Abstract
Commercialization of publicly funded research has been widely discussed in academic literature since the introduction of the Bayh-Dole Act in the 1980s in the USA. Existing literature primarily focused on the role of universities, models of technology transfer, and incentives that facilitate it. By focusing on university autonomy as one of the key variables, this article shows that incentives for research commercialization can be affected by a top-down implementation that disregards the needs and capabilities of universities to exploit them. By examining research commercialization in Latvia using secondary data and interviews, this exploratory case study shows that external funding sources set the overall direction of policy instruments, focus on quantifiable outputs to increase accountability, and are excessively restrictive while at the same time not addressing the path dependency. The results of this study suggest that by allowing greater flexibility and experimentation with funding, universities could develop entrepreneurial culture and address other deficiencies and commercialize their research more successfully.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Within the scope of the incentive, “Knowledge and technology transfer” was defined as the transfer of specific knowledge, production skills and technologies from the developer to the user for production or application necessities.
Phase III – aut
References
Adamsone-Fiskovica, A., Kristapsons, J., Tjunina, E., & Ulnicane-Ozolina, I. (2009). Moving beyond teaching and research: Economic and social tasks of universities in Latvia. Science and Public Policy, 36(2), 133–137.
Arnold, E., Knee, P., Angelis, J., Giarraca, F., Griniece, E., Javorka, Z., et al. (2014). Latvia innovation system review and research assessment exercise: Final report. Technopolis Group.
Azagra-Caro, J. M., Barberá-Tomás, D., Edwards-Schachter, M., & Tur, E. M. (2017). Dynamic interactions between university-industry knowledge transfer channels: A case study of the most highly cited academic patent. Research Policy, 46(2), 463–474. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2016.11.011.
Baldini, N., Grimaldi, R., & Sobrero, M. (2006). Institutional changes and the commercialization of academic knowledge: A study of Italian universities’ patenting activities between 1965 and 2002. Research Policy, 35(4), 518–532. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2006.01.004.
Benner, M., & Sandström, U. (2000). Institutionalizing the triple helix: Research funding and norms in the academic system. Research Policy, 29(2), 291–301. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00067-0.
Bozeman, B. (2000). Technology transfer and public policy: A review of research and theory. Research Policy, 29(4), 627–655. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00093-1.
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.03.006.
Cahoy, D. R., Kwasnica, A. M., & Lopez, L. A. (2016). The role of auctions in university intellectual property transactions. Duquesne Law Review, 54(1), 53–80.
Carlsson, B., & Stankiewicz, R. (1991). On the nature, function and composition of technological systems. [journal article]. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 1(2), 93–118. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01224915.
Central Statistical Bureau of Latvia (2016). Inovācijas Latvijā. Central Statistical Bureau of Latvia.
Chrisman, J. J., Hynes, T., & Fraser, S. (1995). Faculty entrepreneurship and economic development: The case of the University of Calgary. Journal of Business Venturing, 10(4), 267–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-9026(95)00015-Z.
Christensen, T. (2011). University governance reforms: Potential problems of more autonomy? Higher Education, 62(4), 503–517. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-010-9401-z.
Clark, B. R. (1998). Creating entrepreneurial universities: Organizational pathways of transformation. Issues in higher education. Oxford: IAU Press by Pergamon Press.
Clarke, V., & Braun, V. (2013). Teaching thematic analysis: Over- coming challenges and developing strategies for effective learning. The Psychologist, 26(2), 120–123.
Danish Research Councils (1992). Latvian research. An International Evaluation. Copenhagen: Danish Research Councils.
Directorate-General for Research and Innovation. (2013). Knowledge Transfer Study 2010–2012. Final Report. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
Edquist, C., & Johnson, B. (1997). Introduction. In C. Edquist (Ed.), Institutions and organizations in systems of innovation. Systems of innovation: Technologies, institutions and organizations (pp. 1–35). London and Washington: Pinter.
Etzkowitz, H. (2003a). Innovation in innovation: The triple helix of university-industry-government relations., 42(3), 293–337. https://doi.org/10.1177/05390184030423002.
Etzkowitz, H. (2003b). Research groups as ‘quasi-firms’: The invention of the entrepreneurial university. Research Policy, 32(1), 109–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00009-4.
Etzkowitz, H. (2013). Anatomy of the entrepreneurial university., 52(3), 486–511. https://doi.org/10.1177/0539018413485832.
Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (1995). The triple helix - -university-industry-government relations: A laboratory for knowledge based economic development. EASST Review, 14(1), 14–19.
Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (1997). Introduction to special issue on science policy dimensions of the triple helix of university-industry-government relations. Science and Public Policy, 24(1), 2–5. https://doi.org/10.1093/spp/24.1.2.
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00055-4.
Etzkowitz, H., Webster, A., Gebhardt, C., & Terra, B. R. C. (2000). The future of the university and the university of the future: Evolution of ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm. Research Policy, 29(2), 313–330. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00069-4.
European Commission (1995). Green Paper on innovation. Bulletin of the European Union Supplement (Vol. 5/95). Belgium: European Commission.
European Commission. (1999). Impact of the enlargement of the European Union towards the associated central and eastern European countries on RTD innovation and structural policies. Brussels: European Commission.
Expenditure on research and development by sector and its financing (2018). Central Statistical Bureau of Latvia. http://www.csb.gov.lv/en/statistikas-temas/science-key-indicators-30753.html. Accessed 25 Mar 2018.
Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative Inquiry, 12(2), 219–245. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800405284363.
Freeman, C. (1987). Technology and economic performance: Lessons from Japan. London: Pinter.
Geoghegan, W., O'Kane, C., & Fitzgerald, C. (2015). Technology transfer offices as a nexus within the triple helix: The progression of the university's role. International Journal of Technology Management, 68(3–4), 255–277. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTM.2015.069660.
Goldfarb, B., & Henrekson, M. (2003). Bottom-up versus top-down policies towards the commercialization of university intellectual property. Research Policy, 32(4), 639–658. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00034-3.
Granieri, M., & Basso, A. (2019). An introduction. In M.Granieri, & A.Basso (Eds.), Capacity building in technology transfer (1 ed., SxI - springer for innovation / SxI - Springer per l'Innovazione, Vol. 14): Springer International Publishing.
Grimaldi, R., Kenney, M., Siegel, D. S., & Wright, M. (2011). 30 years after Bayh–Dole: Reassessing academic entrepreneurship. Research Policy, 40(8), 1045–1057. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2011.04.005.
Griniece, E., & Nausedaite, R. (2017). Latvian Research Funding System Background Report. Horizon 2020 Policy support facility. Luxembourg: Directorate-General for Research and Innovation.
Izsak, K., Markianidou, P., & Radosevic, S. (2015). Convergence of national innovation policy mixes in Europe – Has it gone too far? An analysis of research and innovation policy measures in the period 2004–12. Journal of Common Market Studies, 53(4), 786–802. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.12221.
Jencks, C., & Reisman, D. (1968). The academic revolution. New York: Doubleday.
Jensen, R., & Thursby, M. (2001). Proofs and prototypes for sale: The licensing of university inventions. The American Economic Review, 91(1), 240–259.
Karo, E. (2010). Improving governance of science and innovation policies, or just bad policy emulation? The case of the Estonian R&D system. Halduskultuur – Administrative Culture, 11(2), 174–201.
Karo, E., & Kattel, R. (2010). The copying paradox: Why converging policies but diverging capacities in eastern European innovation systems? International Journal of Institutions and Economies, 2, 167–206.
Kristapsons, J., Martinson, H., & Dagyte, I. (2003). Baltic R&D systems in transition: Experiences and future prospects. Riga: Zinātne.
Kuļikovskis, G., Petraitytė, D., & Stamenov, B. (2018). RIO country report 2017: Latvia. Research and Innovation Observatory country report series. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
Lehrer, M., & Asakawa, K. (2004). Pushing scientists into the marketplace: Promoting science entrepreneurship. California Management Review, 46(3), 55–76. https://doi.org/10.2307/41166221.
Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The triple helix: An evolutionary model of innovations. Research Policy, 29(2), 243–255. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00063-3.
Leydesdorff, L., & Etzkowitz, H. (1996). Emergence of a triple helix of university—Industry—Government relations. Science and Public Policy, 23(5), 279–286. https://doi.org/10.1093/spp/23.5.279.
Lockett, A., Siegel, D., Wright, M., & Ensley, M. D. (2005). The creation of spin-off firms at public research institutions: Managerial and policy implications. Research Policy, 34(7), 981–993.
Lundvall, B.-A. (1992). National innovation systems: Towards a theory of innovation and interactive learning, In B.-A. Lundvall (Ed.). London Pinter.
Maassen, P., Gornitzka, Å., & Fumasoli, T. (2017). University reform and institutional autonomy: A framework for analysing the living autonomy., 71(3), 239–250. https://doi.org/10.1111/hequ.12129.
Maicher, L., Mjos, K. D., & Tonisson, L. (2019). Intervention opportunities for capacity building in technology transfer. In M.Granieri, & A.Basso (Eds.), Capacity Building in Technology Transfer (1 ed., SxI - Springer for Innovation / SxI - Springer per l'Innovazione, Vol. 14): Springer International Publishing.
McCutcheon, P. (2019). European Commmission initiatives supporting technology transfer. In M.Granieri, & A.Basso (Eds.), Capacity Building in Technology Transfer (1 ed., SxI - Springer for Innovation / SxI - Springer per l'Innovazione, Vol. 14): Springer International Publishing.
Metzger, W. (1955). Academic freedom in the age of the university. New York: Columbia University Press.
Ministry of Education and Research of the Republic of Latvia (2013). Zinātnes, tehnoloģijas attīstības un inovācijas pamatnostādnes 2014.-2020. gadam. Riga.
Ministry of Education and Science (2015). Augstskolu zinātniskā darbība. Ministry of Education and Science of the Republic of Latvia.
Nelson, R. R. (1993). National Innovation Systems: A Comparative Analysis. Oxford University Press.
OECD, & The World Bank (2014). Making Innovation Policy Work.
Osenga, K. J. (2007). Rembrandts in the research lab: Why universities should take a lesson from big business to increase innovation. Maine Law Review, 59(2).
O'Shea, R. P., Allen, T. J., Chevalier, A., & Roche, F. (2005). Entrepreneurial orientation, technology transfer and spinoff performance of U.S. universities. Research Policy, 34(7), 994–1009.
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., 37(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9310.2007.00454.x.
Phan, P., & Siegel, D. S. (2006). The effectiveness of university technology transfer: Lessons learned, managerial and policy implications, and the road forward. Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship, 2(2), 77–144.
Ranga, M. (2014). Editorial. International Journal of Transitions and Innovation Systems, 3(special issue on European integration and triple helix systems in the new EU member states and candidate countries).
Rasmussen, E. (2008). Government instruments to support the commercialization of university research: Lessons from Canada. Technovation, 28(8), 506–517. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2007.12.002.
Rasmussen, E., Moen, Ø., & Gulbrandsen, M. (2006). Initiatives to promote commercialization of university knowledge. Technovation, 26(4), 518–533. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2004.11.005.
Ruddin, L. P. (2006). You can generalize stupid! Social scientists, bent Flyvbjerg, and case study methodology. Qualitative Inquiry, 12(4), 797–812. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800406288622.
Sachwald, F. (2015). Europe’s twin deficits: Excellence and innovation in new sectors. Policy Paper by the Research, Innovation, and Science Policy Experts (RISE): EUROPEAN COMMISSION.
Schumpeter, J. (1939). Business cycles. New York: McGraw Hill.
Siegel, D., Waldman, D., & Link, A. (2003). Assessing the impact of organizational practices on the relative productivity of university technology transfer offices: an exploratory study (Vol. 32).
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.
Slaughter, S., & Leslie, L. L. (1997). Academic capitalism: Politics, policies, and the entrepreneurial university. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Smidova, Z. (2015). Policy areas for increasing productivity in Latvian economics (OECD economics department working papers). Paris: OECD.
Soete, L. (2002). The challenges and the potential of the knowledge based economy in a globalised world. In M. J. Rodrigues (Ed.), The new knowledge economy in Europe (pp. 28–53). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
State Education Development Agency (2016). 2.1.1.1.aktivitāte "Atbalsts zinātnei un pētniecībai". http://sf.viaa.gov.lv/lat/zinatne/zinatnes_apakshsad/?tl_id=13944&tls_id=11484. Accessed 27.10.2018.
Sterlacchini, A. (2008). R&D, higher education and regional growth: Uneven linkages among European regions. Research Policy, 37(6), 1096–1107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2008.04.009.
Storr, R. J. (1953). The beginnings of graduate education in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Suurna, M., & Kattel, R. (2010). Europeanization of innovation policy in Central and Eastern Europe. Science and Public Policy, 37(9), 646–664. https://doi.org/10.3152/030234210X12778118264459.
Thursby, J. G., & Thursby, M. C. (2007). University licensing. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 23(4), 620–639. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxrep/grm031.
Tödtling, F., & Trippl, M. (2004). One size fits all? Towards a differentiated policy approach with respect to regional innovation systems. Paper presented at the Regionalization of Innovation Policy - Options and Experiences German Institute of Economic Research (DIW Berlin), June 4-5, 2004.
Varblane, U., Dyker, D., & Tamm, D. (2007). How to improve the national innovation systems of catching-up economies? Trames, 11(2), 106–123.
Veugelers, R. (2016). The European Union’s growing innovation divide. Bruegel Policy Contribution Issue 2016/08 April 2016.
Veugelers, R., & Schweiger, H. (2015). Innovation policies in transition countries: one size fits all? (Vol. 49).
Veysey, L. (1965). The emergence of the American University. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research design and methods (4th ed., Vol. 5, Applied Social Research Methods Series). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Zhao, F. (2004). Commercialization of research: A case study of Australian universities. Higher Education Research & Development, 23(2), 223–236. https://doi.org/10.1080/0729436042000206672.
Acknowledgments
The author would like to thank prof. Adam Mossoff and his colleagues at the Center for the Protection of Intellectual Property, Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University, for giving valuable feedback and guidance. Research visit to George Mason University in 2017 was funded by the Dora Plus PhD student mobility program in Estonia, and further research was carried out within the 2018-2019 Thomas Edison Innovation Fellowship program.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
The author has worked at two organizations discussed in the article: previously as a technology transfer staff at the University of Latvia (2010–2017) and currently at the Investment and Development Agency of Latvia as the Head of Technology Transfer Unit.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Annex I
Annex I
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Muizniece, L. University Autonomy and Commercialization of Publicly Funded Research: the Case of Latvia. J Knowl Econ 12, 1494–1516 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-020-00681-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-020-00681-x
Keywords
- Innovation policy
- Commercialization of publicly funded research
- Technology transfer
- University autonomy