Advertisement

The impact of university focused technology transfer policies on regional innovation and entrepreneurship

  • James A. Cunningham
  • Erik E. Lehmann
  • Matthias Menter
  • Nikolaus SeitzEmail author
Article
  • 135 Downloads

Abstract

Within the technology transfer field, there have been numerous empirical studies taking US data and context that have examined the impact and effect of government legislation aimed at supporting effective technology transfer, particularly from universities and federal research laboratories to the market. However, there is a paucity of such studies in other geographical domains. Existing studies have further not focused on examining the simultaneous effects on entrepreneurial and innovative outcomes of university focused technology transfer policies. We address these research gaps by examining the effects of a far-reaching legislation change in Germany, reforming the old ‘professor’s privilege’ (Hochschullehrerprivileg). The purpose of this paper is to investigate whether regional entrepreneurial and innovative outcomes have been affected by this legislative change in intellectual property rights of inventions made by scientists. Our results suggest that this legislative change did have an initial positive effect on universities as measured by start-ups and patents. The effect yet changed over time, leading to some unintended consequences. Our paper argues that policy makers and legislators need to give consideration to the replication of policy and legislative instruments from other contexts along with the criteria that are used to measure success.

Keywords

German Employees’ Inventions Act Bayh-Dole Act Professor’s privilege Innovation Entrepreneurship Technology transfer 

JEL classification

L38 O31 O34 O38 

Notes

References

  1. Acs, Z. J., & Szerb, L. (2007). Entrepreneurship, economic growth and public policy. Small Business Economics, 28(2–3), 109–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Agrawal, A. K. (2001). University-to-industry knowledge transfer: Literature review and unanswered questions. International Journal of Management Reviews, 3(4), 285–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aldridge, T. T., & Audretsch, D. (2011). The Bayh-Dole act and scientist entrepreneurship. Research Policy, 40(8), 1058–1067.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Audretsch, D. B. (2014). From the entrepreneurial university to the university for the entrepreneurial society. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 39(3), 313–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Audretsch, D. B., Cunningham, J. A., Kuratko, D. F., Lehmann, E. E., & Menter, M. (2019a). Entrepreneurial ecosystems: Economic, technological, and societal impacts. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 44(2), 313–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Audretsch, D. B., Hülsbeck, M., & Lehmann, E. E. (2012). Regional competitiveness, university spillovers, and entrepreneurial activity. Small Business Economics, 39(3), 587–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Audretsch, D. B., & Keilbach, M. (2004). Does entrepreneurship capital matter? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 28(5), 419–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Audretsch, D. B., & Lehmann, E. E. (2005). Does the knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship hold for regions? Research Policy, 34(8), 1191–1202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Audretsch, D. B., Lehmann, E. E., & Menter, M. (2016). Public cluster policy and new venture creation. Economia e Politica Industriale, 43(4), 357–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Audretsch, D. B., Lehmann, E. E., Menter, M., & Seitz, N. (2019b). Public cluster policy and firm performance: Evaluating spillover effects across industries. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 31(1–2), 150–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Audretsch, D., Lehmann, E., & Warning, S. (2004). University spillovers: Does the kind of science matter? Industry and Innovation, 11(3), 193–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Baptista, R., & Preto, M. T. (2007). The dynamics of causality between entrepreneurship and unemployment. International Journal of Technology, Policy and Management, 7(3), 215–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Baumol, W. J. (1990). Entrepreneurship: Productive, unproductive, and destructive. The Journal of Political Economy, 98(5), 893–921.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bercovitz, J., & Feldman, M. (2006). Entpreprenerial universities and technology transfer: A conceptual framework for understanding knowledge-based economic development. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 31(1), 175–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Bergmann, H., Hundt, C., & Sternberg, R. (2016). What makes student entrepreneurs? On the relevance (and irrelevance) of the university and the regional context for student start-ups. Small Business Economics, 47(1), 53–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Blenker, P., Trolle Elmholdt, S., Hedeboe Frederiksen, S., Korsgaard, S., & Wagner, K. (2014). Methods in entrepreneurship education research: A review and integrative framework. Education + Training, 56(8/9), 697–715.Google Scholar
  18. Blumenthal, D., Campbell, E. G., Anderson, M. S., Causino, N., & Louis, K. S. (1997). Withholding research results in academic life science: Evidence from a national survey of faculty. JAMA, 277(15), 1224–1228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Boettiger, S., & Bennett, A. B. (2006). Bayh-Dole: If we knew then what we know now. Nature Biotechnology, 24(3), 320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Bramwell, A., & Wolfe, D. A. (2008). Universities and regional economic development: The entrepreneurial University of Waterloo. Research Policy, 37(8), 1175–1187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Brown, R. (2016). Mission impossible? Entrepreneurial universities and peripheral regional innovation systems. Industry and Innovation, 23(2), 189–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Cattaneo, M., Meoli, M., & Signori, A. (2016). Performance-based funding and university research productivity: The moderating effect of university legitimacy. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 41(1), 85–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Clark, B. R. (1998). Creating entrepreneurial universities. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  24. Cohen, W. M., Nelson, R. R., & Walsh, J. P. (2002). Links and impacts: The influence of public research on industrial R&D. Management Science, 48(1), 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Cunningham, J. A., & Clinch, J. P. (2004). An organizing framework for the implementation of environmental voluntary approaches. European Environment, 14(1), 30–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Cunningham, J. A., Guerrero, M., & Urbano, D. (2017a). Entrepreneurial universities—overview, reflections, and future research agendas. In J. A. Cunningham, M. Guerrero, & D. Urbano (Eds.), The world scientific reference on entrepreneurship (pp. 3–19). Singapur: World Scientific Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Cunningham, J., & Harney, B. (2006). Strategic management of technology transfer: The new challenge on campus. Oxfordshire: Oak Tree Press.Google Scholar
  28. Cunningham, J. A., & Link, A. N. (2014). Fostering university-industry R&D collaborations in European Union countries. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 11(4), 849–860.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Cunningham, J. A., Menter, M., & O’Kane, C. (2018). Value creation in the quadruple helix: A micro level conceptual model of principal investigators as value creators. R&D Management, 48(1), 136–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Cunningham, J. A., Menter, M., & Wirsching, K. (2019). Entrepreneurial ecosystem governance: A principal investigator-centered governance framework. Small Business Economics, 52(2), 545–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Cunningham, J. A., Menter, M., & Young, C. (2017b). A review of qualitative case methods trends and themes used in technology transfer research. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 42(4), 923–956.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Cunningham, J., O’Reilly, P., O’Kane, C., & Mangematin, V. (2014). The inhibiting factors that principal investigators experience in leading publicly funded research. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 39(1), 93–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Cuntz, A., Dauchert, H., Meurer, P., & Philipps, A. (2012). Hochschulpatente zehn Jahre nach Abschaffung des Hochschullehrerprivilegs. In Studien zum deutschen Innovationssystem 13-2012, Expertenkommission Forschung und Innovation (EFI)—Commission of Experts for Research and Innovation. Berlin. http://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:zbw:efisdi:132012.
  34. Di Nauta, P., Merola, B., Caputo, F., & Evangelista, F. (2018). Reflections on the role of university to face the challenges of knowledge society for the local economic development. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 9(1), 180–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Etzkowitz, H. (2008). The triple helix: University-industry-government innovation in action. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Etzkowitz, H. (2014). The entrepreneurial university wave: From ivory tower to global economic engine. Industry and Higher Education, 28(4), 223–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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
  38. Falck, O., Fritsch, M., & Heblich, S. (2011). The phantom of the opera: Cultural amenities, human capital, and regional economic growth. Labour Economics, 18(6), 755–766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Faria, J. R., Cuestas, J. C., & Mourelle, E. (2010). Entrepreneurship and unemployment: A nonlinear bidirectional causality? Economic Modelling, 27(5), 1282–1291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Fitzgerald, C., & Cunningham, J. A. (2016). Inside the university technology transfer office: Mission statement analysis. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 41(5), 1235–1246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Florida, R. (1995). Toward the learning region. Futures, 27(5), 527–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Fritsch, M., & Franke, G. (2004). Innovation, regional knowledge spillovers and R&D cooperation. Research Policy, 33(2), 245–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Fritsch, M., & Schwirten, C. (1999). Enterprise-university co-operation and the role of public research institutions in regional innovation systems. Industry and Innovation, 6(1), 69–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Fritsch, M., & Wyrwich, M. (2014). The long persistence of regional levels of entrepreneurship: Germany, 1925–2005. Regional Studies, 48(6), 955–973.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Gately, C., & Cunningham, J. (2014a). The contributions and disconnections between writing a business plan and the start-up process for incubator technology entrepreneurs. In A. C. Corbett, D. S. Siegel, & J. A. Katz (Eds.), Academic entrepreneurship: Creating an entrepreneurial ecosystem (pp. 197–241). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Gately, C., & Cunningham, J. (2014b). Building intellectual capital in incubated technology firms. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 15(4), 516–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Geoghegan, W., & Pontikakis, D. (2008). From ivory tower to factory floor? How universities are changing to meet the needs of industry. Science and Public Policy, 35(7), 462–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Geuna, A., & Nesta, L. J. (2006). University patenting and its effects on academic research: The emerging European evidence. Research Policy, 35(6), 790–807.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Geuna, A., & Rossi, F. (2011). Changes to university IPR regulations in Europe and the impact on academic patenting. Research Policy, 40(8), 1068–1076.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Glauber, J., Wollersheim, J., Sandner, P., & Welpe, I. M. (2015). The patenting activity of German Universities. Journal of Business Economics, 85(7), 719–757.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Goldstein, H. A. (2010). The ‘entrepreneurial turn’and regional economic development mission of universities. The Annals of Regional Science, 44(1), 83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Grimaldi, R., Kenney, M., Siegel, D. S., & Wright, M. (2011). 30 years after Bayh-Dole: Reassessing academic entrepreneurship. Research Policy, 40(8), 1045–1057.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Grimm, H. M. (2011). The diffusion of Bayh-Dole to Germany: Did new public policy facilitate university patenting and commercialisation? International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 12(4), 459–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Guerrero, M., Cunningham, J. A., & Urbano, D. (2015). Economic impact of entrepreneurial universities’ activities: An exploratory study of the United Kingdom. Research Policy, 44(3), 748–764.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Guerrero, M., Toledano, N., & Urbano, D. (2011). Entrepreneurial universities and support mechanisms: A Spanish case study. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, 13(2), 144–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Guerrero, M., & Urbano, D. (2012). The development of an entrepreneurial university. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 37(1), 43–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Guerrero, M., Urbano, D., Cunningham, J., & Organ, D. (2014a). Entrepreneurial universities in two European regions: A case study comparison. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 39(3), 415–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Guerrero, M., Urbano, D., & Salamzadeh, A. (2014b). Evolving entrepreneurial universities: Experiences and challenges in the Middle Eastern context. In A. Fayolle (Ed.), Handbook of research in entrepreneurship education: Entrepreneurial university handbook (pp. 163–187). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
  59. Harhoff, D., & Hoisl, K. (2007). Institutionalized incentives for ingenuity—patent value and the German Employees’ Inventions Act. Research Policy, 36(8), 1143–1162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Hicks, D. (2012). Performance-based university research funding systems. Research Policy, 41(2), 251–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Hsu, D. W., Shen, Y. C., Yuan, B. J., & Chou, C. J. (2015). Toward successful commercialization of university technology: Performance drivers of university technology transfer in Taiwan. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 92, 25–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Huggins, R., & Thompson, P. (2015). Entrepreneurship, innovation and regional growth: A network theory. Small Business Economics, 45(1), 103–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Hülsbeck, M., Lehmann, E. E., & Starnecker, A. (2013). Performance of technology transfer offices in Germany. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 38(3), 199–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Hvide, H. K., & Jones, B. F. (2018). University Innovation and the Professor’s Privilege. American Economic Review, 108(7), 1860–1898.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Kallio, A., Harmaakorpi, V., & Pihkala, T. (2010). Absorptive capacity and social capital in regional innovation systems: The case of the Lahti region in Finland. Urban Studies, 47(2), 303–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Katz, J. A. (2003). The chronology and intellectual trajectory of American entrepreneurship education: 1876–1999. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(2), 283–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Katz, J. A. (2008). Fully mature but not fully legitimate: A different perspective on the state of entrepreneurship education. Journal of Small Business Management, 46(4), 550–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Kirby, D. A., Guerrero, M., & Urbano, D. (2011). Making universities more entrepreneurial: Development of a model. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences/Revue Canadienne des Sciences de l’Administration, 28(3), 302–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Koellinger, P. D., & Thurik, R. A. (2012). Entrepreneurship and the business cycle. Review of Economics and Statistics, 94(4), 1143–1156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Kuratko, D. F., & Menter, M. (2017). The role of public policy in fostering technology-based nascent entrepreneurship. In J. A. Cunningham & C. O’Kane (Eds.), Technology-based nascent entrepreneurship technology-based nascent entrepreneurship (pp. 19–52). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Lach, S., & Schankerman, M. (2008). Incentives and invention in universities. The Rand Journal of Economics, 39(2), 403–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Lee, Y. S. (1996). ‘Technology transfer’and the research university: A search for the boundaries of university-industry collaboration. Research Policy, 25(6), 843–863.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Lehmann, E. E., & Menter, M. (2016). University–industry collaboration and regional wealth. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 41(6), 1284–1307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Lehmann, E. E., & Menter, M. (2018a). Public cluster policy and performance. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 43(3), 558–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Lehmann, E. E., & Menter, M. (2018b). Public cluster policy and neighboring regions: Beggar-thy-neighbor? Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 27(5–6), 420–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Lehmann, E. E., Menter, M., & Wirsching, K. (2017a). Firm performance and regional innovation mechanisms: The moderating role of absorptive capacities. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, 37(11), 243–248.Google Scholar
  77. Lehmann, E. E., & Seitz, N. (2017). Freedom and innovation: A country and state level analysis. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 42(5), 1009–1029.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Lehmann, E. E., Seitz, N., & Wirsching, K. (2017b). Smart finance for smart places to foster new venture creation. Economia e Politica Industriale, 44(1), 51–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Lehmann, E. E., & Stockinger, S. A. (2018). Entrepreneurship in higher education: The impact of competition- based policy programmes exemplified by the German excellence initiative. Higher Education Quarterly.  https://doi.org/10.1111/hequ.12188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Leyden, D. P., & Menter, M. (2018). The legacy and promise of Vannevar Bush: Rethinking the model of innovation and the role of public policy. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 27(3), 225–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Leydesdorff, L., & Etzkowitz, H. (1996). Emergence of a Triple Helix of university—industry—government relations. Science and Public Policy, 23(5), 279–286.Google Scholar
  82. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Link, A. N., Siegel, D. S., & Van Fleet, D. D. (2011). Public science and public innovation: Assessing the relationship between patenting at US National Laboratories and the Bayh-Dole Act. Research Policy, 40(8), 1094–1099.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Lumpkin, G. T., & Katz, J. A. (2007). An introduction to the special volume on entrepreneurial strategic processes. In Entrepreneurial strategic processes (pp. 1–7). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.Google Scholar
  85. Markman, G. D., Phan, P. H., Balkin, D. B., & Gianiodis, P. T. (2005). Entrepreneurship and university-based technology transfer. Journal of Business Venturing, 20(2), 241–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Matlay, H. (2008). The impact of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial outcomes. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 15(2), 382–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Menter, M. (2016). Principal investigators and the commercialization of knowledge. In D. B. Audretsch, E. E. Lehmann, S. Vismara, & M. Meoli (Eds.), University evolution entrepreneurial activity and regional competitiveness (pp. 193–203). Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Menter, M., Lehmann, E. E., & Klarl, T. (2018). In search of excellence: A case study of the first excellence initiative of Germany. Journal of Business Economics, 88(9), 1105–1132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Minniti, M. (2008). The role of government policy on entrepreneurial activity: Productive, unproductive, or destructive? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32(5), 779–790.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Moosa, I. A. (2018). Publish or perish: Perceived benefits versus unintended consequences. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Mowery, D. C., Nelson, R. R., Sampat, B. N., & Ziedonis, A. A. (2001). The growth of patenting and licensing by US universities: An assessment of the effects of the Bayh-Dole act of 1980. Research Policy, 30(1), 99–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Mowery, D. C., Nelson, R. R., Sampat, B. N., & Ziedonis, A. A. (2015). Ivory tower and industrial innovation: University-industry technology transfer before and after the Bayh-Dole Act. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  93. Mowery, D. C., & Sampat, B. N. (2004). The Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 and university–industry technology transfer: A model for other OECD governments? The Journal of Technology Transfer, 30(1–2), 115–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Muscio, A., Quaglione, D., & Vallanti, G. (2013). Does government funding complement or substitute private research funding to universities? Research Policy, 42(1), 63–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Nabi, G., Liñán, F., Fayolle, A., Krueger, N., & Walmsley, A. (2017). The impact of entrepreneurship education in higher education: A systematic review and research agenda. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 16(2), 277–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. O’Kane, C., Mangematin, V., Geoghegan, W., & Fitzgerald, C. (2015). University technology transfer offices: The search for identity to build legitimacy. Research Policy, 44(2), 421–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. O’Shea, R. P., Allen, T. J., Chevalier, A., & Roche, F. (2005). Entrepreneurial orientation, technology transfer and spinoff performance of US universities. Research Policy, 34(7), 994–1009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. O’Shea, R. P., Allen, T. J., Morse, K. P., O’Gorman, C., & Roche, F. (2007). Delineating the anatomy of an entrepreneurial university: The Massachusetts Institute of Technology experience. R&D Management, 37(1), 1–16.Google Scholar
  100. Poyago-Theotoky, J., Beath, J., & Siegel, D. S. (2002). Universities and fundamental research: Reflections on the growth of university–industry partnerships. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 18(1), 10–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Ranga, L., Debackere, K., & Tunzelmann, N. (2003). Entrepreneurial universities and the dynamics of academic knowledge production: A case study of basic vs. applied research in Belgium. Scientometrics, 58(2), 301–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Rappert, B., Webster, A., & Charles, D. (1999). Making sense of diversity and reluctance: Academic–industrial relations and intellectual property. Research Policy, 28(8), 873–890.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Rasmussen, E., Moen, Ø., & Gulbrandsen, M. (2006). Initiatives to promote commercialization of university knowledge. Technovation, 26(4), 518–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Roper, S., & Love, J. H. (2006). Innovation and regional absorptive capacity: The labour market dimension. The Annals of Regional Science, 40(2), 437–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Salter, A. J., & Martin, B. R. (2001). The economic benefits of publicly funded basic research: A critical review. Research Policy, 30(3), 509–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Sampat, B. N., Mowery, D. C., & Ziedonis, A. A. (2003). Changes in university patent quality after the Bayh-Dole act: A re-examination. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 21(9), 1371–1390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Saxenian, A. (2002). Silicon Valley’s new immigrant high-growth entrepreneurs. Economic development quarterly, 16(1), 20–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Shane, S. (2004). Encouraging university entrepreneurship? The effect of the Bayh-Dole Act on university patenting in the United States. Journal of Business Venturing, 19(1), 127–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Shane, S. A. (2005). Academic entrepreneurship: University spinoffs and wealth creation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
  110. Siegel, D. S., 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Siegel, D. S., Wessner, C., Binks, M., & Lockett, A. (2003). Policies promoting innovation in small firms: Evidence from the US and UK. Small Business Economics, 20(2), 121–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Stolarick, K., & Florida, R. (2006). Creativity, connections and innovation: A study of linkages in the Montréal Region. Environment and Planning A, 38(10), 1799–1817.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Storper, M., & Scott, A. J. (2009). Rethinking human capital, creativity and urban growth. Journal of Economic Geography, 9(2), 147–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. Thursby, J. G., & Thursby, M. C. (2011). Has the Bayh-Dole act compromised basic research? Research Policy, 40(8), 1077–1083.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Trequattrini, R., Lombardi, R., Lardo, A., & Cuozzo, B. (2018). The impact of entrepreneurial universities on regional growth: A local intellectual capital perspective. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 9(1), 199–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Tseng, A. A., & Raudensky, M. (2014). Performance evaluations of technology transfer offices of major US research universities. Journal of Technology Management & Innovation, 9(1), 93–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. Urbano, D., & Guerrero, M. (2013). Entrepreneurial universities: Socioeconomic impacts of academic entrepreneurship in a European Region. Economic Development Quarterly, 27(1), 40–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. Valero, A., & Van Reenen, J. (2016). The economic impact of universities: Evidence from across the globe. National Bureau of Economic ResearchNo. w22501.Google Scholar
  119. Von Proff, S., Buenstorf, G., & Hummel, M. (2012). University patenting in Germany before and after 2002: What role did the professors’ privilege play? Industry and Innovation, 19(1), 23–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. Weckowska, D. M., Molas-Gallart, J., Tang, P., Twigg, D., Castro-Martínez, E., Kijeńska-Dąbrowska, I., et al. (2018). University patenting and technology commercialization–legal frameworks and the importance of local practice. R&D Management, 48(1), 88–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. Wennekers, S., & Thurik, R. (1999). Linking entrepreneurship and economic growth. Small Business Economics, 13(1), 27–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. Wennekers, S., Van Wennekers, A., Thurik, R., & Reynolds, P. (2005). Nascent entrepreneurship and the level of economic development. Small Business Economics, 24(3), 293–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. Wong, P. K., Ho, Y. P., & Autio, E. (2005). Entrepreneurship, innovation and economic growth: Evidence from GEM data. Small Business Economics, 24(3), 335–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. Wright, M. (2007). Academic entrepreneurship in Europe. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. Wright, M., Birley, S., & Mosey, S. (2004). Entrepreneurship and university technology transfer. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 29(3–4), 235–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. Wu, Y., Welch, E. W., & Huang, W. L. (2015). Commercialization of university inventions: Individual and institutional factors affecting licensing of university patents. Technovation, 36, 12–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • James A. Cunningham
    • 1
  • Erik E. Lehmann
    • 2
  • Matthias Menter
    • 3
  • Nikolaus Seitz
    • 4
    Email author
  1. 1.Newcastle Business SchoolNorthumbria UniversityNewcastle upon TyneUK
  2. 2.Faculty of Business and EconomicsUniversity of Augsburg and CCSE (Augsburg/Bergamo, Italy)AugsburgGermany
  3. 3.Faculty of Economics and Business AdministrationFriedrich Schiller University JenaJenaGermany
  4. 4.Faculty of Business and EconomicsUniversity of AugsburgAugsburgGermany

Personalised recommendations