Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Impact of public seed-funding on academic spin-offs

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

Abstract

In the entrepreneurial economy of today, it is not the multinational firms which are the predominant driver in the creation of new knowledge, but the individual entrepreneur. Correspondingly, new ventures of small size are leading in commercializing new knowledge and transferring it to the market. This economic shift has been reflected by broad entrepreneurship policies, which aim at supporting the individual on the challenge of a high-growth start-up. However, prior experience shows that uniform entrepreneurship policies do not address the individual needs in different countries and ecosystems adequately. In this paper, we study the performance of academic spin-offs that received public funding from the German EXIST Business Start-Up Grant, a support program which aims at increasing the number of innovative start-ups from academia. Using a control group matching approach, we provide evidence that these start-ups are smaller by two full time equivalent employees, generate 1.7 times higher losses and have a nearly three times lower return on capital than science-based entrepreneurial firms with comparable characteristics in the first 5 years after foundation. We interpret these results to be primarily caused by the inferior financial contracting structure of the program compared to private venture capital funding and by the resulting adverse selection and incentive effects on the entrepreneurs. The evidence calls for rethinking public interventions in a national system of entrepreneurship.

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. The risk capital variable captures informal investment in start-ups and institutional venture capital. The process innovation component measures the use of new technologies by start-ups combined with the Gross Domestic Expenditure on Research and Development. The third variable reflects the perception of start-up skills in society and combines it with the level of human capital available for entrepreneurial endeavors.

  2. In Germany, the survival rate of start-ups after 6 years is below 60 % on average (acc. to Mannheim Enterprise Panel, see Bersch et al. 2014).

  3. On average, EXIST-firms are founded by 2.62 persons. Only 2 % of the firms are founded by one scholar.

  4. A firm is defined as innovative if it conducts R&D or introduced a new product or process. Government-funded are those firms which received financial support by a governmental institution (employment office, federal states, councils, KfW, EU, and others.) Both variables come from the Mannheim Start-up Panel.

  5. Further restriction criteria for all model variants in the following are: team start-up, incorporation (GmbH or GmbH and Co. KG) and at least one founder with university degree as described in Sect. 5.

  6. The observed absolute failure rate of nearly 4 % is rather low but similar to other findings (Djokovic and Souitaris 2008).

  7. See the definition in the corresponding notes of Table 2.

  8. The first goal of EXIST is the enduring establishment of an entrepreneurial culture in teaching, research and administration at universities (Kulicke 2014).

  9. Statistics are taken from the European Private Equity and Venture Capital Association.

  10. Even when matching EXIST-firms with similar control group firms, EXIST-firms’ probability of receiving VC is significantly higher.

References

  • Achleitner, A.-K., Engel, N., & Reiner, U. (2013). The performance of venture capital investments: Do investors overreact? Review of Financial Economics, 22(1), 20–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ács, Z. J., Autio, N., & Szerb, L. (2014). National Systems of Entrepreneurship: Measurement issues and policy implications. Research Policy, 43, 476–494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aguinis, H., & Edwards, J. R. (2014). Methodological wishes for the next decade and how to make wishes come true. Journal of Management Studies, 51(1), 143–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Akerlof, G. A. (1970). The market for “lemons”: Quality uncertainty and the market mechanism. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 84(3), 488–500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alperovych, Y., Huebner, G., & Lobet, F. (2015). How does governmental versus private venture capital backing affect a firm’s efficiency? Evidence from Belgium. Journal of Business Venturing, 30(4), 508–525.

  • Armour, J., & Cumming, D. J. (2006). The Legislative Road to Silicon Valley. Oxford Economic Papers, 58, 596–635.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arrow, K. J. (1962). Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for invention. In The rate and direction of inventive activity: Economic and social factors (pp. 609–626). National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.

  • Arrow, K. J. (1963). Uncertainty and the Welfare Economics of Medical Care. American Economic Review, 53(5), 941–973.

    Google Scholar 

  • Astebro, T., Bazzazian, N., & Braguinsky, S. (2012). Startups by recent university graduates and their faculty: Implications for university entrepreneurship policy. Research Policy, 41(4), 663–677.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bascha, A., & Walz, U. (2006). Financing practices in the German venture capital industry: An empirical assessment. In G. N. Gregoriou, M. Kooli, & R. Kraeussl (Eds.), Venture capital in Europe. Quantitative finance series. Elsevier Professional.

  • Baum, J. A. C., & Silverman, B. S. (2004). Picking winners or building them? Alliance, intellectual, and human capital as selection criteria in venture financing and performance of biotechnology startups. Evolutionary approaches to entrepreneurship: Honoring Howard Aldrich, 19(3), 411–436.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker, G. (1983). A theory of competition among pressure groups for political influence. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 98, 371–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bersch, J., Gottschalk, S., Mueller, B., & Niefert, N. (2014). The Mannheim Enterprise Panel (MUP) and Firm Statistics for Germany. ZEW Discussion paper no. 14-104, Mannheim.

  • Bertoni, F., Colombo, M., & Quas, A. (2015). The patterns of venture capital investment in Europe. Small Business Economics, 45(3), 543–560.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonardo, D., Paleari, S., & Vismara, S. (2011). Valuing university-based firms: The effects of academic affiliation on IPO performance. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(4), 755–776.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braennback, M., Carsrud, A. L., & Kiviluoto, N. (2014). Understanding the myth of high growth firms. The theory of the greater fool. SpringerBriefs in Business. New York, NY: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brander, J. A., Du, Q., & Hellmann, T. (2015). The effects of government-sponsored venture capital. International evidence. Review of Finance, 19(2), 571–618.

  • Clarysse, B., Tartari, V., & Salter, A. (2011). The impact of entrepreneurial capacity, experience and organizational support on academic entrepreneurship. Special issue: 30 years after Bayh–Dole: Reassessing academic entrepreneurship. Research Policy, 40(8), 1084–1093.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colombo, M. G., & Grilli, L. (2010). On growth drivers of high-tech start-ups: Exploring the role of founders’ human capital and venture capital. Journal of Business Venturing, 25(6), 610–626.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Criaco, G., Minola, T., Migliorini, P., & Serarols-Tarre´s, C. (2013). ‘‘To have and have not’’: Founders’ human capital and university start-up survival. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 39(4), 567–593.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cumming, D. J. (2003). The structure, governance and performance of UK venture capital trusts. Journal of Corporate Law Studies, 3(2), 191–217.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cumming, D. J. (2007). Government policy towards entrepreneurial finance: Innovation investment funds. Journal of Business Venturing, 22, 193–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cumming, D. J., Grilli, L., & Murtinu, S. (2014). Governmental and independent venture capital investments in Europe: A firm-level performance analysis. Journal of Corporate Finance. doi:10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2014.10.016.

  • Cumming, D. J., & Johan, S. (2009). Pre-seed government venture capital funds. Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 7, 26–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cumming, D., & Johan, S. (2014). Venture’s economic impact in Australia. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 41(1), 25–59.

  • Cumming, D. J., & Li, D. (2013). Public policy, entrepreneurship, and venture capital in the United States. Journal of Corprorate Finance, 23, 345–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cumming, D. J., & MacIntosh, J. G. (2003). Comparative venture capital governance: Private versus labour sponsored venture capital funds. CESifo working paper 853.

  • Cumming, D. J., & MacIntosh, J. G. (2006). Crowding out private equity: Canadian evidence. Journal of Business Venturing, 21, 569–609.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cumming, D. J., & MacIntosh, J. G. (2007). Mutual funds that invest in private equity? An analysis of labour-sponsored investment funds. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 31, 445–487.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Czarnitzki, D., Rammer, C., & Toole, A. (2014). University spin-offs and the “performance premium”. Small Business Economics, 43(2), 309–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Da Rin, M., Nicodano, G., & Sembenelli, A. (2006). Public policy and the creation of active venture capital markets. Journal of Public Economics, 90, 1699–1723.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dahlstrand, Asa L. (1997). Growth and inventiveness in technology-based spin-off firms. Research Policy, 26(3), 331–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davila, A., Foster, G., & Gupta, M. (2003). Venture capital financing and the growth of startup firms. Journal of Business Venturing, 18, 689–708.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Cleyn, S. H., & Braet, J. (2009). The influence of government subsidies and risk capital on survival of university spin-offs: Findings from 16 early stage case studies. World Review of Entrepreneurship, Management and Sustainable Development, 5(4), 376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Del-Palacio, I., Zhang, X., & Sole, F. (2012). The capital gap for small technology companies: Public venture capital to the rescue? Small Business Economics, 38(3), 283–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dickel, P., Rasmus, A., Auer, M., & Walter, A. (2009). Effective learning within entrepreneurial networks. In A. Walter & M. Auer (Eds.), Academic Entrepreneurship: Unternehmertum in der Forschung (pp. 95–118). Wiesbaden: Gabler.

  • Djokovic, D., & Souitaris, V. (2008). Spinouts from academic institutions: A literature review with suggestions for further research. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 33(3), 225–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ebersberger, B. (2011). Public funding for innovation and the exit of firms. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 21(3), 519–543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Egeln, J., Dinges, M., Knie, A., Simon, D., Braun-Thuermann, H., Fryges, H., Gassler, H., Gottschalk, S., Hilbrich, R., Hoewer, D., Mueller, K., Rammer, C., Schmidmayer, J., & Steyer, F. (2010). Evaluation des Existenzgruendungsprogramms EXIST III. ZEW Wirtschaftsanalysen 95, Baden-Baden.

  • Egeln, J., Fryges, H., Gottschalk, S., & Rammer, C. (2009). Performance von akademischen Spinoff-Gründungen in Österreich. AStA Wirtschafts- und Sozialstatistisches Archiv, 3(4), 265–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Egeln, J., Gottschalk, S., Rammer, C., & Spielkamp, A. (2003). Spinoff-Gründungen aus der öffentlichen Forschung in Deutschland (Vol. 68). Baden-Baden: Nomos-Verlag.

  • Elitzur, R., & Gavious, A. (2003). Contracting, signaling, and moral hazard: A model of entrepreneurs, ‘angels’, and venture capitalists. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(6), 709–725.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ensley, M. D., & Hmieleski, K. M. (2005). A comparative study of new venture top management team composition, dynamics and performance between university-based and independent start-ups. The Creation of Spin-off Firms at Public Research Institutions: Managerial and Policy Implications, 34(7), 1091–1105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Epure, M., Prior, D., & Serarols, C. (2014). Assessing technology-based spin-offs from university support units. Regional Studies, 50(3), 411–428.

  • Fryges, H., Gottschalk, S., & Kohn, K. (2010). The KfW/ZEW Start-up Panel: Design and Research Potential. Schmollers Jahrbuch, 130(1), 117–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fryges, H., Gottschalk, S., Licht, G., & Müller, K. (2007). Hightech-Gründungen und Business Angel. Report BMWi, ZEW, Mannheim.

  • Gompers, P., & Lerner, J. (2004). Venture capital cycle (2nd ed.). Cambridge: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grichnik, D., & Schwaerzel, F. (2005). Chancen und Risiken der Gründungsfinanzierung aus informations-ökonomischer Sicht. In Christoph J. Boerner & D. Grichnik (Eds.), Entrepreneurial finance. Kompendium der Gruendungs- und Wachstumsfinanzierung. Heidelberg: Physica.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grilli, L., & Murtinu, S. (2014). Government, venture capital and the growth of European high-tech entrepreneurial firms. Reserach Policy, 43, 1523–1543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guston, D. H. (1999). Stabilizing the boundary between US politics and science: The role of the office of technology transfer as a boundary organization. Social Studies of Science, 29(1), 87–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hainmueller, J. (2012). Entropy balancing for causal effects: A multivariate reweighting method to produce balanced samples in observational studies. Political Analysis, 20(1), 25–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harmon, B., Ardishvili, A., Cardozo, R., Elder, T., Leuthold, J., Parshall, J., et al. (1997). Mapping the university technology transfer process. Journal of Business Venturing, 12(6), 423–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heger, D., Fier, A., & Murray, G. (2005). Review essay: Regional venture capital policy: UK and Germany compared. Venture Capital, 7(4), 373–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heirman, A., & Clarysse, B. (2004). How and why do research-based start-ups differ at founding? A resource-based configurational perspective. Journal of Technology Transfer, 29(3), 247–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henrekson, M., & Rosenberg, N. (2001). Designing efficient institutions for science-based entrepreneurship: Lessons from the US and Sweden. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(3), 207–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hood, N. (2000). Public venture capital and economic development: The Scottish experience. Venture Capital, 2(4), 313–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hubbard, R. Glenn (1997). Capital-market imperfections and investment. National Bureau of Economic Research (Working paper series, 5996).

  • Jensen, R. A., Thursby, J. G., & Thursby, M. C. (2003). Disclosure and licensing of university inventions: ‘The best we can do with the s∗∗t we get to work with’. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 21(9), 1271–1300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, S. N., & Stromberg, P. (2003). Financial contracting theory meets the real world: An empirical analysis of venture capital contracts. Rev Econ Studies, 70(2), 281–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klofsten, M., & Dylan, J.-E. (2000). Comparing academic entrepreneurship in Europe—The case of Sweden and Ireland. Small Business Economics, 14(4), 299–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kulicke, M. (2013). Ergebnisse und Wirkungen des Förderprogramms EXIST-Gründerstipendium—Studie zu Realisierungs- und Überlebensquoten, zu Gründen für die Aufgabe von Gründungsvorhaben und zur ökonomischen Entwicklung der Neugründungen. Bericht der wissenschaftlichen Begleitforschung zu “EXIST—Existenzgründungen aus der Wissenschaft”.

  • Kulicke, M. (2014). 15 Jahre EXIST “Existenzgründungen aus der Wissenschaft”. Entwicklung des Förderprogramms von 1998 bis 2013. Karlsruhe: Fraunhofer ISI.

  • Leleux, B., & Surlemont, B. (2003). Public versus private venture capital: Seeding or crowding out? A pan-European analysis. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(1), 81–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lerner, J. (1999). The government as venture capitalist: The long-run impact of the SBIR program. Journal of Business, 72(3), 285–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lerner, J., Schoar, A., & Wongsunwai, W. (2007). Smart institutions, foolish choices: The limited partner performance puzzle. Journal of Finance, 62(2), 731–764.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lerner, J., & Watson, B. (2008). The public venture capital challenge: The Australian case. Venture Capital, 10(1), 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, M. (2013). Using the propensity score method to estimate causal effects—A review and practical guide. Organizational Research Methods, 16(2), 188–226.

    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(2), 265–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lundvall, B.-A. (1999). National business systems and national systems of innovation. International Studies of Management and Organization, 29, 60–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manigart, S., Baeyens, K., & Van Hyfte, W. (2002). The survival of venture capital backed companies. Venture Capital, 4(2), 103–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maula, M., Murray, G., & Jääskeläinen, M. (2007). Public financing of young innovative companies in Finland. Helsinki: Ministry of Trade and Industry, Edita Publishing [distrib.] (MTI publications, 3/2007).

  • Mustar, P. (1997). Spin-off enterprises—how French academics create hi-tech companies: The conditions for success or failure. Science and Public Policy, 24(1), 37–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mustar, P., Wright, M., & Clarysse, B. (2008). University spin-off firms: Lessons from ten years of experience in Europe. Science and Public Policy, 35(2), 67–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Myers, S. C. (1977). Determinants of corporate borrowing. Journal of Financial Economics, 5(2), 147–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, R. R. (1959). The economics of invention: A survey of the literature. The Journal of Business, 32(2), 101–127.

  • Olivares, M., & Wetzel, H. (2014). Competing in the higher education market: Empirical evidence for economies of scale and scope in German higher education institutions. CESifo Economic Studies, 60(4), 653–680.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ortín-Ángel, P., & Vendrell-Herrero, F. (2010). Why do university spin-offs attract more venture capitalists? Venture Capital, 12(4), 285–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ortín-Ángel, P., & Vendrell-Herrero, F. (2014). University spin-offs vs. other NTBFs: Total factor productivity differences at outset and evolution. Technovation, 34(2), 101–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patzelt, H., zu Knyphausen-Aufseß, D., & Habib, Y. (2009). Portfolio strategies of life science venture capital firms in North America and Europe. Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship, 22(2), 87–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenbaum, P. R., & Rubin, D. B. (1983). The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika, 70(1), 41–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rothaermel, F. T., & Thursby, M. (2005). University-incubator firm knowledge flows: Assessing their impact on incubator firm performance. Research Policy, 34(3), 305–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rubin, D. B. (1977). Assignment to treatment group on the basis of a covariate. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 2, 1–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Samila, S., & Sorenson, O. (2011). Venture capital, entrepreneurship and economic growth. Review of Economics Statistics, 93(1), 338–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schumpeter, J. A. (1980). Kapitalismus, Sozialismus und Demokratie (Vol. 5). Munich: Francke.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shane, S. (2004). Academic entrepreneurship. University spinoffs and wealth creation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. New horizons in entrepreneurship.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shane, S. (2009). Why encouraging more people to become entrepreneurs is bad public policy. Small Business Economics, 33, 141–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shane, S., & Stuart, T. (2002). Organizational endowments and the performance of university start-ups. Management Science, 48(1), 154–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shepherd, D. A., & Zacharakis, A. (2001). The venture capitalist-entrepreneur relationship: Control, trust and confidence in co-operative behaviour. Venture Capital, 3(2), 129–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Streletzki, J.-G. (2013). Linking prefunding venture structure and venture capital exit performance. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Venturing, 5(4), 345–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sunley, P., Klagge, B., Brendt, C., & Ron, M. (2005). Venture capital programmes in the UK and Germany: In what sense regional policies? Regional Studies, 39(2), 255–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suvinen, N., Konttinen, J., & Nieminen, M. (2010). How necessary are intermediary organizations in the commercialization of research? European Planning Studies, 18(9), 1365–1389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Szerb, L., Acs, Z. J., & Autio, E. (2013). Entrepreneurship and policy: The national system of entrepreneurship in the European Union and in its member countries. Entrepreneurship Research Journal, 3(1), 9–34.

  • Toole, A., & Czarnitzki, D. (2007). Biomedical academic entrepreneurship through the SBIR program. Journal of Economic Behavior & and Organization, 63(4), 716–738.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toole, A., & Czarnitzki, D. (2009). Exploring the relationship between scientist human capital and firm performance: The case of biomedical academic entrepreneurs in the SBIR program. Management Science, 55(1), 101–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toole, A., & Turvey, C. (2009). How does initial public financing influence private incentives for follow-on investment in early-stage technologies? Journal of Technology Transfer, 34(1), 43–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Visintin, F., & Pittino, D. (2014). Founding team composition and early performance of university-based spin-off companies. Technovation, 34(1), 31–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wennberg, K., Wiklund, J., & Wright, M. (2011). The effectiveness of university knowledge spillovers: Performance differences between university spinoffs and corporate spinoffs. Special issue: 30 years after Bayh–Dole: Reassessing academic entrepreneurship. Research Policy, 40(8), 1128–1143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Witt, P., & Hack, A. (2008). Staatliche Gründungsfinanzierung: Stand der Forschung und offene Fragen. Journal für Betriebswirtschaft, 58(2), 55–79.

    Article  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 

  • Zhang, J. (2009). The performance of university spin-offs: An exploratory analysis using venture capital data. Journal of Technology Transfer, 34(3), 255–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Maastricht Centre for Entrepreneurship, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands

    Mark R. Ayoub

  2. Department of Industrial Economics and International Management, Centre for European Economic Research, Mannheim, Germany

    Sandra Gottschalk & Bettina Müller

Authors
  1. Mark R. Ayoub
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sandra Gottschalk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Bettina Müller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mark R. Ayoub.

Appendix

Appendix

See Tables 4 and 5.

Table 4 Composition of industry sectors covered by the Mannheim Start-up Panel
Full size table
Table 5 Control variables and comparison of treated and control group before and after rebalancing based on model I
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ayoub, M.R., Gottschalk, S. & Müller, B. Impact of public seed-funding on academic spin-offs. J Technol Transf 42, 1100–1124 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-016-9476-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-016-9476-5

Keywords

JEL Classification

Search

Navigation