The Journal of Technology Transfer

, Volume 38, Issue 4, pp 382–400 | Cite as

Technology transfer offices and academic spin-off creation: the case of Italy

  • Bernardina Algieri
  • Antonio Aquino
  • Marianna Succurro


Over the past decades, university-industry relationships have become an important subject due to the essential role played by technological progress in the economic development of countries. From a theoretical point of view, several studies have shown the close relationship between investments in research and innovative activities of universities and the economic growth of specific territories. Indeed, the strong linkages between universities and a country’s production system encourage the process of technology transfer and the commercial use of the research results. For this reason, the European Union has implemented a series of measures to promote the adoption of research findings in the real economic and social context, strengthening the linkages between universities, industries and government. As a starting point for enhancing this link, specific mechanisms have been devised by universities. In particular, technology transfer offices (TTOs) have been created to stimulate and encourage the dissemination of the research outcomes, translate them into practise, and facilitate their interrelations with the other two agents of the innovation systems: industries and government. Within this context, the present paper aims to gain knowledge on the determinants of spin-off creation in Italy with special attention to the role played by university TTOs. Specifically, an econometric probability model has been built merging the extant literature into four distinct strands. The analysis, based on the NetVal indicators and primary data survey, has allowed us to assess the Italian experience at an aggregate and disaggregate level.


Technology transfer Spin-offs Academic entrepreneurship 

JEL classification

C01 O30 O31 O32 



We are grateful to the comments and suggestions offered by the Editor-in-Chief of this Journal Al Link and two anonymous referees. We would like to thank the participants at the European Network on Industrial Policy (EUNIP) Conference (“Evaluating Innovation Policy: Methods and Applications”), held in Florence, Italy, 5–6 May, 2011 for their helpful comments on an earlier draft of this paper. Financial support from the Region of Calabria (Scientific Research Program CALCOM on “Regional Competitiveness and Innovation”) is grateful acknowledged.


  1. Acs, Z. J., Audretsch, D. B., & Feldman, M. P. (1992). Real effects of academic research: Comment. American Economic Review, 82, 363–367.Google Scholar
  2. Acs, Z. J., Audretsch, D. B., & Feldman, M. P. (1994). R&D spillovers and innovative activity. Managerial and Decision Economics, 15, 131–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arrow, K. (1962). Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for invention. In R. Nelson (Ed.), The rate and direction of inventive activity. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Audretsch, D. B., & Lehmann, E. E. (2005). Does the knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship hold for regions? Research Policy, 34(8), 1191–1202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bahrami, H., & Evans, S. (1995). Flexible re-cycling and high technology entrepreneurship. California Management Review, 37, 62–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Balderi, C., Conti, G., Granieri, M., & Piccaluga, A. (2010). Eppur di muove! Il percorso delle università italiane nelle attività di brevettazione e licensing dei risultati delle ricerca scientifica. Economia dei Servizi, 5(2), 203–234.Google Scholar
  7. Branscomb, L. M., Kodama, F., & Richard, F. (1999). Industrializing knowledge: University-industry linkages in Japan and the United States. London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  8. Carlsson, B., & Fridh, A. C. (2002). Technology transfer in United States universities: A survey and statistical analysis. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 12, 199–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cohen, W. M., Florida, R., Randazzese, L., & Walsh, J. (1998). Industry and the academy: Uneasy partners in the cause of technological advance. In R. G. Noll (Ed.), Challenges to research universities (pp. 171–200). Washington: The Brookings Institution. ch 7.Google Scholar
  10. Colombo, M. G., D’Adda, D., & Piva, E. (2010). The contribution of university research to the growth of academic start-ups: An empirical analysis. Journal of Technology Transfer, 35, 113–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Council On Governmental Relations (COGR). (2000). Technology transfer in US research universities: Dispelling common myths. Washington DC: COGR Publications.
  12. Deeds, D. L., De Carolis, D., & Coombs, J. E. (1998). Firm-specific resources and wealth creation in high technology venture performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 9, 331–349.Google Scholar
  13. Di Gregorio, D., & Shane, S. (2003). Why do some universities generate more start-ups than others? Research Policy, 32, 209–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Etzcowitz, H., Webster, A., Gebbardt, C., & Cantisano Terra, B. R. (2000). The future of the University of the future: Evolution of ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm. Research Policy, 29(2), 313–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. European Commission. (2009). Metrics for knowledge transfer from public research organisations in Europe. Google Scholar
  16. Feldman, M. P. (1999). The new economics of innovation, spillovers and agglomeration: A review of empirical studies. The Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 8, 5–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Feldman, M. P., & Desrochers, P. (2004). Truth for its own sake: Academic culture and technology transfer at the Johns Hopkins University. Minerva, 42(2), 105–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Feldman, M. P., & Francis, J. (2003). Fortune favours the prepared region: The case of entrepreneurship and capitol region biotechnology cluster. European Planning Studies, 11, 765–788.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fini, R., Grimaldi, R., & Sobrero, M. (2009). Factors fostering academics to start up new ventures: An assessment of Italian founders’ incentives. Journal of Technology Transfer, 34, 380–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gómez Gras, M., Galiana Lapera, D. R., Ignacio Mira Solves, I., Verdú Jover, A. J., & Sancho Azuar, J. (2008). An empirical approach to the organisational determinants of spin-off creation in European universities. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 4(2), 187–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Guldbrandsen, M., & Smeby, J. C. (2005). Industry funding and university professor’s research performance. Research Policy, 34, 932–950.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hague, D., & Oakley, K. (2000). Spin-offs and start-ups in UK universities. Committee of vice-chancellors and principals (CVCP) report. Google Scholar
  23. Herrigel, G. (1993). Large firms, small firms and the governance of flexible specialization: Baden württemberg and the socialization of risk. In Bruce. Kogut (Ed.), Country competitiveness: Technology and the organizing of work. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Jaffe, A. (1989). The real effects of academic research. American Economic Review, 79, 957–970.Google Scholar
  25. Kenney, M. (2000). Understanding Silicon valley: The anatomy of an entrepreneurial region. Stanford California: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Krugman, P. (1991). Increasing returns and economic geography. Journal of Political Economy, 99, 483–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lenoir, T., & Gianella, E. (2006). Mapping the impact of federally funded extra-university research and development on the emergence of self-sustaining knowledge domain: The case of microarray technologies: Paper presented at the University technology transfer and commercialization research, antecedents and consequences Symposium, Academy of Management Conference, Atlanta, US. Google Scholar
  28. Lockett, A., & Wright, M. (2005). Resources, capabilities, risk capital and the creation of university spin-out companies. Research Policy, 34, 1043–1057.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Markman, G., Gianiodis, P., Phan, P., & Balkin, D. (2005). Innovation speed: Transferring university technology to market. Research Policy, 34, 1058–1075.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Martin, B. R. (2003). The changing social contract for science and the evolution of the university. Science and innovation. Rethinking the rationales for public funding. Geuna A, Salter AJ, Steinmueller WE (eds) Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK.Google Scholar
  31. Miyata, Y. (2000). An empirical analysis of innovative activity of universities in the United States. Technovation, 20(8), 413–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Muscio, A. (2008). Il trasferimento tecnologico in Italia: Risultati di un’indagine sui dipartimenti universitari. L’Industria Numero Speciale, pp. 245–268.Google Scholar
  33. Muscio, A. (2010). What drives the university use of technology transfer offices? Evidence from Italy. Journal of Technology Transfer, 35, 181–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 35, 42–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mustar, P., Wright, M., & Clarysse, B. (2008). University spin-off firms: Lessons from ten years of experience in Europe. Science and Public Policy, 35, 67–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Netval Surveys., several years (2008, 2009, 2010).
  37. OECD. (2001). The new spin on spin-offs. Directorate for Science, Technology and Industry.Google Scholar
  38. O’Shea, R. P., Allen, T. J., Chevalier, A., & Roche, F. (2005). Entrepreneurial orientation, technology transfer and spinoff performance of U.S. universities. Research Policy, 34(7), 994–1009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. O’Shea, R. P., Chugh, H., & Allen, T. J. (2008). Determinants and consequences of university spinoff activity: A conceptual framework. Journal of Technology Transfer, 33(6), 653–666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Piccaluga, A., Balderi, C., Butelli, P., Conti, G., & Di Minin, A. (2007). Towards an Italian way in the valorisation of results from public research, su.
  41. Piergiovanni, R., & Santarelli, E. (2001). Patents and the geographic localization of R&D spillovers in French manufacturing. Regional Studies, 35(8), 697–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Piergiovanni, R., Santarelli, E., & Vivarelli, M. (1997). From which source do small firms derive their innovative inputs? Some evidence from Italian industry. Review of Industrial Organization, 12, 243–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Powers, J. B., & McDougall, P. (2005). Policy orientation effects on performance with licensing to start-ups and small companies. Research Policy, 34, 1028–1042.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rodríguez-Pose, A., & Refolo, M. C. (2003). The link between local production systems and public and university research in Italy. Environment and Planning A, 35(8), 1477–1492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Romer, P. (1990). Endogenous technological change. Journal of Political Economy, 94(1), 71–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Shane, S. (2004). Academic entrepreneurship. University spin-offs and wealth creation. UK: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  47. Stuart, T. E., & Ding, W. W. (2006). When do scientists become entrepreneurs? The social structural antecedents of commercial activity in the academic life sciences. American Journal of Sociology, 112(1), 97–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Varga, A. (2000). Local academic knowledge transfers and the concentration of economic activity. Journal of Regional Science, 40, 289–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Zucker, L. G., Darby, M. R., & Brewer, M. B. (1998). Intellectual human capital and the birth of U.S. biotechnology enterprises. American Economic Review, 88, 290–306.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bernardina Algieri
    • 1
  • Antonio Aquino
    • 1
  • Marianna Succurro
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Economics and StatisticsUniversity of CalabriaArcavacata di RendeItaly

Personalised recommendations