WarningS. (2004). University spillovers: Does the kind of science matter?Industry and Innovation, 11, 193-205.
11.
AudretschD. B.LehmannE. E.WarningS. (2005). University spillovers and new firm location. Research Policy, 34, 1113-1122.
12.
AudretschD. B.StephanP. E. (1996). Company-scientist locational links: The case of biotechnology. American Economic Review, 86, 641-652.
13.
BatallerM.MontesinosP. (2010, September). Linking society and universities: New missions for universities. Paper presented at the European Higher Education Society Meeting, Valencia, Spain.
14.
BirchD. L. (1981). Who creates jobs. Public Interest, 65(Fall), 3-14.
15.
BlairD. M.HitchensD. (1998). Campus companies–U.K. and Ireland. Aldershot, England: Ashgate.
16.
BrüderlJ.PreisendorferP. (1998). Network support and the success of newly founded businesses. Small Business Economics, 10, 213-225.
17.
CohenW. (2000, January). Taking care of business. ASEE Prism, 9(1), 18-21.
18.
ColemanJ. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94(Suppl), S95-S120.
19.
DahlstrandA. (1997). Growth and inventiveness in technology-based spinoff firms. Research Policy, 26, 331-344.
20.
DavenportS. (2005). Exploring the role of proximity in SME knowledge-acquisition. Research Policy, 34, 683-701.
21.
DavidssonP. (2004). Researching entrepreneurship. New York, NY: Springer.
22.
DietzJ.BozemanB. (2005). Academic careers, patents, and productivity: Industry experience as scientific and technical human capital. Research Policy, 34, 349-367.
23.
FeldmanM. P. (1994). The geography of innovation. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic.
24.
GertlerM. S.LevitteY. M. (2005). Local nodes in global networks: The geography of knowledge flows in biotechnology innovation. Industry and Innovation, 12, 487-507.
25.
GoldfarbB.HenreksonM. (2003). Bottom-up versus top-down policies towards the commercialization of university intellectual property. Research Policy, 32, 639-658.
26.
GoldsteinH.DruckerJ. (2006). The economic development impacts of universities on regions: Do size and distance matter?Economic Development Quarterly, 20, 22-43.
27.
GolubE. (2003). Generating spin-offs from university-based research: The potential of technology transfer (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Columbia University, New York, NY.
28.
GranovetterM. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91, 481-493.
29.
GreveA.SalaffJ. W. (2003). Social networks and entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 28, 1-22.
30.
GulatiR.GargiuloM. (1999). Where do interorganizational networks come from?American Journal of Sociology, 104, 1439-1493.
GulbrandsenM.SmebyJ. (2005). Industry funding and university professors’ research performance. Research Policy, 34, 932-950.
33.
HayterC. S. (2013a). Harnessing university entrepreneurship for economic growth: Factors of success among university spinoffs. Economic Development Quarterly, 27, 18-28.
34.
HayterC. S. (2013b). Conceptualizing knowledge-based entrepreneurship networks: Perspectives from the literature. Small Business Economics, 41, 899-911.
35.
HayterC. S. (2011). In search of the profit-maximizing actor: Motivations and definitions of success from nascent academic entrepreneurs. Journal of Technology Transfer, 36, 340-352.
36.
HeirmanA.ClarysseB. (2004). How and why do research-based startups differ at founding? A resource-based configurational perspective. Journal of Technology Transfer, 29, 247-268.
37.
HellmannT.PuriM. (2001). Venture capital and the professionalism of start-up firms: Empirical evidence (Research Paper No. 1661). Graduate School of Business, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
38.
HiteJ. M.HesterlyW. S. (2001). The evolution of firm networks: From emergence to early growth of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 22, 275-286.
39.
HoangH.AntoncicB. (2003). Network-based research in entrepreneurship: A critical review. Journal of Business Venturing, 18, 165-187.
40.
HugginsR.JohnstonA. (2010). Knowledge flow and inter-firm networks: The influence of network resources, spatial proximity and firm size. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 22, 457-484.
41.
Information Technology and Innovation Foundation. (2012, December6). 2012 State New Economy Index. Washington, DC: Author.
42.
JackS. L. (2010). Approaches to studying networks: Implications and outcomes. Journal of Business Venturing, 25, 120-137.
43.
JaffeA. B. (1989). Real effects of academic research. American Economic Review, 79, 957-970.
44.
JaffeA. B.TrajtenbergM.HendersonR. (1993). Geographic localization of knowledge spillovers as evidenced by patent citations. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 108, 577-598.
45.
JohannissonB.MønstedM. (1997). Contextualizing entrepreneurial networking: The case of Scandinavia. International Studies of Management and Organization, 27, 109-136.
46.
KenneyM.PattonD. (2005). Entrepreneurial geographies: Support networks in three high technology industries. Economic Geography, 81, 201-228.
LechnerC.DowlingM. (2003). Firm networks: External relationships as sources for the growth and competitiveness of entrepreneurial firms. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 15, 1-26.
49.
LechnerC.DowlingM. (2006). The network perspective: The relational mix and the growth of the entrepreneurial firm. Journal of Business Venturing, 21, 514-540.
50.
LeitchC. M.HarrisonR. T. (2005). Maximizing the potential of university spin-outs: The development of second-order commercialization activities. R & D Management, 35, 257-272.
51.
LinkA. N.RuhmC. J. (2009). Bringing science to market: Commercializing from NIH SBIR awards. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 4, 381-402.
52.
LinkA. N.ScottJ. T. (2010). Government as entrepreneur: Evaluating the commercialization success of SBIR projects. Research Policy, 39, 589-601.
53.
LinkA. N.ScottJ. T. (2012a). Employment growth from public support of innovation in small firms. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 21, 655-678.
54.
LinkA. N.ScottJ. T. (2012b). Employment growth from the Small Business Innovation Research Program. Small Business Economics, 39, 265-287.
55.
LinkA. N.ScottJ. T. (2013). Public R&D subsidies, outside private support, and employment growth. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 22(6), 537-550.
56.
LinkA. N.SiegelD. S.BozemanB. (2007). An empirical analysis of the propensity of academics to engage in informal university technology transfer. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16(4), 1-15.
57.
LockettA.WrightM. (2005). Resources, capabilities, risk capital and the creation of university spin-out companies. Research Policy, 34, 1043-1057.
58.
LockettA.WrightM.FranklinS. (2002). Technology transfer and universities’ spin-out strategies. Small Business Economics, 20, 185-201.
59.
LoweR. A. (2002). Invention, innovation and entrepreneurship: The commercialization of university research by inventor-founded firms (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of California at Berkeley.
60.
Milken Institute. (2013, April9). 2012 State technology and science index. Santa Monica, CA: Author.
61.
MoseyS.WrightM. (2007). From human capital to social capital: A longitudinal study of technology-based academic entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31, 909-935.
62.
MustarP. (1997). Spinoff enterprises: How French academics create high-tech companies: The conditions for success or failure. Science and Public Policy, 24, 37-43.
63.
NapolitanoJ. (2006, December5). Opening remarks at the National Governors Association Innovation America Initiative kickoff meeting, Phoenix, AZ.
64.
NicolaouN.BirleyS. (2003). Social networks in organizational emergence: The university spinout phenomenon. Management Science, 49, 1702-1725.
65.
NohriaN.EcclesR. G. (1992). Networks and organizations: Structure, form and action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
66.
O’GormanC.ByrneO.PandyaD. (2008). How scientists commercialise new knowledge via entrepreneurship. Journal of Technology Transfer, 33, 23-43.
67.
OstgaardT. A.BirleyS. (1994). Personal networks and firm competitive strategy: A strategic or coincidental match?Journal of Business Venturing, 9, 281-305.
68.
PenningsJ.LeeK.van WitteloostuijnA. (1998). Human capital, social capital and firm dissolution. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 425-440.
69.
PhanP.SiegelD. S. (2006). The effectiveness of university technology transfer: Lessons learned. Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship, 2, 77-144.
70.
PisanoG. P. (2006). Science business: The promise, the reality, and future of biotech. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
71.
PorterM. E. (1990). The competitive advantage of nations. New York, NY: Free Press.
72.
ReitanB. (1997). Fostering technical entrepreneurship in research communities: Granting scholarships to would-be entrepreneurs. Technovation, 17, 287-296.
73.
RenzulliL. A.AldrichH. (2005). Who can you turn to: Tie activation within core business discussion networks. Social Forces, 84, 323-342.
74.
RobertsE.EesleyC. (2009). Entrepreneurial impact: The role of MIT. Kansas City, MO: Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation.
75.
RobertsE. B. (1991). Entrepreneurs in high technology. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
76.
RomerP. M. (1986). Increasing returns and long-run growth. Journal of Political Economy, 94, 1002-1037.
77.
RothaermelF. T.AgungS. D.JiangL. (2007). University entrepreneurship: A taxonomy of the literature. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16, 691-791.
78.
RothaermelF. T.ThursbyM. (2005). Incubator firm failure or graduation? The role of university linkage. Research Policy, 34, 1076-1090.
79.
RuefM.AldrichH. E.CarterN. M. (2003). The structure of founding teams: Homophily, strong ties, and isolation among US entrepreneurs. American Sociological Review, 68, 195-222.
80.
SamsonK. J.GurdonM. A. (1993). University scientists as entrepreneurs: A special case of technology transfer and high-tech venturing. Technovation, 13, 63-71.
81.
SaxenianA. (1994). Regional advantage: Culture and competition in Silicon Valley and Route 128. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
82.
SchachtW. H. (2009). The Bayh-Dole Act: Selected issues in patent policy and the commercialization of technology. Washington, DC: Library of Congress Congressional Research Service.
83.
ScottJ. (2000). Social network analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
84.
ShaneS. A. (2004). Academic entrepreneurship: University spinoffs and wealth creation. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
85.
ShaneS. A. (2008). The illusions of entrepreneurship: The costly myths that entrepreneurs, investors, and policy makers live by. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
86.
ShaneS. A.CableD. (2002). Network ties, reputation, and the financing of new ventures. Management Science, 48, 364-381.
87.
ShaneS. A.StuartT. (2002). Organizational endowments and the performance of university start-ups. Management Science, 48, 154-170.
88.
SiegelD. S.WessnerC. (2010). Universities and the success of entrepreneurial ventures: Evidence from the Small Business Innovation Research Program. Journal of Technology Transfer, 37, 404-415.
89.
SpanosY. E.VonortasN. S. (2012). Scale and performance in publicly funded collaborative research and development. R&D Management, 42, 494-513.
90.
StevensA. J. (2004). The enactment of Bayh–Dole. Journal of Technology Transfer, 29, 93-99.
91.
VohoraA.WrightM.LockettA. (2004). Critical junctures in the development of university high-tech spin-out companies. Research Policy, 33, 147-175.
92.
WittP. (2004). Entrepreneurs’ networks and the success of start-ups. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 16, 391-412.
93.
WrightM.ClarysseB.LockettA.BinksM. (2006). University spin-out companies and venture capital. Research Policy, 35, 481-501.
94.
WrightM.ClarysseB.MustarP.LockettA. (2007). Academic entrepreneurship in Europe. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
95.
ZuckerL. G.DarbyM. R.ArmstrongJ. S. (2002). Commercializing knowledge: University science, knowledge capture, and firm performance in biotechnology. Management Science, 48, 138-153.
