Advertisement

Journal of International Entrepreneurship

, Volume 14, Issue 3, pp 323–344 | Cite as

Growth determinants in entrepreneurship: A longitudinal study of Spanish technology-based university spin-offs

  • María Jesús Rodríguez-Gulías
  • Sara Fernández-López
  • David Rodeiro-Pazos
Article

Abstract

The study explores whether the university origin of a technology-based firm conditions its growth in terms of both sales and employment. The small firm size of a significant percentage of technology-based university spin-offs (T-USOs) puts into question the policies geared towards promoting university entrepreneurship. A sample of 340 Spanish technology-based firms (219 T-USOs and 121 T-non-USOs) was constructed by using the non-parametric technique of propensity score matching and the data refer to the period 2001–2010. Applying panel data methodology, we find that the T-USOs outperform the T-non-USOs. Therefore, the need for support of university-based entrepreneurship by governments and by the universities is justified, because in this way, they are promoting economic growth and social development. By launching T-USOs, universities not only contribute to the economic growth but also to the internationalisation of the economy, as T-USOs show a more international orientation. In addition, the results lead us to emphasise the need to customise university policies aimed at promoting the growth of T-USOs. Given that the study is focused on a ‘moderate innovator’ country, the conclusions and proposals of this paper may be extrapolated to other countries with similar innovation and entrepreneurial ecosystems, namely the Mediterranean and Latin American countries.

Keywords

Technology-based firms University spin-offs Sales growth Employment growth Propensity score matching Panel data Academic entrepreneurship International entrepreneurship 

Resumen

Este trabajo analiza si el origen de un universitario de una empresa de base tecnológica condiciona su crecimiento tanto en términos de ventas como de empleo. El reducido tamaño de un porcentaje significativo de spin-offs universitarias de base tecnológica (T-USOs) pone en tela de juicio las políticas orientadas a la creación de empresas dentro de las universidades. Una muestra de 340 empresas de base tecnológica (219 T-USOs y 121 T-no-USOS) fue elaborada usando la técnica propensity score matching para el período 2001–2010. Empleando como metodología datos de panel, nos encontramos que los T-USOs superan en nivel crecimiento a las T-no-USOs. Por tanto, se ha justificado en cierta medida la necesidad de apoyar el emprendimiento universitario. Además, mediante la promoción y creación de T- USOs, las universidades no sólo contribuyen al crecimiento económico, sino también a la internacionalización de la economía, debido que este tipo de empresas poseen una mayor orientación internacional. Además, los resultados obtenidos nos llevan a hacer hincapié en la necesidad de personalizar las políticas universitarias dirigidas a promover el crecimiento de T-USOs. Dado que este trabajo está enfocado en un país ligeramente innovador las conclusiones y políticas recomendadas en nuestro trabajo se pueden extrapolar a países que estén en una etapa similar en las actividades de creación de T-USOs, en particular los países del Mediterráneo y Latinoamérica.

Palabras clave

Empresas de base tecnológica Spin-off universitarias Crecimiento ventas Crecimiento empleo PSM Datos de panel Emprendimiento académico Emprendimiento internacional 

JEL classification

M1 

References

  1. Arellano M, Honoré B (2001) Panel data models: some recent developments. In: Heckman J, Leamer E (ed) Handbook of econometrics, 5th edn. North-Holland, pp. 3229–3296Google Scholar
  2. Barney J (1991) Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. J Manag 17(1):99–120Google Scholar
  3. Baum J, Wally S (2003) Strategic decision speed and firm performance. Strateg Manag J 24(11):1107–1129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Benneworth P, Charles D (2005) University spin-off policies and economic development in less successful regions: learning from two decades of policy practice. Eur Plan Stud 13(4):537–557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bonardo D, Paleari S, Vismara S (2009) When academia comes to market: does university affiliation reduce the uncertainty of IPOs? Working Paper 09–2009, Department of Economics and Technology Management, University of BergamoGoogle Scholar
  6. Bottazzi G, Secchi A (2006) Explaining the distribution of firm growth rates. Rand J Econ 37(2):235–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bray MJ, Lee JN (2000) University revenues from technology transfer: licensing fees vs equity positions. J Bus Ventur 15(5/6):385–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brush CG, Greene PG, Hart MM (2001) From initial idea to unique advantage: The entrepreneurial challenge of constructing a resource base. Acad Manag Exec 15(1):64–78Google Scholar
  9. Caliendo M, Kopeining S (2005) Some practical guidance for the implementation of propensity score matching. IZA Discussion Paper n°. 1588Google Scholar
  10. Cantner U, Goethner M (2011) Performance differences between academic spin-offs and non-academic star-ups: A comparative analysis using a non-parametric matching approach. DIME Final Conference, Maastricht, 6–8 AprilGoogle Scholar
  11. Cardozo R, Engleman R (2004) University technology and business opportunities. Frontiers of entrepreneurship research. 24th Babson-Kauffman Entrepreneurship Research Conference, Glasgow, 2004Google Scholar
  12. Chiesa V, Piccaluga A (2000) Exploitation and diffusion of public research: the case of academia spin-off companies in Italy. R&D Manag 30(4):329–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Coad A (2007) Testing the principle of ‘growth. of the fitter’: the relationship between profits and firm growth. Struct Chang Econ Dyn 18(3):370–386Google Scholar
  14. Coad A, Reid A (2012) The role of technology and technology based firms in economic development: rethinking innovation and enterprise policy in Scotland, Technopolis Group, AugustGoogle Scholar
  15. Colombo MG, Piva E (2005) Are academic start-ups different? A matched pair analysis. IRIS Working PaperGoogle Scholar
  16. COTEC (2014) Informe Cotec 2014: Tecnología e Innovación en España. Fundación Cotec para la Innovación Tecnológica, MadridGoogle Scholar
  17. Criaco G, Serarols C, Minola T, Bhatiya A (2014) Companies spun out of universities: different typologies for different performance patterns. In: Therin F (ed) Handbook of Research in Techno-Entrepreneurship, 2nd edn. Edward Elgard Cheltenham, UK, pp 235–261Google Scholar
  18. Degroof J, Roberts E (2004) Overcoming weak entrepreneurial infrastructures for academic spin-off ventures. J Technol Transfer 29(3–4):327–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ensley MD, Hmieleski KM (2005) A comparative study of new venture top management team composition, dynamics and performance between university-based and independent start-ups. Res Policy 34:1091–1105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Evers N, Andersson S, Hannibal M (2012) Stakeholders and marketing capabilities in international new ventures: evidence from Ireland, Sweden, and Denmark. J Int Mark 20:46–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Evers N, Cunningham J, Hoholm T (2014) Technology entrepreneurship—bringing innovation to the marketplace. Palgrave-MacMillian, LondonGoogle Scholar
  22. Ferguson R, Olofsson C (2004) Science parks and the development of NTBFs. Location, survival and growth. J Technol Transfer 29:5–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. George G, Zahra SA, Wood DR (2002) The effects of business—university alliances on innovative output and financial performance: a study of publicly traded biotechnology companies. J Bus Ventur 17:577–609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gibrat R (1931) Les inégalités économiques. Librairie du Recueil Sirey, ParísGoogle Scholar
  25. Gomez Gras JM, Sancho-Azuar J (2006) Monitoring academic entrepreneurship: a framework and indicators. University Miguel Angel Hernández de Elche, AlicanteGoogle Scholar
  26. Harhoff D, Stahl K, Woywode M (1998) Legal form, growth and exists of West German firms—empirical results for manufacturing, construction, trade and service industries. J Ind Econ 46(4):453–488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Harrison R, Leitch C (2005) Growth dynamics in university spin-out companies: entrepreneurial ventures or technology lifestyle businesses. In the role of private equity in growing new ventures. Cheltenham, Edward Elgar PublishingGoogle Scholar
  28. Hayter CS (2010) The open innovation imperative: perspectives on success from faculty entrepreneurs. PhD Dissertation, George Washington UniversityGoogle Scholar
  29. Hernández C, Graña R, López J (2003) ¿Y por qué no? La experiencia del programa de creación de empresas UNIEMPRENDE en Galicia. Iniciativa Emprendedora 41:75–87Google Scholar
  30. Hollanders H, Es-Sadki N (2014) Innovation Union Scoreboard 2014, (Coord. Garcia Porras, B. and Jerzyniak, T) European Unión. BelgiumGoogle Scholar
  31. Lambert R (2003) Lambert Review of Business-University Collaboration: Final ReportGoogle Scholar
  32. Laredo P (2007) Toward a third mission for Universities. UNESCO research seminar for the Regional Scientific Committee for Europe and North America, 5–6 March, ParísGoogle Scholar
  33. Lawton Smith H, Ho KW (2006) Measuring the performance of Oxfordshire’s spin-off companies. Res Policy 35(10):1554–1Google Scholar
  34. Lockett A, Wright M (2005) Resources, capabilities, risk capital and the creation of university spin-out companies. Res Policy 34(7):1043–1057CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Löwegren M, Bengtsson L (2010) University spin-offs in Sweden: a longitudinal Study. Ind High Educ 24(3):219–225Google Scholar
  36. Lockett A, Wright M, Franklin S (2003) Technology transfer and universities, spin-out strategies. Small Bus Econ 20(2):185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. McKelvie A, Wiklund J (2010) Advancing firm growth research: a focus on growth mode instead of growth rate. Entrep Theory Pract 34(2):261–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mustar P, Wright M, Clarysse B (2007) University spin-off firms: lessons from ten years of experience in Europe. Sci Publ Policy 35(2):67–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. OECD (2014) OECD Main Science and Technology Indicators (MSTI) Database, June, www.oecd.org/sti/msti
  40. Ortín P, Vendrell F (2010) University spin-off vs. other NTBFs: Productivity Differences at the Outset and Evolution. Searle Center Working PaperGoogle Scholar
  41. Ortín P, Salas V, Trujillo M, Vendrell F (2007) El spin-off universitario en España como modelo de creación de empresas intensivas en tecnología, Ministerio de Industria, Turismo y Comercio, MadridGoogle Scholar
  42. Ortín P, Salas V, Trujillo M, Vendrell F (2008) La creación de spin-off universitarios en España. Características, determinantes y resultados. Economía Industrial 368:79–95Google Scholar
  43. Penrose ET (1959) The theory of the growth of the firm. Basil Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  44. Pirnay F, Surlemont B, Nlemvo F (2003) Toward a typology of university spin-offs. Small Bus Econ 21:355–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Red OTRI de Universidades (2011) Informe de la encuesta de Investigación y Transferencia de Conocimiento 2011 de las Universidades Españolas, Conferencia de Rectores de las Universidades Españolas, CRUE, MadridGoogle Scholar
  46. Red OTRI de Universidades (2013) Informe de la encuesta de Investigación y Transferencia de Conocimiento 2013 de las Universidades Españolas, Conferencia de Rectores de las Universidades Españolas, CRUE, MadridGoogle Scholar
  47. Roberts EB, Senturia TA (1996) Globalizing the emerging high-technology company. Ind Market Manag 25:491–506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rodeiro D, Fernández S, Rodríguez A, Otero L (2008) La creación de empresas en el sistema universitario español. Servizo de publicacións e intercambio científico, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de CompostelaGoogle Scholar
  49. Rodeiro D, Fernández S, Vivel M, Rodríguez M (2013) The creation of new technology-based firms at Spanish public research institutions: an analysis of their financial statements. Int J Innov Learn 14(3/4):405–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Rodríguez-Gulías MJ, Rodeiro-Pazos D, Fernández-López S (2016) The effect of university and regional knowledge spillovers on firms’ performance: an analysis of the Spanish USOs, International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, First online: 23 May 2016Google Scholar
  51. Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB (1983) The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 70(1):41–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Rothaermel F, Thursby M (2005) Incubator firm failure or graduation?: The role of university linkages. Res Policy 34(7):1076–1090CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Rothaermel F, Agung S, Jiang L (2007) University entrepreneurship: a taxonomy of the literature. Ind Corp Chang 16(4):691–791CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Saarenketo S, Aijo TS (2000) Born Globals – Conceptualization and Empirical Illustrations. High Technology Small Firms Conference, May 2000, Enschede, the NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  55. Salvador E (2010) How effective are research spin-off firms in Italy? Rev Écon Ind 132:99–122Google Scholar
  56. Teixeira AC, Grande M (2013) Determinants of the Economic Performance of Portuguese Academic Spin-offs: Do Science & Technology Infrastructures and Support Matter?. FEP-UP, School of Economics and Management, University of Porto Working Papers, n. 502 September 2013Google Scholar
  57. Vendrell F (2008) Transfer of knowledge from the lab to the market: the idiosyncrasy of academic entrepreneurs. Tesis doctoral, Departament d’Economia de l’Empresa, Universidad Autònoma de Barcelona.Google Scholar
  58. Vendrell F, Ortín P (2008) Determinants of Spanish University Spin-offs Development: a comparison with other technological Spin-offs. Academy of Management Annual meeting, AnnaheimGoogle Scholar
  59. Vendrell F, Ortín P (2010) Evolución comparada de los spin-offs universitarios españoles. Revista Económica de Castilla – La Mancha 16:345–379Google Scholar
  60. Wakkee AM, Van der Sijde PC (2002) Supporting entrepreneurs entering a global market, in New Concepts for Academic Entrepreneurship, Proceedings of the USE it Conference 2002 Van Der Sijde P, Wirsing B, Cuyvers R, Ridder A (ed)Google Scholar
  61. Wennberg K, Wiklund J, Wright M (2011) The effectiveness of university knowledge spillovers: performance differences between university spinoffs and corporate spinoffs. Res Policy 40:1128–1143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Wernerfelt B (1995) The resource-based view of the firm: ten years after. Strateg Manag J 16(3):171–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Yagüe RM, March I (2011) Performance analysis of research spin-offs in the Spanish biotechnology industry. J Bus Res 65(12):1782–1789CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Zahra SA, Van de Velde E, Larrañeta B (2007) Knowledge conversion capability and the performance of corporate and university spin-off. Ind Corp Chang 16(4):569–608CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Zhang J (2009) The performance of university spin-offs: an exploratory analysis using venture capital data. J Technol Transfer 34:255–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Zucker L, Darby M, Brewer M (1998) Intellectual human capital and the birth of US biotechnology enterprises. Am Econ Rev 88(1):290–306Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Finance and AccountingUniversidade da CoruñaA CoruñaSpain
  2. 2.Department of Finance and AccountingUniversidade de Santiago de CompostelaSantiago de CompostelaSpain

Personalised recommendations