Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Public policy measures in support of knowledge transfer activities: a review of academic literature

  • Published:
The Journal of Technology Transfer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Despite the wealth of academic studies that analyze different policy measures and initiatives implemented by national or regional governments to support knowledge transfer from academia to industry, scant systematization efforts seek to integrate these disparate lines of research. The systematic review of academic studies on public policy measures in support of technology transfer presented by this article suggests a literature classification based on two dimensions: the type of policy measure analyzed, and the focus of the study (i.e., policy design vs. impact assessment). On the basis of this comprehensive review, we summarize the lessons learned thus far, identify research gaps that continue to limit insights into public policy measures for technology transfer, and highlight directions for further research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. A recente exception is represented by the study by Munari et al. (2015) analyzing the impact of university-oriented seed funds in Europe. This study, however, does not consider in detail the sources of capital (public vs. private) for such funds.

References

  • Abetti, P. A. (2004). Government-supported incubators in the Helsinki region, Finland: Infrastructure, results, and best practices. Journal of Technology Transfer, 29(1), 19–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aernoudt, R. (2004). Incubators: Tool for entrepreneurship? Small Business Economics, 23, 127–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D. B., Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2002). Public/private technology partnerships: Evaluating SBIR-supported research. Research Policy, 31, 145–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Azagra Caro, J. M., De Lucio, I. F., & Gracia, A. G. (2003). University patents: Output and input indicators… of what? Research Evaluation, 12, 5–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Azagra-Caro, J. (2010). Do public research organisations own most patents invented by their staff? Science and Public Policy, 38(3), 237–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balconi, M., Borghini, S., & Moisello, A. (2003). Ivory tower vs. spanning university: il caso dell’Universita di Pavia. In A. Bonaccorsi (Ed.), Il Sistema della Ricerca Pubblica in Italia (pp. 133–175). Milan: Franco Angeli.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baldini, N. (2006). The act on inventions at public research institutions: Danish universities’ patenting activity. Scientometrics, 69(2), 387–407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baldini, N., Fini, R., & Grimaldi, R. (2012). The transition towards entrepreneurial universities: An assessment of academic entrepreneurship in Italy. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1979450 or doi:10.2139/ssrn.1979450

  • Baldini, N., Fini, R., Grimaldi, R., & Sobrero, M. (2010). The institutionalisation of university patenting activity in Italy. Diffusion and evolution of organisational practices. SSRN—id1632430 paper.

  • Baldini, N., Fini, R., Grimaldi, R., & Sobrero, M. (2014). Organisational change and the institutionalisation of university patenting activity in Italy. Minerva, 52, 27–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baldini, N., Grimaldi, R., & Sobrero, M. (2006). Institutional changes and the commercialization of academic knowledge: A study of Italian universities’ patenting activities between 1965 and 2002. Research Policy, 35(4), 518–532.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bigliardi, B., Dormio, A. I., Nosella, A., & Petroni, G. (2006). Assessing science parks’ performances: Directions from selected Italian case studies. Technovation, 26, 489–505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borlaug, S. B., Grünfeld, L., Gulbrandsen, M., Rasmussen, E., Rønning, L., Spilling, O. R., & Vinogradov, E. (2009). Between entrepreneurship and technology transfer: Evaluation of the FORNY programme. In Rapport/NIFU STEP; 19/2009, NIFU STEP, Oslo, p. 160.

  • Bozeman, B. (2000). Technology transfer and public policy: A review of research and theory. Research Policy, 29, 627–655.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bozeman, B., & Gaughan, M. (2007). Impacts of grants and contracts on academic researchers’ interactions with industry. Research Policy, 36(5), 694–707.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calderini, M., Garrone, P., & Sobrero, M. (2003). Corporate governance, market structure, and innovation. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Carayol, N., & Matt, M. (2004). Does research organization influence academic production? Laboratory level evidence from a large European university. Research Policy, 33, 1081–1102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cesaroni, F., & Piccaluga, A. (2003). Universities and intellectual property rights in Southern European countries. New York: Mimeo.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarysse, B., Wright, M., Lockett, A., Mustar, P., & Knockaert, M. (2007). Academic spin-offs, formal technology transfer and capital raising. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16(4), 609–640.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, A. C. (1973). Technical entrepreneurship: What do we know? R&D Management, 3 (2).

  • Cooper, A. C. (1984). Contrasts in the role of incubator organizations in the founding of growth-oriented companies. Frontiers of entrepreneurship research. Babson Park: Babson College.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crespi, G., Geuna, A., Nomaler, O., & Verspagen, B. (2010). University IPRs and knowledge transfer: Is university ownership more efficient? Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 19(7).

  • Crow, M., & Bozeman, B. (1998). Limited by design: R&D laboratories in the US national innovation system. New York: Columbia Univ. Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Czarnitzki, D., Hussinger, K., & Schneider, C. (2011). Commercializing academic research: The quality of faculty patenting. Industrial and Corporate Change, 20(5), 1403–1437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Damsgaard E. F., & Thursby, M. C. (2012). University entrepreneurship and professor privilege. NBER Working Paper no. 17980. http://www.nber.org/papers/w17980

  • Debackere, K., & Vergeulers, R. (2005). The role of academic technology transfer organizations in improving industry science links. Research Policy, 34, 321–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Della Malva, A., Lissoni, F., & Llerena, P. (2008). Institutional change and academic patenting: French universities and the Innovation Act of 1999. University of Strasbourg: Working Papers of BETA, no. 2008-09.

  • Eickelpasch, A., & Fritsch, M. (2005). Contests for cooperation—A new approach in German innovation policy. Research Policy, 34, 1269–1282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elfring, T., & Hulsink, W. (2003). Networks in Entrepreneurship: The case of high-technology firms. ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2001-28-STR.

  • Etzkowitz, H., Webster, A., Gebhardt, C., & Cantisano Terra, B. R. (2000). The future of the university and the university of the future: Evolution of ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm. Research Policy, 29, 313–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feldman, M., Link, A., & Siegel, D. (2002). The Economics of science and technology: An overview of initiatives to foster innovation, entrepreneurship, and economic growth. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Feldman, M., & Stewart, I. (2006). Knowledge transfer and innovation: A review of the policy relevant literature. Prepared for the Ontario Ministry of Research and Innovation.

  • Feller, I., Ailes, C. P., & Roessner, J. D. (2002). Impacts of research universities on technological innovation in industry: Evidence from engineering research centers. Research Policy, 31, 457–474.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gallochat, A. (2003). French technology transfer and ip policies. In: OECD (2003) Turning Science into Business. Patenting and Licensing at Public Research Organizations, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris.

  • Geuna, A. (1998). Determinants of university participation in EU-funded R&D cooperative projects. Research Policy, 26, 677–687.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geuna, A., & Muscio, A. (2009). The governance of university knowledge transfer: A critical review of the literature. Minerva, 47(1), 93–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geuna, A., & Nesta, L. J. (2006). University patenting and its effects on academic research: The emerging European evidence. Research Policy, 35, 790–807.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geuna, A., & Rossi, F. (2011). Changes to university IPR regulations in Europe and the impact on academic patenting. Research Policy, 40, 1068–1076.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giuri, P., Munari, F., & Pasquini, M. (2013). What determines university patent commercialization? Empirical evidence on the role of university IPR ownership. Industry and Innovation, 20(5).

  • Goldfarb, B., & Henrekson, M. (2003). Bottom-up versus top-down policies towards the commercialization of university intellectual property. Research Policy, 32, 639–658.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gray, D. O., & Walters, S. G. (1998). Managing the industry/university cooperative research centers. A Guide for directors and other stakeholders. Columbus–Richland: Battelle Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grimaldi, R., Kenney, M., Siegel, D. S., & Wright, M. (2011). 30 years after Bayh–Dole: Reassessing academic entrepreneurship. Research Policy, 40, 1045–1057.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gulbrandsen, M., & Slipersæter, S. (2007). The third mission and the entrepreneurial university model. In A. Bonaccorsi & C. Daraio (Eds.), Universities and strategic knowledge creation: Specialization and performance in Europe (pp. 112–143). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huelsbeck, M. & Lehmann, E. (2006): German university patenting and licensing: Legally prescribed incentives and institutional determinants of university–industry-technology-transfer. DRUID-DIME Academy Winter Conference 2007 Paper.

  • Huggins, R. (2006). Universities and knowledge-based venturing: Finance, management and networks in London. Paper for the DRU9ID Summer Conference 2006.

  • Hulsink, W., Suddle, K., & Hessels, J. (2008). Science and technology-based regional entrepreneurship in the Netherlands: Building support structures for business creation and growth entrepreneurship. ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2008-048-ORG.

  • Iversen, E. J., Gulbrandsen, M., & Klitkou, A. (2007). A baseline for the impact of academic patenting legislation in Norway. Scientometrics, 70, 393–414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacob, M., Lundqvist, M., & Hellsmark, H. (2003). Entrepreneurial transformations in the Swedish University system: The case of Chalmers University of Technology. Research Policy, 32(9), 1555–1568.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaffe, A. (2000). The U.S. patent system in transition: Policy innovation and the innovation process. Research Policy, 29, 531–557.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, R., & Thursby, M. (2001). Proofs and prototypes for sale: The licensing of university inventions. American Economic Review, 91(1), 240–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kenney, M., & Patton, D. (2009). Reconsidering the Bayh–Dole Act and the current university invention ownership model. Research Policy, 38, 1407–1422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knockaert, M., Wright, M., Clarysse, B., & Lockett, A. (2010). Agency and similarity effects and the VC’s attitude towards academic spin-out investing. Journal of Technology Transfer, 35, 567–584.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kortum, S., & Lerner, J. (1999). What is behind the recent surge in patenting? Research Policy, 28, 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, C., Lee, K., & Pennings, J. (2001). Internal capabilities, external networks, and performance: A study on technology-based ventures. Strategic Management Journal, 22, 615–640.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leleux, B., & Surlemont, B. (2003). Public versus private venture capital: Seeding or crowding out? A pan-European analysis. Journal of Business Venturing, 18, 81–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lerner, J. (1999). The government as venture capitalist: The long-run effects of the SBIR program. Journal of Business, 72, 285–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2010). Government as entrepreneur: Evaluating the commercialization success of SBIR projects. Research Policy, 39(5), 589–601.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2012). Employment growth from the small business innovation research program. Small Business Economics, 39, 265–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2013). Public R&D subsidies, outside private support, and employment growth. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 22(6), 537–550.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lissoni, F. (2012). Academic patenting in Europe: An overview of recent research and new perspectives. World Patent Information, 34(3), 197–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lissoni F., Pezzoni, M., Potì, B., & Romagnosi, S. (2013). University autonomy, IP legislation and academic patenting: Italy, 1996–2006. Industry and Innovation, 20(5).

  • Lissoni, F., Llerena, P., McKelvey, M., & Sanditov, B. (2008). Academic patenting in Europe: New evidence from the KEINS database. Research Evaluation, 17(2), 87–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lockett, A., Murray, G., & Wright, M. (2002). Do UK venture capitalists still have a bias against investment in new technology firms? Research Policy, 31, 1009–1030.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lotta, V. (2003). Public provision of business support services in Finland. ETLA Discussion Papers, The Research Institute of the Finnish Economy (ETLA), No. 850, http://hdl.handle.net/10419/63769

  • Macdonald, S. (2009). Seducing the goose. Patenting by UK Universities. Sheffield: University of Sheffield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maia, C., & Cara, 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mansfield, E., & Lee, J.-Y. (1996). The modern university: Contributor to industrial innovation andrecipient of industrial R&D support. Research Policy, 25(7), 1047–1058.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, M. (2003). Academic patents as an indicator of useful research? A new approach to measure academic inventiveness. Research Evaluation, 12, 17–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, M. S., & Tang, P. (2007). Exploring the “value” of academic patents: IP management practices in UK universities and their implications for third-stream indicators. Scientometrics, 70, 415–440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moray, N., & Clarysse, B. (2005). Institutional change and resource endowments to science based entrepreneurial firms. Research Policy, 34(7), 1010–1027.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mowery, D. C., Nelson, R. R., Sampat, B. N., & Ziedonis, A. A. (2001). The growth of patenting and licensing by U.S. universities: An assessment of the effects of the Bayh–Dole act of 1980. Research Policy, 30, 99–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mowery, D. C., & Sampat, B. N. (2005). The Bayh–Dole Act of 1980 and university–industry technology transfer: A model for other OECD governments. Journal of Technology Transfer, 30, 115–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Munari, F., Pasquini, M., Toschi, L. (2015). From the lab to the stock-market? The characteristics and impact of university–oriented seed funds in Europe. Journal of Technology Transfer, forthcoming.

  • 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(2), 205–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mustar, P. (2002). Public support for the spin-off companies from higher education and research institutions. In Proceedings of the strata consolidated workshop.

  • 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, 42–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phan, P. H., Siegel, D. S., & Wright, M. (2005). Science parks and incubators: Observations, synthesis and future research. Journal of Business Venturing, 20, 165–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ranga, L. M., Debackere, K., & von Tunzelmann, N. (2003). Entrepreneurial universities and the dynamics of academic knowledge production: A case study of basic vs. applied research in Belgium. Scientometrics, 58, 301–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rasmussen, E. (2008). Government instruments to support the commercialization of university research: Lessons from Canada. Technovation, 28, 506–517.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rasmussen, E., & Borch, O. J. (2006). The university and the spin-off process-A dynamic capability approach.

  • 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(½).

  • Rasmussen, E., & Sorheim, 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reale, E., & Poti, B. (2009). Italy: Local policy legacy and moving to an “in between” configuration. University Governance Higher Education Dynamics, 25, 77–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, E. M. (2002). The nature of technology transfer. Science Communication, 23(3), 323–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salmenkaita, J.-P., & Salo, A. (2002). Rationales for government interventions in the commercialization of new technologies. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 14(2), 183–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saragossi, S., & de la Potterie, B. V. P. (2003). What patent data reveal aboutuniversities: The case of Belgium. Journal of Technology Transfer, 28, 47–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott J. T. (1989). Historical and economic perspectives on the National Cooperative Research Act in cooperative research and development: The industry–university–government relationship. In A. N. Link & G. Tassey. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

  • Siegel, D., Westhead, P., & Wright, M. (2003). Assessing the impact of university science parks on research productivity: Exploratory firm-level evidence from the United Kingdom. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 21, 1357–1369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stankiewicz, R. (1998). Science parks and innovation centers. In H. Etzkowitz, A. Webster, & P. Healey (Eds.), Capitalizing knowledge-new intersections of industry and academia (pp. 133–147). New York: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sterzi, V. (2011) Academic patent value and knowledge transfer in the UK. Does patent ownership matter? MPRA Paper No. 34955, posted 23. November 2011/10:07. http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/34955/

  • Tang, P. (2008). Exploiting university intellectual property in the UK. London: Intellectual Property Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toole, A. A., Czarnitzki, D. (2005). Biomedical academic entrepreneurship through the SBIR program. Working Paper 11450 http://www.nber.org/papers/w11450

  • 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.

  • Valentin, F., & Jensen, R. (2007). Effects on academia-industry collaboration of extending university property rights. Journal of Technology Transfer, 32(3), 251–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van der Steen, M., Bekkers, R., BodasFreitas, I., & Gilsing, V. (2008). Beyond the demand-side perspective of technology transfer policies: An empirical analysis of the Netherlands. Conference paper for the DIME conference.

  • Van Looy, B., Debackere, K., & Andries, P. (2003). Policies to stimulate regional capabilities via university–industry collaboration: An analysis and assessment. R&D Management, 33, 2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Zeebroeck, N., de la Potterie, B. V. P., & Guellec, D. (2008). Patents and academic research: A state of the art. CEB Working Paper No. 08/013.

  • Vohora, A., Wright, M., & Lockett, A. (2004). Critical junctures in the development of university high-tech spinout companies. Research Policy, 33(1), 147–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Ledebur, S. (2009). University-owned patents in West and East Germany and the abolition of the professors’ privilege. Working Papers on Innovation and Space. Marburg University, Papers no. 02-09.

  • von Ledebur, S., Buenstorf, G., & Hummel, H. (2009). University patenting in Germany before and after 2002: What role did the professors’ privilege play? Jena Economic Research Papers no. 2009-068.

  • Wright, M., & Filatotchev, I. (2008). Stimulating academic entrepreneurship and technology transfer: A case study of Kings College London commercialization strategies. In R. P. O’Shea & T. J. Allen (Eds.), Building technology transfer in research universities: An entrepreneurial approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, M., Lockett, A., Clarysse, B., & Binks, M. (2006). University spin-out companies and venture capital. Research Policy, 35(4), 481–501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Financial support by the EC project 217299 InnoS&T and the EIBURS programme of the European Investment Bank (“Financing Knowledge Transfer in Europe”—FiNKT project) is gratefully acknowledged.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Management, Università degli Studi di Bologna, Via Capo di Lucca 34, 40123, Bologna, Italy

    Anna Kochenkova, Rosa Grimaldi & Federico Munari

Authors
  1. Anna Kochenkova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rosa Grimaldi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Federico Munari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anna Kochenkova.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kochenkova, A., Grimaldi, R. & Munari, F. Public policy measures in support of knowledge transfer activities: a review of academic literature. J Technol Transf 41, 407–429 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-015-9416-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-015-9416-9

Keywords

JEL Classification

Search

Navigation