Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Determinants of the university technology transfer policy-mix: a cross-national analysis of gap-funding instruments

  • Published:
The Journal of Technology Transfer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

University–industry technology transfer (TT) has become increasingly institutionalized and is supported by numerous reforms and initiatives at the national, regional and university levels. Most countries have implemented a policy mix involving a range of instruments to support the commercialization of research. Still, there is no systematic evidence indicating why the mix of policy instruments differs between countries. This study offers a novel cross-national investigation of the policy mix emphasizing the level of centralization and decentralization of policy instruments. We map and analyze two specific types of public instruments aimed at addressing the so-called funding gap in TT: proof of concept programs (POCs) and university-oriented seed funds (USFs). Based on a survey across 21 European countries, we find that such instruments are widely used but are organized differently depending on the level of implementation of TT practices in the country and the specific type of instrument considered. More precisely, we find a U-shaped relationship between the use of centralized gap-funding instruments and the country’s implementation of TT practices. Moreover, the type of gap-funding instrument (POC or USF) moderates this relationship. We discuss the implications of our findings and suggest that the policy mix of gap-funding instruments evolve with the maturity of the national TT infrastructure.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. In this report, we refer to university-oriented proof of concept programs as programs aiming to evaluate the technical feasibility and commercial potential of early-stage technologies generated by universities and PROs. University-oriented seed funds are defined as seed and early-stage funds that have a deliberate and explicit mission to make investments in university and PRO start-ups to support TT and the commercialization of university and public research results (Munari et al. 2014).

  2. The measures included in the group “proof-of-concept programs” are labeled in a variety of ways across universities and countries (e.g., proof-of-concept funds, proof-of-principle funds, translational funding, pre-seed funding, verification funding, maturation programs, innovation grants, ignition grants).

  3. This survey was conducted within the FinKT (Financing Knowledge Transfer in Europe) research project, sponsored by the EIBURS Programme of the European Investment Bank.

References

  • Anselin, L., Varga, A., & Acs, Z. (1997). Local geographic spillovers between university research and high technology innovations. Journal of Urban Economics, 42(3), 422–448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arundel, A., Es-Sadki, N., Barjak, F., Perrett, P., Samuel, O., & Lilischkis, S. (2013): Knowledge transfer study 2010–2012. Final report, Brüssel. http://eskills-guide.eu/fileadmin/KTS/documents/KTS_Respondent_report_2011.pdf.

  • Audretsch, D. B., & Feldman, M. P. (1996). R&D spillovers and the geography of innovation and production. The American Economic Review, 86(3), 630–640.

  • Audretsch, D. B., Lehmann, E. E., & Warning, S. (2005). University spillovers and new firm location. Research Policy, 34(7), 1113–1122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baier, E., Kroll, H., & Zenker, A, (2013). Regional autonomy with regard to innovation policy: A differentiated illustration of the European status quo. Working Papers Firms and Region No. R3/2013. Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research ISI, Karlsruhe.

  • Bajo, E., Chemmanur, T.J., Simonyan, K., Tehranian, H. (2015). Underwriter networks in initial public offerings. Working paper.

  • Baldini, N. (2006). University patenting and licensing activity: A review of the literature. Research Evaluation, 15(3), 197–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baldini, N., Fini, R., Grimaldi, R., & Sobrero, M. (2014). Organizational change and the institutionalization of university patenting activity in Italy. Minerva, 52(1), 27–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barjak, F., Es-Sadki, N., & Arundel, A. (2015). The effectiveness of policies for formal knowledge transfer from European universities and public research institutes to firms. Research Evaluation, 24, 4–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bercovitz, J., & Feldman, M. (2006). Entpreprenerial universities and technology transfer: A conceptual framework for understanding knowledge-based economic development. Journal of Technology Transfer, 31(1), 175–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borrás, S., & Edquist, C. (2013). The choice of innovation policy instruments. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 80(8), 1513–1522.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowerman, B. L., O’Connell, R. T., & Richard, T. (1993). Forecasting and time series: An applied approach. Wadsworth, CA: Belmont.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bozeman, B. (2000). Technology transfer and public policy: A review of research and theory. Research Policy, 29(4), 627–655.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bradley, S. R., Hayter, C. S., & Link, A. N. (2013). Proof of concept centers in the United States: An exploratory look. Journal of Technology Transfer, 38(4), 349–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Breschi, S. (2000). The geography of innovation: A cross-sector analysis. Regional Studies, 34(3), 213–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruneel, J., d’Este, P., & Salter, A. (2010). Investigating the factors that diminish the barriers to university–industry collaboration. Research Policy, 39(7), 858–868.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarysse, B., Wright, M., & Mustar, P. (2009). Behavioural additionality of R&D subsidies: A learning perspective. Research Policy, 38(10), 1517–1533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colombo, M., Cumming, D., & Vismara, S. (2014). Governmental venture capital for innovative young firms. Journal of Technology Transfer. doi:10.1007/s10961-014-9380-9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Colyvas, J., Crow, M., Gelijns, A., Mazzoleni, R., Nelson, R. R., Rosenberg, N., & Sampat, B. N. (2002). How do university inventions get into practice? Management Science, 48(1), 61–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conti, A., & Gaule, P. (2011). Is the US outperforming Europe in university technology licensing? A new perspective on the European Paradox. Research Policy, 40(1), 123–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Croce, A., Martí, J., & Murtinu, S. (2013). The impact of venture capital on the productivity growth of European entrepreneurial firms: ‘Screening’ or ‘value added’ effect? Journal of Business Venturing, 28(4), 489–510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cumming, D., & Joahn, S. A. (2008). Preplanned exit strategies in venture capital. European Economic Review, 52(7), 1209–1241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edquist, C. (2011). Design of innovation policy through diagnostic analysis: Identification of system problems (or failures). Industrial and Corporate Change, 20, 1725–1754.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Epure, M., Prior, D., & Serarols, C. (2014). Assessing technology-based spin-offs from university support units. Regional Studies. doi:10.1080/00343404.2014.921669.

    Google Scholar 

  • Etzkowitz, H. (2002). MIT and the rise of entrepreneurial science. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Feldman, M., Feller, I., Bercovitz, J., & Burton, R. (2002). Equity and the technology transfer strategies of American research universities. Management Science, 48(1), 105–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flanagan, K., Uyarra, E., & Laranja, M. (2011). Reconceptualising the ‘policy mix’ for innovation. Research Policy, 40(5), 702–713.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franklin, S., Wright, M., & Lockett, A. (2001). Academic and surrogate entrepreneurs in university spin-out companies. Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(1–2), 127–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geuna, A., & Muscio, A. (2009). The governance of university knowledge transfer: A critical review of the literature. Minerva, 47(1), 93–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geuna, A., & Rossi, F. (2011). Changes to university IPR regulations in Europe and the impact on academic patenting. Research Policy, 40(8), 1068–1076.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giuri, P, Grimaldi, R., & Villani, E. (2014). Supporting academic entrepreneurship: Cross-country evidence in Europe. Journal of Industrial and Business Economics, 41(4), 215–236.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldfarb, B., & Henrekson, M. (2002). Bottom-up versus top-down policies towards the commercialization of university intellectual property. Research Policy, 32(4), 639–658.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gulbrandsen, M., & Rasmussen, E. (2012). The use and development of indicators for the commercialisation of university research in a national support programme. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 24(5), 481–495.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gulbranson, C. A., & Audretsch, D. B. (2008). Proof of concept centers: Accelerating the commercialization of university innovation. Journal of Technology Transfer, 33(2), 249–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, R. T., & Leitch, C. (2010). Voodoo Institution or Entrepreneurial University? Spin-off companies, the entrepreneurial system and regional development in the UK. Regional Studies, 44(9), 1241–1262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howells, J. (1999). Regional systems of innovation? In D. Archibugi, J. Howells, & J. Michie (Eds.), Innovation systems in a global economy (pp. 67–93). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Howells, J. R. (2002). Tacit knowledge, innovation and economic geography. Urban Studies, 39(5–6), 871–884.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobsson, S., Lindholm-Dahlstrand, Å., & Elg, L. (2013). Is the commercialization of European academic R&D weak? A critical assessment of a dominant belief and associated policy responses. Research Policy, 42(4), 874–885.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, R., & Thursby, M. (2001). Proofs and prototypes for sale: The licensing of university inventions. American Economic Review, 91(1), 240–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keller, M. R., & Block, F. (2013). Explaining the transformation in the US innovation system: The impact of a small government program. Socio-Economic Review, 11(4), 629–656.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klagge, B., & Martin, R. (2005). Decentralized versus centralized financial systems: Is there a case for local capital markets? Journal of Economic Geography, 5(4), 387–421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klofsten, M., & Jones-Evans, D. (2000). Comparing academic entrepreneurship in Europe: The case of Sweden and Ireland. Small Business Economics, 14, 299–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kochenkova, A., Grimaldi, R., & Munari, F. (2015). Public policy measures in support of knowledge transfer activities: A review of academic literature. Journal of Technology Transfer. doi:10.1007/s10961-015-9416-9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lambooy, J. G., & Boschma, R. A. (2001). Evolutionary economics and regional policy. Annals of Regional Science, 35(1), 113–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lanahan, L. (2015). Multilevel public funding for small business innovation: a review of US state SBIR match programs. Journal of Technology Transfer. doi:10.1007/s10961-015-9407-x.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lanahan, L., & Feldman, M. P. (2015). Multilevel innovation policy mix: A closer look at state policies that augment the federal SBIR program. Research Policy, 44(7), 1387–1402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langford, C. H., Hall, J., Josty, P., Matos, S., & Jacobson, A. (2006). Indicators and outcomes of Canadian university research: Proxies becoming goals? Research Policy, 35(10), 1586–1598.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laranja, M., Uyarra, E., & Flanagan, K. (2008). Policies for science, technology and innovation: Translating rationales into regional policies in a multi-level setting. Research Policy, 37(5), 823–835.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lerner, J. (2009). Boulevard of broken dreams: Why public efforts to boost entrepreneurship and venture capital have failed—and what to do about it. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2010). Government as entrepreneur: Evaluating the commercialization success of SBIR projects. Research Policy, 39(5), 589–601.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lissoni, F. (2013). Academic patenting in Europe: A reassessment of evidence and research practices. Industry and Innovation, 20(5), 379–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lockett, A., & Wright, M. (2005). Resources, capabilities, risk capital and the creation of university spin-out companies. Research Policy, 34(7), 1043–1057.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lockett, A., Wright, M., & Wild, A. (2015). The institutionalization of third stream activities in UK higher education: The role of discourse and metrics. British Journal of Management, 26, 78–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macho-Stadler, I., Perez-Castrillo, D., & Veugelers, R. (2007). Licensing of university inventions: The role of a technology transfer office. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 25(3), 483–510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maia, C., & Claro, J. (2013). The role of a Proof of Concept Center in a university ecosystem: An exploratory study. Journal of Technology Transfer, 38(5), 641–650.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marquardt, D. W. (1980). You should standardize the predictor variables in your regression models. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 75, 74–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mowery, D., & Rosenberg, N. (1993). The US national innovation system. In R. Nelson (Ed.), National innovation systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Munari, F., Pasquini, M., & Toschi, L. (2014). From the lab to the stock market? The characteristics and impact of university-oriented seed funds in Europe. Journal of Technology Transfer. doi:10.1007/s10961-014-9385-4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Munari, F., & Toschi, L. (2011). Do venture capitalists have a bias against investment in academic spin-offs? Evidence from the micro- and nanotechnology sector in the UK. Industrial and Corporate Change, 20(2), 397–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Munari, F., & Toschi, L. (2015). Assessing the impact of public venture capital programmes in the United Kingdom: Do regional characteristics matter? Journal of Business Venturing, 30, 205–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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. Journal of Technology Transfer, 35(1), 42–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paci, R., & Usai, S. (2000). Technological enclaves and industrial districts: an analysis of the regional distribution of innovative activity in Europe. Regional Studies, 34(2), 97–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prange, H. (2008). Explaining varieties of regional innovation policies in Europe. European Urban and Regional Studies, 15(1), 39–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rasmussen, E. (2008). Government instruments to support the commercialization of university research: Lessons from Canada. Technovation, 28(8), 506–517.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rasmussen, E., & Borch, O. J. (2010). University capabilities in facilitating entrepreneurship: A longitudinal study of spin-off ventures at mid-range universities. Research Policy, 39(5), 602–612.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rasmussen, E., & Gulbrandsen, M. (2012). Government support programmes to promote academic entrepreneurship: A principal-agent perspective. European Planning Studies, 20(4), 527–546.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rasmussen, E., & Rice, M. P. (2012). A framework for government support mechanisms aimed at enhancing university technology transfer: The Norwegian case. International Journal of Technology Transfer and Commercialisation, 11(1), 1–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rasmussen, E., & Sørheim, R. (2012). How governments seek to bridge the financing gap for university spin-offs: Proof-of-concept, pre-seed, and seed funding. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 24(7), 663–678.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, E. M. (2002). Diffusion of preventive innovations. Addictive Behaviors, 27, 989–993.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salmenkaita, J. P., & Salo, A. (2002). Rationales for government intervention in the commercialization of new technologies. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 14(2), 183–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D., & Link, A. (2003). Assessing the impact of organizational practices on the relative productivity of university technology transfer offices: an exploratory study. Research Policy, 32, 27–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D. A., Atwater, L. E., & Link, A. N. (2004). Toward a model of the effective transfer of scientific knowledge from academicians to practitioners: Qualitative evidence from the commercialization of university technologies. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 21(1), 115–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Storey, D. J., & Tether, B. S. (1998). Public policy measures to support new technology-based firms in the European Union. Research Policy, 26(9), 1037–1057.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Storper, M. (2013). Keys to the city: How economics, institutions, social interaction, and politics shape development. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tartari, V., Salter, A., & D’Este, P. (2012). Crossing the Rubicon: Exploring the factors that shape academics’ perceptions of the barriers to working with industry. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 36(3), 655–677.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tödtling, F., & Trippl, M. (2005). One size fits all? Towards a differentiated regional innovation policy approach. Research Policy, 34(8), 1203–1219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uecke, O., Rajendran, L., Schellin, S., & Simons, K. (2010). Enhancing effectiveness in early stages of technology transfer and entrepreneurship: the case of a new Alzheimer’s disease treatment. Conference paper 18th Annual High Technology Small Firms Conference.

  • Väänänen, L. (2003). Public provision of business support services in Finland (No. 850). ETLA Discussion Papers, The Research Institute of the Finnish Economy (ETLA).

  • Van Dierdonck, R., & Debackere, K. (1988). Academic entrepreneurship at Belgian universities. R&D Management, 18(4), 341–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Looy, B., Landoni, P., Callaert, J., van Pottelsberghe, B., Sapsalis, E., & Debackere, K. (2011). Entrepreneurial effectiveness of European universities: An empirical assessment of antecedents and trade-offs. Research Policy, 40(4), 553–564.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Villani, E. (2013). How external support may mitigate the barriers to university–industry collaboration. Journal of Industrial and Business Economics, 4, 117–145.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weckowska, D. M., Molas-Gallart, J., Tang, P., Twigg, D., Castro-Martínez, E., & Kijeńska-Dąbrowska, I. et al. (2015). University patenting and technology commercialization: Legal frameworks and the importance of local practice. R&D Management. doi:10.1111/radm.12123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, M., Lockett, A., Clarysse, B., & Binks, M. (2006). University spin-out companies and venture capital. Research Policy, 35(4), 481–501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Financial support from the EIBURS program of the European Investment Bank (FinKT project) and the Italian Ministry of University and Research (CUP 2010H37KAW 2013-2016) are gratefully acknowledged.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Management, Università degli Studi di Bologna, Via Capo di Lucca 34, 40126, Bologna, Italy

    Federico Munari & Laura Toschi

  2. University of Nordland Business School, Universitetsaleen 11, 8026, Bodø, Norway

    Einar Rasmussen

  3. School of Economics and Management, Free University of Bolzano, Piazza Università 1, 39100, Bozen-Bolzano, Italy

    Elisa Villani

Authors
  1. Federico Munari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Einar Rasmussen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Laura Toschi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Elisa Villani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Laura Toschi.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Munari, F., Rasmussen, E., Toschi, L. et al. Determinants of the university technology transfer policy-mix: a cross-national analysis of gap-funding instruments. J Technol Transf 41, 1377–1405 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-015-9448-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-015-9448-1

Keywords

JEL Classification

Search

Navigation