Advertisement

Small Business Economics

, Volume 43, Issue 2, pp 353–368 | Cite as

Are public research spin-offs more innovative?

  • Andreas StephanEmail author
Article

Abstract

The main purpose of this paper is to analyse whether research spin-offs, that is, spin-offs from either public research institutes or universities, have greater innovation capabilities than comparable knowledge-intensive firms created in other ways. Using a sample of about 2,800 firms from highly innovative sectors, propensity score matching is used to create a sample group of control firms that is comparable to the group of spin-offs. The article provides evidence that the 121 research spin-offs investigated have more patent applications and more radical product innovations, on average, compared to similar firms. The results also show that research spin-offs’ superior innovation performance can be explained by their high level of research cooperation and by location factors. An urban region location and proximity to the parent institution are found to be conducive to innovation productivity. The article also finds evidence that research spin-offs are more successful in attracting support from public innovation support programmes in comparison to their peers.

JEL Classifications

M13 O18 R3 

Keywords

Spin-offs Innovation performance Propensity score matching Location factors Cooperation Public R&D subsidies 

Notes

Acknowledgments

I thank Anders Broström, Michael Fritsch, Karl Wennberg, and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and suggestions. I’m also very grateful to the guest editor Helmut Fryges for his guidance through the revision process. The usual disclaimer applies.

References

  1. Abadie, A., & Imbens, G. W. (2008). On the failure of the bootstrap for matching estimators. Econometrica, 76(6), 1537–1557. doi: 10.3982/ECTA6474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andersson, M., & Klepper, S. (2013). Characteristics and performance of new firms and spinoffs in sweden. Industrial and Corporate Change 22(1), 245–280. http://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/indcch/v22y2013i1p245-280.html.
  3. Audretsch, D. B., & Dohse, D. (2007). Location: A neglected determinant of firm growth. Review of World Economics, 143, 79–107. doi: 10.1007/s10290-007-0099-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Audretsch, D. B., & Feldman, M. P. (1996). R&d spillovers and the geography of innovation and production. American Economic Review 86(3), 630–630. http://search.proquest.com/docview/233013124?accountid=11754.Google Scholar
  5. Audretsch, D. B., & Feldman, M. P. (2004). Chapter 61 knowledge spillovers and the geography of innovation. In J. V. Henderson, J.-F. Thisse (Eds.), Cities and geography. Vol. 4 of handbook of regional and urban economics, (pp. 2713–2739). Amsterdam: Elsevier. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S157400800480018X.
  6. Audretsch, D. B., & Fritsch, M. (1994). On the measurement of entry rates. Empirica, 21, 105–113. doi: 10.1007/BF01383974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Audretsch, D. B., Lehmann, E. E., & Warning, S. (2005). University spillovers and new firm location. Research Policy 34(7), 1113–1122. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733305001071.Google Scholar
  8. Audretsch, D. B., & Stephan, P. E. (1996). Company-scientist locational links: The case of biotechnology. American Economic Review 86(3), 641–641. http://search.proquest.com/docview/233024724?accountid=11754.Google Scholar
  9. Baba, Y., Shichijo, N., & Sedita, S. R. (2009). How do collaborations with universities affect firms’ innovative performance? The role of Pasteur scientists in the advanced materials field. Research Policy 38(5), 756–764. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733309000067.
  10. Beise, M., & Stahl, H. (1999). Public research and industrial innovations in germany. Research Policy 28(4), 397–422. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733398001267.
  11. Belitz, H., Fleischer, F., & Stephan, A. (2001). Staatliche förderung von forschung und entwicklung in der ostdeutschen wirtschaft: Eine bilanz. DIW Wochenbericht 68(35), 537–544. http://ideas.repec.org/a/diw/diwwob/68-350-10.html.
  12. Boeker, W. (1989). Strategic change: The effects of founding and history. The Academy of Management Journal, 32(3), 489–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Buenstorf, G., & Geissler, M. (2009). Not invented here: Technology licensing, knowledge transfer and innovation based on public research. Papers on Economics and Evolution 2009-20, Max Planck Institute of Economics, Evolutionary Economics Group. http://ideas.repec.org/p/esi/evopap/2009-20.html.
  14. Caliendo, M., & Kopeinig, S. (2008). Some practical guidance for the implementation of propensity score matching. Journal of Economic Surveys, 22(1), 31–72. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6419.2007.00527.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cameron, C. A., & Trivedi, P. K. (2005). Microeconometrics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cantner, U., & Goethner, M. (2011). Performance differences between academic spin-offs and non-academic start-ups: A comparative analysis using a non-parametric matching approach.Google Scholar
  17. Cantner, U., & Kösters, S. (2012). Picking the winner? Empirical evidence on the targeting of R&D subsidies to start-ups. Small Business Economics, 39(4), 921–936. doi: 10.1007/s11187-011-9340-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Clarysse, B., Wright, M., & Van de Velde, E. (2011). Entrepreneurial origin, technological knowledge, and the growth of spin-off companies. Journal of Management Studies, 48(6), 1420–1442. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2010.00991.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cleyn, S. H. D., & 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), 376–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Colombo, M. G., Dadda, D., & Piva, E. (2010). The contribution of university research to the growth of academic start-ups: An empirical analysis. Journal of Technology Transfer 35(1), 113–140. http://search.proquest.com/docview/203658381?accountid=11754.Google Scholar
  21. Czarnitzki, D., Ebersberger, B., & Fier, A. (2007). The relationship between R&D collaboration, subsidies and R&D performance: Empirical evidence from finland and germany. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 22(7), 1347–1366. doi: 10.1002/jae.992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Czarnitzki, D., & Hottenrott, H. (2009). Are local milieus the key to innovation performance? Journal of Regional Science 49(1), 81–112. http://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/jregsc/v49y2009i1p81-112.html.Google Scholar
  23. Czarnitzki, D., Rammer, C., & Toole, A. A. (2013). University spinoffs and the 'performance premium'. ZEW Discussion Papers 13-004, ZEW-Zentrum für Europäische Wirtschaftsforschung/Center for European Economic Research. http://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/zewdip/13004.html.
  24. Dehejia, R. H., & Wahba, S. (2002). Propensity score-matching methods for nonexperimental causal studies. Review of Economics and Statistics, 84(1), 151–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Egeln, J., Gottschalk, S., & Rammer, C. (2004). Location decisions of spin-offs from public research institutions. Industry and Innovation 11(3), 207–223. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1366271042000265384.
  27. Egeln, J., Gottschalk, S., Rammer, C., & Spielkamp, A. (2002). Public research spin-offs in germany: Summary report. ZEW Dokumentationen 03-04, ZEW-Zentrum für Europäische Wirtschaftsforschung/Center for European Economic Research. http://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/zewdok/0304.html.
  28. Eickelpasch, A., & Pfeiffer, I. (2006). Unternehmen in ostdeutschland: Wirtschaftlicher erfolg mit innovationen. DIW Wochenbericht 73(14), 173–180. http://ideas.repec.org/a/diw/diwwob/73-14-1.html.Google Scholar
  29. Gantumur, T., & Stephan, A. (2012). Mergers and acquisitions and innovation performance in the telecommunications equipment industry. Industrial and Corporate Change 21(2), 277–314. http://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/indcch/v21y2012i2p277-314.html.
  30. Jensen, R., & Thursby, M. (2001). Proofs and prototypes for sale: The licensing of university inventions. The American Economic Review, 91(1), 240–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Keeble, D., Lawson, C., Smith, H. L., Moore, B., & Wilkinson, F. (1998). Collective learning processes and inter-firm networking in innovative high-technology regions. http://www.cbr.cam.ac.uk/pdf/WP086.pdf.
  32. Klepper, S., & Sleeper, S. (2005). Entry by spinoffs. Management Science 51(8), 1291–1306. http://mansci.journal.informs.org/cgi/doi/10.1287/mnsc.1050.0411.Google Scholar
  33. Koster, S. (2006). Whose child? How existing firms foster new firm formation: Individual start-ups, spin-outs and spin-offs. http://books.google.se/books?id=EPNdYgEACAAJ.
  34. Krabel, S., & Mueller, P. (2009). What drives scientists to start their own company? An empirical investigation of max planck society scientists. Research Policy 38(6), 947–956. http://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/respol/v38y2009i6p947-956.html.
  35. Lejpras, A., & Stephan, A. (2011). Locational conditions, cooperation, and innovativeness: Evidence from research and company spin-offs. The Annals of Regional Science, 46, 543–575. doi: 10.1007/s00168-009-0356-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Leuven, E., & Sianesi, B. (2003). Psmatch2: Stata module to perform full mahalanobis and propensity score matching, common support graphing, and covariate imbalance testing. Statistical Software Components, Boston College Department of Economics. http://ideas.repec.org/c/boc/bocode/s432001.html.
  37. Lockett, A., Siegel, D., Wright, M., & Ensley, M. D. (2005). The creation of spin-off firms at public research institutions: Managerial and policy implications. Research Policy 34(7), 981–993. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733305001113.
  38. Longhi, C. (1999). Networks, collective learning and technology development in innovative high technology regions: The case of Sophia-Antipolis. Regional Studies 33(4), 333–342. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/713693559.
  39. Meyer, M. (2003). Academic entrepreneurs or entrepreneurial academics? Research-based ventures and public support mechanisms. R&D Management, 33(2), 107–115. doi: 10.1111/1467-9310.00286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Moray, N., & Clarysse, B. (2005). Institutional change and resource endowments to science-based entrepreneurial firms. Research Policy 34(7), 1010–1027. http://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/respol/v34y2005i7p1010-1027.html.Google Scholar
  41. Mustar, P., Renault, M., Colombo, M. G., Piva, E., Fontes, M., Lockett, A., Wright, M., Clarysse, B., & Moray, N. (2006). Conceptualising the heterogeneity of research-based spin-offs: A multi-dimensional taxonomy. Research Policy 35(2), 289–308. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733305002192.Google Scholar
  42. Pérez, M. P., & Sánchez, A. M. (2003). The development of university spin-offs: Early dynamics of technology transfer and networking. Technovation 23(10), 823–831. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166497202000342.Google Scholar
  43. Pirnay, F., Surlemont, B., & Nlemvo, F. (2003). Toward a typology of university spin-offs. Small Business Economics, 21(4), 355–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Pleschak, F., Berteit, H., Ossenkopf, B., & Stummer, F. (2002). Gründung und Wachstum FuE-intensiver Unternehmen. Untersuchungen in Ostdeutschland. Vol. 47 of Technik, Wirtschaft und Politik. Heidelberg: Physica.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rosenbaum, P. R., & Rubin, D. B. (1984). Reducing bias in observational studies using subclassification on the propensity score. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 79(387), 516–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Rosenbaum, P. R., & Rubin, D. B. (1985). Constructing a control group using multivariate matched sampling methods that incorporate the propensity score. The American Statistician, 39(1), 33–38.Google Scholar
  47. Rubin, D. B. (1997). Estimating causal effects from large data sets using propensity scores. Annals of Internal Medicine, 127(2), 757–763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Åstebro, T., Braunerhjelm, P., & Broström, A. (2013). Does academic entrepreneurship pay? Industrial and Corporate Change 22(1), 281–311. http://icc.oxfordjournals.org/content/22/1/281.abstract.
  49. Tenenhaus, M., Vinzi, V. E., Chatelin, Y.-M., & Lauro, C. (2005). Pls path modeling. Computational Statistics and Data Analysis 48(1), 159–205. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167947304000519.
  50. Walter, A., Auer, M., & Ritter, T. (2006). The impact of network capabilities and entrepreneurial orientation on university spin-off performance. Journal of Business Venturing 21(4), 541–567. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0883902605000261.Google Scholar
  51. Wennberg, K., Wiklund, J., & Wright, M. (2011). The effectiveness of university knowledge spillovers: Performance differences between university spinoffs and corporate spinoffs. Research Policy 40(8), 1128–1143. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733311000953.
  52. Wright, M., Lockett, A., Clarysse, B., & Binks, M. (2006). University spin-out companies and venture capital. Research Policy 35(4), 481–501. http://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/respol/v35y2006i4p481-501.html.Google Scholar
  53. Zahra, S. A., Van de Velde, E., & Larraeta, B. (2007). Knowledge conversion capability and the performance of corporate and university spin-offs. Industrial and Corporate Change 16(4), 569–608. http://icc.oxfordjournals.org/content/16/4/569.abstract.
  54. Zhang, J. (2009). The performance of university spin-offs: An exploratory analysis using venture capital data. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 34, 255–285. doi: 10.1007/s10961-008-9088-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Zucker, L., Darby, M., & Brewer, M. (1998). Intellectual human capital and the birth of U.S. biotechnology enterprises. American Economic Review, American Economic Association, 88(1), 290–306.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Jönköping International Business SchoolJönköping UniversityJönköpingSweden
  2. 2.DIW BerlinBerlinGermany
  3. 3.The Ratio InstituteStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations