Advertisement

The Journal of Technology Transfer

, Volume 44, Issue 5, pp 1529–1546 | Cite as

Technology transfer with search intensity and project advertising

  • Giorgio Calcagnini
  • Germana GiombiniEmail author
  • Paolo Liberati
  • Giuseppe Travaglini
Article
  • 108 Downloads

Abstract

We present a model where technology transfer (TT) is embedded into a non cooperative model of utility and profit maximization and is the result of an endogenous matching process between technology transfer offices and innovative firms. We show that TT strictly depends on the costs of searching researchers and firm advertising for vacant projects. In this scenario, technology progress might be excessively low if technology transfer offices search for project matches too much intensively. The result occurs because both sides of the market ignore the externalities of their decisions. Complementarity or substitutability between the tightness in the TT market and the technology stock are both potential equilibrium outcomes.

Keywords

Technology transfer Matching Externalities 

JEL Classification

O31 O32 

Supplementary material

10961_2018_9667_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (180 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (pdf 179 KB)

References

  1. Aristei, D., Vecchi, M., & Venturini, F. (2015). University and inter-firm R&D collaborations: propensity and intensity of cooperation in Europe. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 41, 841–871.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-015-9403-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Audretsch, D. B., & Lehmann, E. E. (2005). Do university policies make a difference? Research Policy, 34, 343–347.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2005.01.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Audretsch, D. B., Lehman, E. E., & Warning, S. (2005). University spillover and new firm location. Research Policy, 34, 1113–1122.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2005.05.009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Banal-Estañol, A., Macho-Stadler, I., & Pérez-Castrillo, D. (2017). Endogeneous matching in university–industry collaboration: Theory and empirical evidence from the UK. Management Science, 64(4), 1591–1608.  https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2016.2680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barney, J., & Felin, T. (2013). What are microfoundations? Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(2), 138–155.  https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2012.0107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blanchard, 0. J., & Diamond, P. A. (1989). The beveridge curve. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 1, 1–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bozeman, B. (2000). Technology transfer and public policy: A review of research and theory. Research Policy, 29, 627–655.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00093-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Braunerhjelm, P., Acs, Z. J., Audretsch, D. B., & Carlsson, B. (2010). The missing link: Knowledge diffusion and entrepreneurship in endogenous growth. Small Business Economics, 34(2), 105–125.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-009-9235-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Calcagnini, G., Giombini, G., & Travaglini, G. (2015). The productivity gap among European countries. In Working papers in economics, mathematics and statistics WP 15/10. University of Urbino Carlo Bo.Google Scholar
  10. Calcagnini, G., Favaretto, I., Giombini, G., Perugini, F., & Rombaldoni, R. (2016a). The role of universities in the location of innovative start-ups. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 41, 670–693.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-015-9396-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Calcagnini, G., Giombini, G., Liberati, P., & Travaglini, G. (2016b). A matching model of university–industry collaborations. Small Business Economics, 46, 31–43.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-015-9672-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Calcagnini, G., & Travaglini, G. (2014). A time series analysis of labor productivity. Italy versus the European countries and the U.S. Economic Modelling, 36, 622–628.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2013.02.020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Castillo, F., Gilless, J. K., Heiman, A., & Zilberman, D. (2016). Time of adoption and intensity of technology transfer: An institutional analysis of offices of technology transfer in the United States. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 43, 120–138.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-016-9468-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Conte, A., & Vivarelli, M. (2014). Succeeding in innovation: Key insights on the role of R&D and technological acquisition drawn from company data. Empirical Economics, 47, 1317–1340.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00181-013-0779-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cunningham, J., O’Reilly, P., O’Kane, C., & Mangematin, V. (2015). At the frontiers of scientific advancement: The factors that influence scientists to become or choose to become publicly funded principal investigators. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 41, 778–797.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-015-9400-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Diamond, P. A. (1982). Aggregate demand management in equilibrium. Journal of Political Economy, 90(5), 881–894.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. European Commission. (2013). Knowledge transfer study 2010–2012. In: Final report. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.Google Scholar
  18. Foss, N. J., & Lindenberg, S. (2013). Microfoundations for strategy: A goal framing perspective on the drivers of value creation. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(2), 85–102.  https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2012.0103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Geuna, A., & Muscio, A. (2009). The governance of university knowledge transfer: A critical review of the literature. Minerva, 47, 93–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Godin, B. (2006). The linear model of innovation: The historical construction of an analytical framework. Science, Technology and Human Values, 36(6), 639–667.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243906291865.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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
  22. Jensen, R. A., Thursby, J. G., & Thursby, M. C. (2003). Disclosure and licensing of university inventions: The best we can do with the \({\text{ s }}^{\ast \ast }\)t we get to work with. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 21(9), 1271–1300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kanama, D., & Nishikawa, K. (2015). What type of obstacles in innovation activities make firms access university knowledge? An empirical study of the use of university knowledge on innovation outcomes. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 42, 141–157.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-015-9459-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kochenkova, A., Grimaldi, R., & Munari, F. (2015). Public policy measures in support of knowledge transfer activities: a review of academic literature. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 41, 407–429.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-015-9416-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lach, S., & Schankerman, M. (2004). Royalty sharing and technology licensing in universities. Journal of the European Economic Association, 2(2–3), 252–264.  https://doi.org/10.1162/154247604323067961.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Leyden, D. P., & Link, A. N. (2013a). Collective entrepreneurship: The strategic management of research triangle park. In D. P. Audretsch & M. L. Walshok (Eds.), Creating competitiveness: Entrepreneurship and innovation policies for growth (pp. 176–185). MA: Northampton.Google Scholar
  27. Leyden, D. P., & Link, A. N. (2013b). Knowledge spillovers, collective entrepreneurship, and economic growth: The role of universities. Small Business Economics, 41, 797–817.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-013-9507-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The triple helix: An evolutionary model of innovations. Research Policy, 29(2), 243–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2005). Universities as partners in US research joint ventures. Research Policy, 34(3), 385–393.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2005.01.013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Link, A. N., Siegel, D. S., & Bozeman, B. (2007). An empirical analysis of the propensity of academics to engage in informal university technology transfer. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16(4), 641–655.  https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtm020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Link, A. N., & Welsh, D. H. B. (2013). From laboratory to market: On the propensity of young inventors to form a new business. Small Business Economics, 40(1), 1–7.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-011-9345-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Macho-Stadler, I., & Prez-Castrillo, D. (2010). Incentives in university technology transfers. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 28(4), 362–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Macho-Stadler, I., Prez-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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Meoli, M., Paleari, S., & Vismara, S. (2013). Completing the technology transfer process: M&As of science-based IPOs. Small Business Economics, 40(2), 227–248.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-012-9416-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Muscio, A., Quaglione, D., & Ramaciotti, L. (2016). The effects of university rules on spinoff creation: The case of academia in Italy. Research Policy, 45, 1386–1396.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2016.04.011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Muscio, A., Quaglione, D., & Vallanti, G. (2015). University regulation and university–industry interaction: A performance analysis of Italian academic departments. Industrial and Corporate Change, 24, 1047–1079.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Netval (2015). Protagonisti dell’ecosistema dell’innovazione? Dodicesimo rapporto Netval sulla valorizzazione della ricerca nelle università e negli enti pubblici italiani. Pavia, Italia: Università degli Studi di Pavia.Google Scholar
  38. OECD. (2011). OECD innovation policy platform. Paris: Technology Transfer Offices.Google Scholar
  39. Perkmann, M., Tartari, V., McKelvey, M., Autio, E., Brostro, A., D’Este, P., et al. (2013). Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of the literature on university–industry relations. Research Policy, 42, 423–442.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.09.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Phan, P. H., & Siegel, D. S. (2006). The effectiveness of university technology transfer. Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship, 2(2), 77–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pissarides, C. (1984). Search intensity, job advertising, and efficiency. Journal of Labour Economics, 1(2), 128–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pissarides, C. (1986). Unemployment and vacancies in Britain. Economic Policy, 3, 499–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pissarides, C. (2000). Equilibrium unemployment theory (2nd ed.). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  44. Shi, S., & Wen, Q. (1997). Labor market search and capital accumulation: Some analytical results. Journal of Economic Dynamic and Control, 21, 1747–1776.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 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.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(01)00196-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Solow, R. (1979). Another possible source of wage stickness. Journal of Macroeconomics, 1, 79–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Winter, S. G. (2013). Habit, deliberation, and action: Strengthening the microfoundations of routines and capabilities. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(1), 120–127.  https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2012.0124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. World Economic Forum. (2015). The global competitiveness report 2014–2015, (Full Data edn). World Economic Forum: GenevaGoogle Scholar
  49. Yu, G. J., & Lee, J. (2016). When should a firm collaborate with research organizations for innovation performance? The moderating role of innovation orientation, size, and age. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 42, 1451–1465.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-016-9469-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Economics, Society and PoliticsUniversità di Urbino Carlo BoUrbinoItaly
  2. 2.Mo.Fi.RAnconaItaly
  3. 3.Department of EconomicsUniversità degli Studi di Roma TreRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations