, Volume 52, Issue 1, pp 27–53 | Cite as

Organisational Change and the Institutionalisation of University Patenting Activity in Italy

  • Nicola Baldini
  • Riccardo FiniEmail author
  • Rosa Grimaldi
  • Maurizio Sobrero


As universities are increasingly called by their national governments for a more entrepreneurial management of public research results, they started to develop internal structures and policies to take a proactive role in the commercialisation of university research. For the first time, this paper presents a detailed chronicle of how country-level reforms on Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) were translated into organisation-level mechanisms to regulate university-patenting activity. The analysis is based on the complete list of patent policies issued between 1993 and 2009 by the population of Italian universities. Our evidence suggests that universities first dealt with legislative changes on IPRs by enacting isomorphic behaviours, then by creating a community of practices, and finally by leveraging on such community to influence government reforms on IP-related matters. We discuss our results in the light of institutional theory and public policy.


University patents Patent policies Institutional change Isomorphic behaviour 


  1. Acworth, Edward B. 2008. University-industry engagement: The formation of the Knowledge Integration Community (KIC) model at the Cambridge-MIT Institute. Research Policy 37: 1241–1254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allan, Michael F. 2001. A review of best practices in university technology licensing offices. Journal of the Association of University Technology Managers 13: 57–69.Google Scholar
  3. Allison, Graham T. 1971. Essence of decision: Explaining the Cuban missile crisis, 1st ed. Boston, MA: Little Brown.Google Scholar
  4. Argyres, Nicholas S., and Julia Porter Liebeskind. 1998. Privatising the intellectual commons: Universities and the commercialisation of biotechnology. Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organisation 35: 427–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Azagra-Caro, Joaquín M., Nicolas Carayol, and Patrick Llerena. 2006. Patent production at a European research university: Exploratory evidence at the laboratory level. Journal of Technology Transfer 31: 257–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Balconi, Margherita, Stefano Breschi, and Francesco Lissoni. 2003. Il trasferimento di conoscenze tecnologiche dall’università all’industria in Italia: Nuova evidenza sui brevetti di paternità dei docenti. In Il sistema della ricerca pubblica in Italia, ed. A. Bonaccorsi, 58–100. Milan: Franco Angeli.Google Scholar
  7. Baldini, Nicola. 2008. Importing the Bayh-Dole: The Danish lesson. Prepared for the International Engineering Management Conference 2008, Beijing, May 19–23.Google Scholar
  8. Baldini, Nicola, Rosa Grimaldi, and Maurizio Sobrero. 2006. Institutional changes and the commercialisation of academic knowledge: A study of Italian universities’ patenting activities between 1965 and 2002. Research Policy 35: 518–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Breschi, Stefano, Francesco Lissoni, and Francesco Montobbio. 2008. University patenting and scientific productivity: A quantitative study of Italian academic inventors. European Management Review 5: 91–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Burns, Lawton R., and Douglas R. Wholey. 1993. Adoption and abandonment of matrix management programs: Effects of organisational characteristics and inter-organisational networks. Academy of Management Journal 36: 106–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Calderini, Mario, Paolo Garrone, and Maurizio Sobrero. 2003. Corporate governance, market structure and innovation. Cheltenham, UK, and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  12. Capano, Giorgio. 2003. Administrative traditions and policy change: When policy paradigms matter. The case of Italian administrative reform during the 1990s. Public Administration 81: 781–801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Czarnitzki, Dirk, Wolfgang Glänzel, and Katrin Hussinger. 2007. Patent and publication activities of German professors: An empirical assessment of their co-activity. Research Evaluation 16: 311–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. DiMaggio, Paul J., and Walter W. Powell. 1983. The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organisational fields. American Sociological Review 48: 147–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Edelman, Lauren B. 1990. Legal environments and organisational governance: The expansion of due process in the American workplace. American Journal of Sociology 95: 1401–1440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Edelman, Lauren B. 1992. Legal ambiguity and symbolic structures: Organisational mediation of Civil Rights Law. American Journal of Sociology 97: 1531–1576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Etzkowitz, Henry. 2002. MIT and the rise of entrepreneurial science. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Etzkowitz, Henry, Andrew Webster, Christiane Gebhardt, and Branca Regina Cantisano Terra. 2000. The future of the university and the university of the future: Evolution of ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm. Research Policy 29: 313–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fini, Riccardo, Rosa Grimaldi, Simone Santoni, and Maurizio Sobrero. 2011. Complements or substitutes? The role of universities and local context in supporting the growth of academic spin-offs. Research Policy 40: 1113–1127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fini, Riccardo, and Nicola Lacetera. 2010. Different yokes for different folks: Individual preferences, institutional logics, and the commercialization of academic research. In Spanning boundaries and disciplines: University technology commercialization in the Idea Age (Advances in the study of entrepreneurship, innovation and economic growth), Volume 21, ed. Marie Thursby, 1–25. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.Google Scholar
  21. Fisher, Lawrence M. 1998. The innovation incubator: Technology transfer at Stanford University. Strategy & Business 13: 76–85.Google Scholar
  22. Frumkin, Peter, and Joseph Galaskiewicz. 2004. Institutional isomorphism and public sector organisations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 14: 283–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Galaskiewicz, Joseph. 1985. Professional networks and the institutionalization of a single mind set. American Sociological Review 50: 639–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Galaskiewicz, Joseph, and Robert S. Burt. 1991. Interorganization contagion in corporate philanthropy. Administrative Science Quarterly 36: 88–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Geiger, Roger L., and Creso Sa. 2005. Beyond technology transfer: US state policies to harness university research for economic development. Minerva 43: 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Geuna, Aldo. 2001. The changing rationale for European university research funding: Are there negative unintended consequences? Journal of Economic Issue 35: 607–632.Google Scholar
  27. Geuna, Aldo. 2003. The economics of knowledge production. Funding and the structure of university research. Cheltenham, UK, and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  28. Geuna, Aldo, and Ben Martin. 2003. University research evaluation and funding: An international comparison. Minerva 41: 277–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Giuri, Paola, et al. 2007. Inventors and invention processes in Europe. Results from the PatVal-EU survey. Research Policy 36: 1107–1127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Goldfarb, Brent, and Magnus Henrekson. 2003. Bottom-up versus top-down policies towards the commercialization of university intellectual property. Research Policy 32: 639–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Gulbrandsen, Magnus, and Liv Langfeldt. 2004. In search of Mode 2: The nature of knowledge production in Norway. Minerva 42: 237–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Henrekson, Magnus, and Nathan Rosenberg. 2001. Designing efficient institutions for science-based entrepreneurship: Lessons from the US and Sweden. Journal of Technology Transfer 26: 207–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hine, David. 1993. Governing Italy. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  34. Iversen, Eric J., Magnus Gulbrandsen, and Antje Klitkou. 2007. A baseline for the impact of academic patenting legislation in Norway. Scientometrics 70: 393–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Jacob, Merle, Mats Lundqvist, and Hans Hellsmark. 2003. Entrepreneurial transformations in the Swedish University system: The case of Chalmers University of Technology. Research Policy 32: 1555–1568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kenney, Martin, and W. Richard Goe. 2004. The role of social embeddedness in professorial entrepreneurship: A comparison of electrical engineering and computer science at UC Berkeley and Stanford. Research Policy 33: 691–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kenney, Martin, and Donald Patton. 2011. Does inventor ownership encourage university research-derived entrepreneurship? A six university comparison. Research Policy 40: 1100–1112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lerner, Josh. 2009. Boulevard of broken dreams: Why public efforts to boost entrepreneurship and venture capital have failed—and what to do about it. Princeton, CA: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Lindgren, Lena. 2001. The non-profit sector meets the performance management movement. Research Evaluation 7: 285–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lissoni, Francesco, Michele Pezzoni, Bianca Potì, and Sandra Romagnosi. 2012. University autonomy, IP legislation and academic patenting: Italy, 1996–2006. Mimeo.Google Scholar
  41. Lissoni, Francesco, Patrick Llerena, Maureen McKelvey, and Bulat Sanditov. 2008. Academic patenting in Europe: New evidence from the KEINS database. Research Evaluation 17: 87–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Marques, João Paulo, João M.G. Carac, and Henrique Diz. 2006. How can university-industry-government interactions change the innovation scenario in Portugal? The case of the University of Coimbra. Technovation 26: 534–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Mazzoleni, Roberto, and Richard R. Nelson. 1998. The benefit and costs of strong patent protection: A contribution to the current debate. Research Policy 27: 273–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Merton, Robert K. 1973. The sociology of science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  45. Meyer, John W., and Brian Rowan. 1977. Institutional organisations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology 83: 340–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Meyer, Martin S. 2003. Academic patents as an indicator of useful research? A new approach to measure academic inventiveness. Research Evaluation 12: 17–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Meyer, Martin S., Mariette Du Plessis, Tanja Tukeva, and Jan-Timm Utecht. 2005. Inventive output of academic research: A comparison of two science systems. Scientometrics 63: 145–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. MIUR Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca ( Accessed 30 June 2010.
  49. Moscati, Roberto, Marino Regini, and Michele Rostan. 2010. Torri d’avorio in frantumi? Dove vanno le università europee. Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar
  50. Moscati, Roberto, and Massimiliano Vaira. 2008. L’università di fronte al cambiamento. Realizzazioni, problemi, prospettive. Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar
  51. Mowery, David C., and Bhaven N. Sampat. 2005. The Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 and university-industry technology transfer: A model for other OECD governments? Journal of Technology Transfer 30: 115–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. National Science Foundation ( Accessed 14 April 2010.
  53. NetVal—Network per la valorizzazione della ricerca universitaria ( Accessed 30 June 2010.
  54. Oliver, Christine. 1991. Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of Management Review 16: 145–179.Google Scholar
  55. Pedersen, Lene Holm. 2006. Transfer and transformation in processes of Europeanization. European Journal of Political Research 45: 985–1021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Perkmann, Markus, et al. 2013. Universities and the third mission: A systematic review of research on external engagement by academic researchers. Research Policy 42: 423–442.Google Scholar
  57. Rasmussen, Einar, Øystein Moen, and Magnus Gulbrandsen. 2006. Initiatives to promote commercialization of university knowledge. Technovation 26: 518–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Sahariadis, Nikolaos. 2005. Policy networks, elections, and State subsidies. Review of Policy Research 22: 115–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Tolbert, Pamela S., and Lynne G. Zucker. 1983. Institutional sources of change in the formal structure of organizations: The diffusion of civil service reform, 1880–1935. Administrative Science Quarterly 28: 22–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Thursby, Jerry G., and Marie C. Thursby. 2002. Who is selling to the ivory tower? Sources of growth in university licensing. Management Science 48: 90–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Valentin, Finn, and Rasmus Lund Jensen. 2007. Effects on academia-industry collaboration of extending university property rights. Journal of Technology Transfer 32: 251–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Woolf, Stuart. 2003. On university reform in Italy: Contradictions and power relations in structure and function. Minerva 41: 347–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Wright, Mike, Bart Clarysse, Philippe Mustar, and Andy Lockett. 2007. Academic entrepreneurship in Europe. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Zomer, Arend H., Ben W.A. Jongbloed, and Jürgen Enders. 2010. Do spin-offs make the academics’ heads spin? Minerva 48(3): 331–353.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nicola Baldini
    • 1
  • Riccardo Fini
    • 1
    Email author
  • Rosa Grimaldi
    • 1
  • Maurizio Sobrero
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of ManagementUniversity of BolognaBolognaItaly

Personalised recommendations