Advertisement

Do universities knowledge spillovers impact on new firm’s growth? Empirical evidence from UK

  • Lucio Cassia
  • Alessandra Colombelli
Article

Abstract

The paper explores the effect of scientific institutions on firm’s growth, coupling regional science and entrepreneurship approaches. We focus on the role of universities, largely considered in the literature as the main source of knowledge spillovers. To this purpose, we centre our attention on UK public companies on the Alternative Investment Market (AIM), a market dedicated to young and growing companies in both science and non-science based industries. In the paper we investigate the growth determinants of 231 listed firms which have gone public during the period going from 1995 to 2006. To our purposes, in the empirical analysis we use the Gibrat’s Law of Proportionate Effects model. The results supports the hypothesis that, controlling for firm’s idiosyncratic factors and external forces, both universities knowledge input and output are important determinants of the growth of entrepreneurial firms listed on the AIM.

Keywords

Firm growth Knowledge spillovers Initial public offering Gibrat’s law 

References

  1. Antonelli, C. (2005). Models of knowledge and systems of governance. Journal of Instituional Economics, 1, 51–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arellano, M., & Bond, S. (1991). Some tests of specification for panel data: Monte Carlo evidence and an application to employment equations. Review of Economic Studies, 58, 277–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arrow, K. J. (1962). Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for invention. In R. R. Nelson (Ed.) The rate and direction of inventive activity: Economic and social factors (pp. 609–625). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press for N.B.E.R.Google Scholar
  4. Asheim, B., Isaksen, A., Nauwelaers, C., & Tötdling, F. (2003). Regional innovation policy for small-medium enterprises. Cheltenham, UK and Lyme, US: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  5. Audretsch, D. B. (1995). Innovation and industry evolution. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
  6. Audretsch, D. B., & Feldman, M. P. (1996). R&D spillovers and the geography of innovation and production. American Economic Review, 86, 630–640.Google Scholar
  7. Audretsch, D. B., & Lehmann, E. E. (2005a). Does the knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship hold for regions? Research Policy, 34, 1191–1202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Audretsch, D. B., & Lehmann, E. E. (2005b). Mansfield’s missing link: The impact of knowledge spillovers on firm growth. Journal of Technology Transfer, 30(1/2), 207–210.Google Scholar
  9. Audretsch, D. B., Lehmann, E. E., & Warning, S. (2004). University spillovers: Does the kind of knowledge matters? Industry and Innovation, 11, 193–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Audretsch, D. B., & Link, A. N. (2006). Empirical evidence on knowledge flows from research collaborations: Introduction to the special issue. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 15(1), 1–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Audretsch, D. B., & Stephan, P. E. (1996). Company–scientist locational links: The case of biotechnology. The American Economic Review, 86, 641–652.Google Scholar
  12. Blundell, R., & Bond, S. (1998). Initial conditions and moment restrictions in dynamic panel data models. Journal of Econometrics, 87, 115–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bond, S. (2002). Dynamic panel data models: A guide to micro data methods and practice. Portuguese Economic Journal, 1, 141–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chen, J. R., & Chih-Hai, Y. (2005). Technological knowledge, spillovers and productivity: Evidence from Taiwanese firm level panel data. Applied Economics, 37(20), 2361–2371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Colombo, M. G., D’Adda, D., & Piva, E. (2006). When do university-based knowledge spillovers influence the growth of NTBFs? Rent XX Conference, Brussels.Google Scholar
  16. Cooke, P. (2002). Knowledge economies. Clusters, learning and cooperative advantage. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  17. Covin, J. G., & Covin, T. J. (1990). Competitive aggressiveness, environmental context, and small firm performance. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 14, 35–50.Google Scholar
  18. Covin, J. G., & Slevin, D. P. (1991). A conceptual model of entrepreneurship as firm behaviour. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 16, 7–25.Google Scholar
  19. David, P. A. (1993). Knowledge property and the system dynamics of technological change. In L. Summers, & S. Shah (Eds.) Proceedings of the world bank annual conference on development economics (pp. 215–248). Washington, DC: The World Bank.Google Scholar
  20. Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (1997). Universities in the global economy: A triple helix of university–industry–government relations. London: Cassell.Google Scholar
  21. Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: From national systems and “Mode 2” to a triple helix of university–industry–government relations. Research Policy, 29(2), 109–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Foray, D., & Lundvall, B. (1995). The knowledge-based economy: from the economics of knowledge to the learning economy. Employment and growth in the knowledge-based economy pp. 11–32. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  23. Freeman, C. (1987). Technology and economic performance: Lessons from Japan. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
  24. Freeman, C. (1991). Networks of innovators: A synthesis of research issues. Research Policy, 20, 499–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Griliches, Z. (1992). The search for R&D spillovers. Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 94, 29–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hall, B. H., & Mairesse, J. (1995). Exploring the relationship between R–D and productivity in France manufacturing firms. Journal of Econometrics, 65, 263–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jaffe, A. B. (1989). Real effects of academic research. The American Economic Review, 79, 957–970.Google Scholar
  28. Lumpkin, G. T., & Dess, G. G. (1996). Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking it to performance. Academy of Management Review, 21, 135–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lundvall, B. (1992). National systems of innovation: Towards a theory of innovation and interactive learning. London: Frances Pinter.Google Scholar
  30. Mairesse, J., & Hall, B. H. (1996). Estimating the productivity of research and development in France and United States manufacturing firms: An exploration of simultaneity issues with GMM. In K. Wagner, & B. van Ark (Eds.) International productivity comparisons (pp. 285–315). Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  31. Mairesse, J., & Sassenou, M. (1991). R&D and productivity: A survey of econometric studies at the firm level. Science-Technology Industry Review, 8, 317–48.Google Scholar
  32. Nelson, R. R. (1959). The simple economics of basic scientific research. Journal of Political Economy, 67, 297–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Nelson, R. R. (1993). National innovation systems: A comparative analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (1982). An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  35. OECD (1996). The knowledge-based economy. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  36. O’Shea, R. P., Allen, T. J., Chevalier, A., & Roche, F. (2005). Entrepreneurial orientation, technology transfer and spin-off performance of U.S. universities. Research Policy, 34, 994–1009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Powers, J. (2003). Commercializing academic research: Resource effects on performance of university technology transfer. The Journal of Higher Education, 74, 26–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sadler-Smith, E., Hampson, Y., Chaston, I., & Badger, B. (2003). Managerial behavior, entrepreneurial style, and small firm performance. Journal of Small Business Management, 41(1), 47–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Smith, K. (2002). What is the ‘knowledge economy’? Knowledge intensity and distributed knowledge bases, discussion paper. Maastricht: United Nations University.Google Scholar
  40. Swierczek, F. W., & Ha, T. T. (2003). Entrepreneurial orientation, uncertainty avoidance and firm performance. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 4(1), 46–58.Google Scholar
  41. Varga, A. (2000). Local academic knowledge transfers and the concentration of economic activity. Journal of Regional Science, 40, 289–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wolff, J. A., & Pett, T. L. (2006). Small-firm performance: Modeling the role of product and process improvements. Journal of Small Business Management, 44(2), 268–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Economics and Technology ManagementUniversity of BergamoDalmineItaly

Personalised recommendations