This paper explores the trajectories of the development and institutionalization of technology transfer structures and activities in Israel and Japan, two countries with strong science and technology sectors, from the 1950s to the present. We examine the local arrangements that existed before the introduction of the U.S. model in the 1980s and 90s, and how the Japanese and Israeli schemes of technology transfer evolved under the combination of local practices and U.S. influence. Drawing on new institutional theory’s concept of loose coupling, we identify different types of loose coupling between formal structures and practices in Israeli and Japanese fields of technology transfer before and after the introduction of U.S. model. Our analysis show that the new configurations in the two countries are best analyzed by looking at two factors: (1) The perceived efficacy of the local, previous technology transfer arrangements, and; (2) the gap between the local arrangement and the U.S. technology transfer model. In the Israeli case, the former technology transfer model was similar to the one in the U.S.—however, it was perceived as potentially ineffective and thus disputable. In the Japanese case, the former technology transfer model was seen as effective and largely uncontested. The introduction of the U.S. formal model with the university ownership of patents disrupted the informal technology transfer mechanisms in Japan. These historical trajectories explain why, on one hand, Israeli science community was quick to adopt to the U.S. model but contested its efficacy and legitimacy, and on the other hand, the Japanese science community modified the U.S. model through negotiating conditions that were as favorable to firms than universities as their previous mode of technology transfer. Through these cases, we show how loose coupling in each field developed and changed in response to global and local policies. We argue that attention to the local dynamics of loose coupling can help explain local variations in the global diffusion of the American style of technology transfer.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT for USA
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.
Acs, Z. J., Audretsch, D. B., Lehmann, E. E., & Licht, G. (2016). National systems of entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 46(4), 527–535.
Berman, E. P. (2008). Why did universities start patenting? Institution-building and the road to the Bayh–Dole Act. Social Studies of Science, 38, 835–871.
Berman, E. P. (2012). Creating the market university: How academic science became an economic engine. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Calvert, J. (2006). What’s special about basic research? Science, Technology and Human Values, 31, 199–220.
Carayannis, E. G., Cherepovitsyn, A. Y., & Ilinova, A. A. (2016). Technology commercialization in entrepreneurial universities: The U.S. and Russian experience. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 41, 1135–1147.
Central Bureau of Statistics, Israel. (2016). Press release: Survey of knowledge commercialization companies in Israel 2014–2015. Reports on invention disclosures, patents, license agreements, income and startup companies, May 22, 2016.
Cohen, U. (2003). Conflict in academia: The Hebrew University during the war of independence, 1947–49. Journal of Israeli History, 22(2), 96–129.
Colyvas, J. A., & Powell, W. W. (2006). Roads to institutionalization: The remaking of boundaries between public and private science. Research in Organizational Behavior, 27, 315–363.
Damsgaard, E. F., & Thursby, M. C. (2013). University entrepreneurship and professor privilege. Industrial and Corporate Change, 22(1), 183–218.
Decter, M. H. (2009). Comparative review of UK–USA industry–university relationships. Education & Training, 51(8), 624–634.
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160.
EC-European Commission. (2013). Innovation union competitiveness report 2013 (December).
Freeman, C. (1995). The national innovation systems in historical perspective. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 19(1), 5–24.
Geuna, A., & Rossi, F. (2011). Changes to university IPR regulations in Europe and the impact on academic patenting. Research Policy, 40(8), 1068–1076.
Grimaldi, R., Kenny, M., Siegel, D. S., & Wright, M. (2011). 30 years after Bayh–Dole: Reassessing academic entrepreneurship. Research Policy, 40, 1045–1057.
Grimpe, C., & Fier, H. (2010). Informal university technology transfer: A comparison between the United States and Germany. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 35(6), 637–650.
Hallett, T., & Ventresca, M. J. (2006). How institutions form: Loose coupling as mechanism in Gouldner’s patterns of industrial bureaucracy. The American Behavioral Scientist, 49(7), 908–924.
Japan Patent Office. (2009). Daigaku hatsu Tokkyo ni yoru keizaiteki kouka ni kansuru kenkyu houkokusho (Research report on the economic effects of university-originated patents). Division of research and promotion of university intellectual property. Retrieved on May 10, 2017 at http://www.jpo.go.jp/sesaku/pdf/daigaku_shien/tokyo.pdf.
Kameo, N. (2015). Gifts, donations, and loose coupling: Responses to changes in academic entrepreneurship among Japanese bioscientists. Theory and Society, 44, 177–198.
Kenney, M., & Patton, D. (2009). Reconsidering the Bayh–Dole Act and the current university invention ownership model. Research Policy, 38(9), 1407–1422.
Kneller, R. (2003). University–Industry cooperation and technology transfer in Japan compared with the United States: Another reason for Japan’s economic malaise. University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Economic Law, 24(2), 329–449.
Kneller, R. (2007). Bridging island: Venture companies and the future of Japanese and American industry. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kochenkova, A., Grimaldi, R., & Munari, F. J. (2016). Public policy measures in support of knowledge transfer activities: A review of academic literature. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 41(3), 407–429.
Leisyte, L. (2011). University commercialization policies and their implementation in the Netherlands and the United States. Science and Public Policy, 38(6), 437–448.
Lissoni, F., Llerena, P., McKelvey, M., & Sanditov, B. (2008). Academic patenting in Europe: New evidence from the KEINS database. Research Evaluation, 17(2), 87–102.
Lundvall, B. A. (1988). Innovation as an interactive process: From user–producer interaction to the national innovation systems. In G. Dosi, C. Freeman, R. R. Nelson, G. Silverberg, & L. Soete (Eds.), Technology and economic theory. London: Pinter Publishers.
Lundvall, B. A. (1992). National innovation systems: Towards a theory of innovation and interactive learning. London: Pinter Publishers.
Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363.
Ministry of Education [Japan]. (1978). Kokuritu daigaku tou no kyoukan tou no hatsumei ni kakawaru tokkyo no toriatsukai ni tsuite (Regarding the management of patents concerning the inventions of professors at national universities and equivalent institutions). Notice no. 117. March 25.
Mowery, D. C., & Sampat, B. N. (2005). The Bayh–Dole Act of 1980 and university–industry technology transfer: A model for other OECD governments? The Journal of Technology Transfer, 30, 115–127.
Nelson, R. (1993). National innovation systems: A comparative analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Odagiri, H. (1999). University-Industry Collaboration in Japan: Facts and Interpretations. In L. M. Branscomb, F. Kodama, & R. Florida (Eds.), Industrializing knowledge: University–industry linkages in Japan and the United States (pp. 252–268). Cambridge: MIP Press.
OECD. (2014). Science, technology and industry outlook 2014. Paris: OECD Publishing.
Orton, D. J., & Weick, K. E. (1990). Loosely coupled systems: A reconceptualization. The Academy of Management Review, 15(2), 203–223.
Owen-Smith, J., Riccaboni, M., Pammolli, F., & Powell, W. W. (2002). A comparison of U.S. and European university–industry relations in the life sciences. Management Science, 48(1), 24–43.
Pechter, K., & Kakinuma, S. (1999). Coauthorship linkages between university research and Japanese industry. In L. M. Branscomb, F. Kodama, & R. Florida (Eds.), Industrializing knowledge: university–industry linkages in Japan and the United States (pp. 20–63). Cambridge: MIP Press.
Powell, W. W., & Colyvas, J. A. (2008). Microfoundations of institutional theory. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, K. Sahlin-Andersson, & R. Suddaby (Eds.), Handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 276–298). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishers.
Sapir, A. (2017). Protecting the purity of pure research: Organizational boundary-work at an institute of basic research. Minerva, A Review of Science, Learning and Policy, 55(1), 65–91.
Sapir, A., & Oliver, A. (2017). Loose coupling, conflict and resistance: The case of IPR policy conflict in an Israeli university. Higher Education, 73(5), 709–724.
Schauz, Désirée. (2014). What is basic research? Insights from historical semantics. Minerva, 52(3), 273–328.
Scott, W. R. (2004). Institutional theory. In G. Ritzer (Ed.), Encyclopedia of social theory (pp. 408–414). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Señor, D., & Singer, S. (2009). Start-up nation: The story of Israel’s economic miracle. New York: Twelve.
Smith, H. L., Dahlstrand, A. L., & Baines, N. (2013). Reconsidering the Professor’s privilege: University technology transfer in Sweden and the UK. (Unpublished manuscript).
The Israeli State Comptroller Annual Report. (2012). October 17, 2012, pp. 185–239.
Thursby, J., Fuller, A. W., & Thursby, M. (2009). U.S. faculty patenting: Inside and outside the university. Research Policy, 38(1), 14.
Troen, S. I. (1992). Higher education in Israel: An historical perspective. Higher Education, 23(1), 45–63.
Weick, K. E. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, 1–19.
Yoshihara, M., & Tamai, K. (1999). Lack of incentive and persisting constraints: Factors hindering technology transfer at Japanese universities. In L. M. Branscomb, F. Kodama, & R. Florida (Eds.), Industrializing Knowledge: university–industry linkages in Japan and the United States (pp. 348–364). Cambridge: MIP Press.
About this article
Cite this article
Sapir, A., Kameo, N. Rethinking loose coupling of rules and entrepreneurial practices among university scientists: a Japan–Israel comparison. J Technol Transf 44, 49–72 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-017-9596-6
- Technology transfer
- Loose coupling