The Journal of Technology Transfer

, Volume 35, Issue 1, pp 1–15 | Cite as

Dynamics of Science-based entrepreneurship

  • Massimo Colombo
  • Philippe Mustar
  • Mike WrightEmail author


This article introduces the rationale for the special issue, summarizes the main themes covered by the papers presented and suggests areas for further research. Previous research has focused on the creation of Science-based entrepreneurial firms (SBEFs) but there is little research relating to their growth and the challenges in ensuring growth occurs. At the macro-level, there is a need to distinguish general versus specific policies and how these vary between different institutional environments. At the firm level, there is a need to consider the factors influencing the development of boards, the growth of SBEFs and their dynamics in terms of acquisitions and IPOs.


Science-based entrepreneurial firms Universities Technology transfer Technology policy 

JEL Classification

N13 O31 


  1. Alemany, L., & Marti, J. (2005). Unbiased estimation of economic impact of venture capital backed firms. Working paper.Google Scholar
  2. Audretsch, D., & Lehmann, E. (2004). Financing high tech growth: The role of banks and venture capitalists. Schmalenbach Economic Review, 56, 340–357.Google Scholar
  3. Bertoni, F., Colombo, M. G., & Grilli, L. (2008). Venture capital financing and the growth of new technology based firms. Working paper, Politecnico di Milano, Department of Management, Economics and Industrial Engineering.Google Scholar
  4. Bjørnåli, E., & Gulbrandsen, M. (2009). Exploring board formation and evolution of board composition in academic spin-offs. The Journal of Technology Transfer, this issue.Google Scholar
  5. Bonardo, D., Paleari, S., & Vismara, S. (2009). The M&A dynamics of European science based entrepreneurial firms. The Journal of Technology Transfer, this issue.Google Scholar
  6. Bottazzi, L., & Da Rin, M. (2002). Venture capital in Europe and the financing of innovative companies. Economic Policy, 17, 229–269. doi: 10.1111/1468-0327.00088.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bottazzi, L., Da Rin, M., & Hellmann, T. (2008). Who are the active investors? Evidence from venture capital. Journal of Financial Economics, forthcoming.Google Scholar
  8. Burgel, O., Fier, A., Licht, G., & Murray, G. (2000). Internationalisation of high tech start-ups and fast growth: Evidence from Germany and UK, DP 00-35. Mannheim: Centre for European Economic Research.Google Scholar
  9. Carpenter, R. E., & Petersen, B. C. (2002). Capital market imperfections, high-tech investment, and new equity financing. The Economic Journal, 112, F54–F72. doi: 10.1111/1468-0297.00683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cassiman, B., Colombo, M. G., Garrone, P., & Veugelers, R. (2005). The impact of M&A on the R&D process an empirical analysis of the role of technological and market-relatedness. Research Policy, 34(2), 195–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Clarysse, B., & Mosey, S. (2008). Technology management education: A view from Europe. Working paper, UNIEI/Imperial College.Google Scholar
  12. Clarysse, B., Wright, M., Lockett, A., & Mustar, P. (2007). Academic spin-offs, formal technology transfer and capital raising. Industrial and Corporate Change, forthcoming.Google Scholar
  13. Clarysse, B., Wright, M., Lockett, A., van de Velde, E., & Vohora, A. (2005). Spinning out new ventures: A typology of incubation strategies from European research institutions. Journal of Business Venturing, 20(2), 183–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Colombo, M., D’Adda, D., & Piva, E. (2009). The contribution of university research to the growth of academic start-ups: An empirical analysis. Journal of Technology Transfer, this issue.Google Scholar
  15. Colombo, M., & Grilli, L. (2005). ‘Founders’ human capital and the growth of new technology-based firms: A competence-based view. Research Policy, 34, 795–816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Colombo, M., & Grilli, L. (2008). On growth drivers of high tech start-ups: Exploring the role of founders’ human capital and venture capital. Journal of Business Venturing, forthcoming.Google Scholar
  17. Colombo, M. G., Grilli, L., & Santangeli, S. (2008). A longitudinal analysis of public financing and the growth of new technology-based firms: Do firms’ age and applicants’ evaluation methods matter? Working paper, Politecnico di Milano, Department of Management, Economics and Industrial Engineering.Google Scholar
  18. Colombo, M. G., & Piva, E. (2008). Firms’ genetic characteristics, competence enlarging strategies, and performance: A comparison of academic and non-academic start-ups. Working paper, Politecnico di Milano, Department of Management, Economics and Industrial Engineering.Google Scholar
  19. Cooper, A. C., & Bruno, A. V. (1977). Success among high-technology firms. Business Horizons, 20, 16–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Cosh, A., & Hughes, A. (2009). Never mind the quality feel the width: University-industry links and government financial support for innovation in small high-technology businesses in the UK and the USA. Journal of Technology Transfer, this issue.Google Scholar
  21. Cumming, D. J., & MacIntosh, J. G. (2003). A cross-country comparison of full and partial venture capital exits. Journal of Banking & Finance, 27, 511–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Cumming, D. J., & MacIntosh, J. G. (2006). Crowding out private equity: Canadian evidence. Journal of Business Venturing, 21, 569–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Davila, A., Foster, G., & Gupta, M. (2003). Venture capital financing and the growth of start-up firms. Journal of Business venturing, 18, 689–708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Denis, D. J. (2004). Entrepreneurial finance: An overview of the issues and evidence. Journal of Corporate Finance, 10, 301–326. doi: 10.1016/S0929-1199(03)00059-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Eisenhardt, K. M., & Schoonhoven, C. B. (1990). Organizational growth: Linking founding team, strategy, environment and growth among U.S. semiconductor ventures, 1978–1988. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 504–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Engel, D., & Keilbach, M. (2007). Firm level implications of early stage venture capital investment: An empirical investigation. Journal of Empirical Finance, 14, 150–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ernst, H., & Vitt, J. (2000). The influence of corporate acquisitions on the behavior of key inventors. R&D Management, 30(2), 105–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Etzkowitz, H., Webster, A., Gebhardt, C., Cantisano, T., & Branca, 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Filatotchev, I., Toms, S., & Wright, M. (2006). The firm’s strategic dynamics and corporate governance life-cycle. International Journal of Managerial Finance, 2(4), 256–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Filatotchev, I., & Wright, M. (2005). The life-cycle of corporate governance. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  31. Franklin, A., Wright, M., & Lockett, A. (2001). Academic and surrogate entrepreneurs in university spin-outs. Journal of Technology Transfer, 26, 127–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Griliches, Z. (1992). The search of R&D spillovers. Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 94, S29–S47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Grossetti, M., & Bès, M.-P. (2001). Encastrements et découplage dans les relations science-industrie. Revue Française de Sociologie, 42, 327–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hagedoorn, J., & Duysters, G. (2002). External sources of innovative capabilities: The preference for strategic alliances or mergers and acquisitions. Journal of Management Studies, 39(2), 167–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hellmann, T., & Puri, M. (2000). The interaction between product market and financing strategy: The role of venture capital. Review of Financial Studies, 13, 959–984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Holtz-Eakin, D. (2000). Public policy toward entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 15, 283–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Jain, B., & Kini, O. (1995). Venture capitalists’ participation and the post-issue operating performance of IPO firms. Managerial and Decision Economics, 6, 593–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kapoor, R., & Lim, K. (2007). The impact of acquisitions on the productivity of inventors at semiconductor firms: A synthesis of knowledge-based and incentive-based perspectives. Academy of Management Journal, 50(5), 1133–1155.Google Scholar
  39. Lach, S. (2002). Do R&D subsidies stimulate or displace private R&D? Evidence from Israel. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 50(4), 369–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lerner, J. (1999). The government as venture capitalist: The long-run impact of the SBIR Program. Journal of Business, 72, 285–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lerner, J. (2002). When bureaucrats meet entrepreneurs: The design of effective ‘public venture capital’ programmes. Economic Journal, 112, F73–F84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lynall, M., Golden, B., & Hillman, A. (2003). Board composition from adolescence to maturity: A multi-theoretic view. Academy of Management Review, 28(3), 416–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Manigart, S., & van Hyfte, M. (1999). Post investment evolution of VC backed companies. In P. Reynolds, et al. (Eds.), Frontiers of entrepreneurship research. Wellesley, MA: Babson College.Google Scholar
  44. Mosey, S., & Wright, M. (2007). From human capital to social capital: A longitudinal study of technology-based academic entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31, 909–936.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Mowery, D. C. (2001). The United States national innovation system after the cold war. In P. Larédo & P. Mustar (Eds.), Research and innovation policies in the new global economy. An international comparative analysis (pp.15–46). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  46. Mowery, D. C., & Sampat, B. (2005). Universities in national innovation systems. In J. Fagerberg, D. C. Mowery, & R. R. Nelson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Murray, G. (1994). The second equity gap: Exit problems for seed and early stage venture capitalists and their investee companies. International Small Business Journal, 12, 59–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Mustar, P. (1997). How French academics create high tech companies: Conditions of success and failure of this form of relation between science and market. Science and Public Policy, 24, 37–43.Google Scholar
  49. Mustar, P. (1998). Partnerships, configurations and dynamics in the creation and development of SMEs by researchers. Industry and Higher Education, 12(4), 217–221.Google Scholar
  50. Mustar, P. (2001). Spin-offs from public research: Trends and outlook. STI Review, 26, 165–172.Google Scholar
  51. Mustar, P., Renault, M., Colombo, M. G., Piva, E., Fontes, M., Lockett, A., et al. (2006). Conceptualising the heterogeneity of research-based spin-offs: A multi-dimensional taxonomy. Research Policy, 35(2), 289–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Mustar, P., & Wright, M. (2009). 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, this issue.Google Scholar
  53. Nelson, R. R. (1959). The simple economics of basic scientific research. Journal of Political Economy, 67, 297–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Paruchuri, S., Nerkar, A., & Hambrick, D. (2006). Acquisition integration and productivity losses in the technical core: Disruption of inventors in acquired companies. Organization Science, 17(5), 545–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Pestre, D. (2000). The production of knowledge between academies and markets: A historical reading of the book “The New Production of Knowledge”. Science, Technology & Society, 5, 169–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  57. Puranam, P., Singh, H., & Chaudhuri, S. (2008). Integrating acquired capabilities: When structural integration is (un)necessary. Organization Science, forthcoming.Google Scholar
  58. Puranam, P., Singh, H., & Zollo, M. (2006). Organizing for innovation: Managing the coordination-autonomy dilemma in technology acquisitions. Academy of Management Journal, 49(2), 263–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Puranam, P., & Srikanth, K. (2007). What they know vs. what they do: How acquirers leverage technology acquisitions. Strategic Management Journal, 28(8), 805–825.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Rothermael, F. T., Agung, S., & Jian, L. (2007). University entrepreneurship: A taxonomy of the literature. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16(4), 691–791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Santarelli, E., & Vivarelli, M. (2002). Is subsidizing entry an optimal policy? Industrial and Corporate Change, 11, 39–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Schneider, C., & Veugelers, R. (2008). On young innovative companies: Why they matter and how (not) to policy support them. Working paper, KU Leuven.Google Scholar
  63. Shinn, T. (2002). Nouvelle production du savoir et triple hélice: Tendances du prêt-à-penser les sciences. Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales, 141–142, 21–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Shrader, R., & Siegel, D. S. (2007). Assessing the relationship between human capital and firm performance: Evidence from technology-based new ventures. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31, 893–908.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Siegel, D., Veugelers, R., & Wright, M. (2007). Technology transfer offices and commercialization of university intellectual property: Performance and policy implications. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 23(4), 640–660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Takalo, T., & Tanayama, T. (2009). Adverse selection and financing of innovation: Is there need for R&D subsidies? Journal of Technology Transfer, this issue.Google Scholar
  67. Teece, D. (1986). Profiting from technological innovations: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy. Research Policy, 15, 285–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Ucbasaran, D., Westhead, P., & Wright, M. (2005, December). The identification and pursuit of opportunities by experienced entrepreneurs. Paper presented at Max Planck Institute Conference, Jena.Google Scholar
  69. Ucbasaran, D., Westheadand, P., & Wright, M. (2009). The extent and nature of opportunity identification by experienced entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing, forthcoming.Google Scholar
  70. Uhlaner, L., Wright, M., & Huse, M. (2007). Private firms and corporate governance: An integrated economic and management perspective. Small Business Economics, 29, 225–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Vanaelst, I., Clarysse, B., Wright, M., & Lockett, A. (2006). Entrepreneurial team development in academic spinouts: An examination of team heterogeneity. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30, 249–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Van de Velde, E., Clarysse, B., & Wright, M. (2008). Entrepreneurial origin, technology endowments and the growth of spin-off companies. CMBOR Working paper.Google Scholar
  73. Vohora, A., Wright, M., & Lockett, A. (2004). Critical junctures in the development of university high-tech spinout companies. Research Policy, 33, 147–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Westhead, P., Ucbasaran, D., Wright, M., & Binks, M. (2005). Policy toward novice, serial and portfolio entrepreneurs. Small Business Economics, 25, 109–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Westhead, P., & Wright, M. (1998). Novice, portfolio and serial founders: Are they different? Journal of Business Venturing, 13, 173–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Wright, M., Birley, S., & Mosey, S. (2004a). Entrepreneurship and university technology transfer. Journal of Technology Transfer, 29(3/4), 235–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Wright, M., Clarysse, B., Lockett, A., & Knockaert, M. (2008a). Mid-range universities in Europe linkages with industry: Knowledge types and the role of intermediaries. Research Policy, 37, 1205–1223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Wright, M., Clarysse, B., Mustar, P., & Lockett, A. (2007). Academic entrepreneurship in Europe. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  79. Wright, M., Lockett, A., Clarysse, B., & Binks, M. (2006). University spin-out companies and venture capital. Research Policy, 35(4), 481–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Wright, M., Piva, E., Mosey, S., & Lockett, A. (2008b). Academic entrepreneurship, knowledge gaps and the role of business schools, mimeo, University of Nottingham.Google Scholar
  81. Wright, M., Vohora, A., & Lockett, A. (2004b). The formation of high-tech university spin-outs: The role of joint ventures and venture capital investors. Journal of Technology Transfer, 29(3/4), 287–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Zahra, S., Filatotchev, I., & Wright, M. (2009). How do threshold firms sustain corporate entrepreneurship? The role of boards of directors and knowledge. Journal of Business Venturing, forthcoming.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Massimo Colombo
    • 1
  • Philippe Mustar
    • 2
  • Mike Wright
    • 3
    • 4
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Management, Economics and EngineeringPolitecnico di MilanoMilanItaly
  2. 2.Centre de Sociologie de l’InnovationEcole Nationale Supérieure des Mines de ParisParisFrance
  3. 3.Centre for Management Buy-Out ResearchNottingham University Business SchoolNottinghamUK
  4. 4.Erasmus UniversityRotterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations