The Journal of Technology Transfer

, Volume 26, Issue 3, pp 207–231 | Cite as

Designing Efficient Institutions for Science-Based Entrepreneurship: Lesson from the US and Sweden

  • Magnus Henrekson
  • Nathan Rosenberg


The recent ‘scientification’ of commercial technology has brought the interface between universities and industry into sharp focus. In particular, academic entrepreneurship, i.e., the variety of ways in which academics take direct part in the commercialization of research, is widely discussed. The purpose of this paper is to suggest a framework for identifying the strategic individual decisions involved when educational choice is translated into science-based entrepreneurship. Identifying these decisions also allows us to hypothesize what incentive structures should be crucial. Our suggested framework is informally tested by an in-depth examination of the experiences of Sweden and the US. Despite large levels of R&D spending and comprehensive government support schemes, science-based entrepreneurship has been far less important in Sweden compared to the US. Our analysis points to weaknesses in the Swedish incentive structure in key respects: the rate of return to human capital investment, incentives to become an entrepreneur and to expand existing businesses, and insufficient incentives within the university system to adjust curricula and research budgets to outside demand. Several policy measures during the 1990s have reduced the weaknesses in the Swedish incentive structure. The current emergence of a more vibrant entrepreneurial culture in Sweden in some areas is consistent with these changes. Our analysis suggests that a policy aimed at encouraging science-based entrepreneurship should focus on strengthening individual incentives for human capital investment and entrepreneurial behavior both within universities and in business.


Human Capital Investment Entrepreneurial Behavior Current Emergence Commercial Technology Direct Part 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Acs, Z. and D. Audretsch, 1990, Innovation and Small Firms, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  2. Audretsch, D. and P. Stephan, 1996, ‘Company-Scientist Locational Links: The Case of Biotechnology’, American Economic Review 86 (3), 641–652.Google Scholar
  3. Barro, R.J. and X. Sala-i-Martin, 1995, Economic Growth, New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  4. Baumol, W.J., 1990, ‘Entrepreneurship: Productive, Unproductive, and Destructive’, Journal of Political Economy 98 (5), 893–921.Google Scholar
  5. Becker, G.S., 1964, Human Capital, New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Birch, D., A. Haggerty, and W. Parsons, 1995, Who's Creating Jobs? Boston: Cognetics Inc.Google Scholar
  7. Björklund, A. and C., Kjellström, 1994, ‘Avkastningen på utbildning i Sverige 1968 till 1991’, in R. Eriksson, and J.O. Jönsson (eds.), Sorteringen i skolan, Stockholm: Carlssons.Google Scholar
  8. Blanchflower, D.G. and A.J. Oswald, 1998, ‘What Makes an Entrepreneur?’, Journal of Labor Economics 16 (1), 26–60.Google Scholar
  9. Blanchflower, D.G. and R.B. Freeman, 1992, ‘Unionism in the United States and Other Advanced OECD Countries’, Industrial Relations 31 (1), 56–79.Google Scholar
  10. Blau, F.D. and L.M. Kahn, 1996, ‘International Differences in Male Wage Inequality: Institutions versus Market Forces’, Journal of Political Economy 104 (4), 791–837.Google Scholar
  11. Braunerhjelm, P., 1998, ‘Varför leder inte ökade FoUsatsningar till mer högteknologisk export?’, Ekonomiska samfundets tidskrift 51 (2), 113–122.Google Scholar
  12. Braunerhjelm, P., 1999, ‘Venture capital, mångfald och tillväxt’, Ekonomisk Debatt 27 (4), 213–222.Google Scholar
  13. Braunerhjelm, P., 2000, ‘Replik till Karaömerlioglu och Jacobsson: Starka slutsatser om venture kapital saknar grund’, Ekonomisk Debatt 28 (4), 368–373.Google Scholar
  14. Brock, W.A. and D.S. Evans, 1986, The Economics of Small Businesses: Their Role and Regulation in the US Economy, New York and London: Holmes and Meier.Google Scholar
  15. Brown, C. and J. Medoff, 1989, ‘The Employer Size Wage Effect’, Journal of Political Economy 97 (5), 1027–1059.Google Scholar
  16. Carlsson, B., 1999, ‘Small Business, Entrepreneurship, and Industrial Dynamics’, in Z. Acs (ed.), Are Small Firms Important?, Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  17. Davidsson, P. and M. Henrekson, 2001, ‘Institutional Determinants of the Prevalence of Start-ups and High-Growth Firms: Evidence from Sweden’, Small Business Economics, forthcoming.Google Scholar
  18. Davidsson, P., L. Lindmark, and C. Olofsson, 1996, Näringslivsdynamik under 90-talet, Stockholm: NUTEK.Google Scholar
  19. Davis, S.J., 1992, ‘Cross-Country Patterns of Change in Relative Wages’, NBER Macroeconomics Annual Vol. 7, 239–292.Google Scholar
  20. Davis, S.J. and J. Haltiwanger, 1999, ‘Gross Job Flows’, in O. Ashenfelter, and D. Card (eds.), Handbook of Labor Economics, Vol. 3, Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  21. Davis, S.J., J. Haltiwanger, and S. Schuh, 1996, Job Creation and Destruction, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  22. Davis, S.J. and M. Henrekson, 1997, ‘Industrial Policy, Employer Size and Economic Performance in Sweden’, in R.B. Freeman, R. Topel, and B. Swedenborg (eds.), The Welfare State in Transition, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  23. Davis, S.J. and M. Henrekson, 2000, ‘Wage-Setting Institutions as Industrial Policy’, NBER Working Paper No. 7502.Google Scholar
  24. E-chron, 1998, The Swedish IT/Internet Venture Capital Survey 1998, Stockholm.Google Scholar
  25. Edin, P.-A. and B. Holmlund, 1995, ‘The Swedish Wage Structure: The Rise and Fall of Solidarity Policy?’, in R.B. Freeman, and L.F. Katz (eds.), Differences and Changes in Wage Structures, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  26. Edin, P.-A. and R. Topel, 1997, ‘Wage Policy and Restructuring.The Swedish Labor Market Since 1960’, in R.B. Freeman, R. Topel, and B. Swedenborg (eds.), The Welfare State in Transition, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  27. Engen, E. and J. Gruber, 1996, ‘Unemployment Insurance and Precautionary Savings’, NBER Working Paper No. 5252.Google Scholar
  28. Etzkowitz, H., P. Asplund, and N. Nordman, 2000, ‘The University and Regional Renewal: Emergence of an Entrepreneurial Paradigm in the US and Sweden’, in G. Törnqvist, and S. Sörlin (eds.), The Wealth of Knowledge. Universities in the New Economy, forthcoming.Google Scholar
  29. European Observatory for SMEs, 1995, Third Annual Report 1995, Zoetermeer, the Netherlands: EIM Small Business Research and Consultancy.Google Scholar
  30. Fägerlind, I., 1991, ‘Utbildningsstandarden i Sverige 1970–1990 och produktivitetsutvecklingen’, in E. Wadensjö (ed.), Arbetskraft, arbetsmarknad och produktivitet, Expert report No. 4 to Produktivitetsdelegationen, Stockholm: Allmänna Förlaget.Google Scholar
  31. Feldstein, M., 1996, ‘The Missing Piece in Policy Analysis: Social Security Reform’, American Economic Review 86 (2), 1–14.Google Scholar
  32. Fenn, G., N. Liang, and S. Prowse, 1995, ‘The Economics of the Private Equity Market’, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  33. Fölster, S., 2001, ‘Do Lower Taxes Stimulate Self-Employment?’ Small Business Economics, forthcoming.Google Scholar
  34. Fornwall, M., 1991, ‘Sjunkande avkastning på utbildning’, Mimeo. Department of Economics, Uppsala University.Google Scholar
  35. Fredriksson, P., 1997, ‘Economic Incentives and the Demand for Higher Education’, Scandinavian Journal of Economics 99 (1), 129–142.Google Scholar
  36. Fukao, M. and M. Hanazaki, 1987, ‘Internationalization of Financial Markets and the Allocation of Capital’, OECD Economic Studies, 8, 35–92.Google Scholar
  37. Gibbons, M. et al., 1994, The New Production of Knowledge, London: Sage.Google Scholar
  38. Goldin, C. and L.F. Katz, 1999, ‘The Returns to Skill in the United States across the the Twentieth Century’, NBER Working Paper No. 7126.Google Scholar
  39. Gompers, P.A. and J. Lerner, 1999, ‘What Drives Venture Capital Funding?’ NBER Working Paper No. 6906.Google Scholar
  40. Granstrand, O. and S. Alänge, 1995, ‘The Evolution of Corporate Entrepreneurship in Swedish Industry.Was Schumpeter Wrong?’ Journal of Evolutionary Economics 5 (2), 133–156.Google Scholar
  41. Hansson, P. and L. Lundberg, 1995, Från basindustri till högteknologi? Svensk näringsstruktur och strukturpolitik. Stockholm: SNS Förlag.Google Scholar
  42. Henrekson, M. and D. Johansson, 1999, ‘Institutional Effects on the Evolution of the Size Distribution of Firms’, Small Business Economics 12 (1), 11–23.Google Scholar
  43. Henrekson, M., L. Jonung, and J. Stymne, 1996, ‘Economic Growth and the Swedish Model’, in N.F.R. Crafts, and G. Tonniolo (eds.), Economic Growth in Europe since 1945, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Hibbs, D.A. Jr., 1990, ‘Wage Compression under Solidarity Bargaining in Sweden’, in I. Persson-Tanimura (ed.), Generating Equality in the Welfare State: The Swedish Experience, Oslo: Norwegian University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Holtz-Eakin, D., D. Joulfaian, and H.S. Rosen, 1994, ‘Sticking It out: Entrepreneurial Survival and Liquidity Constraints’, Journal of Political Economy 102 (1), 53–75.Google Scholar
  46. Hopenhayn, H.A. and R. Rogerson, 1993, ‘Job Turnover and Policy Evaluation: A General Equilibrium Analysis’, Journal of Political Economy 101 (5), 915–938.Google Scholar
  47. Hubbard, R.G., J. Skinner, and S.P. Zeldes, 1995, ‘Precautionary Savings and Social Insurance’, Journal of Political Economy 103 (2), 360–399.Google Scholar
  48. Isaksson, A., 1998, ‘Den svenska venture capital-marknaden’, in E. Landell et al., Entreprenörsfonder. Riskkapital till växande småföretag, Stockholm: The Federation of Swedish Industries and NUTEK.Google Scholar
  49. Isaksson, A., 1999, Effekter av venture capital i Sverige. B 1999:3, Stockholm: NUTEK Förlag.Google Scholar
  50. Jacobsson, S., C. Sjöberg, and M. Wahlström, 2000, ‘Alternative Specications of the Institutional Constraint to Economic Growth—Or Why Is There a Shortage of Computer and Electronic Engineers and Scientists in Sweden?’ Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, forthcoming.Google Scholar
  51. Jorgenson, D.W. and R. Landau (eds.), 1993, Tax Reform and the Cost of Capital. An International Comparison, Washington, DC: Brookings.Google Scholar
  52. Karaömerlioglu, D. and S. Jacobsson, 2000, ‘The Swedish Venture Capital Industry.An Infant, Adolescent or Grown-Up?’ Venture Capital 2 (1), 61–88.Google Scholar
  53. King, M.A. and D. Fullerton (eds.), 1984, The Taxation of Income from Capital. A Comparative Study of the United States, the United Kingdom, Sweden and West Germany, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  54. Kirzner, I.M., 1973, Competition and Entrepreneurship, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  55. Klofsten, M. and D. Jones-Evans, 2000, ‘Academic Entrepreneurship in the European Context: A Comparative Study’, Small Business Economics 14 (4), 299–309.Google Scholar
  56. Knight, F.H., 1921, Risk, Uncertainty and Profit, New York: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  57. Landell, E. et al., 1998, Entreprenörsfonder. Riskkapital till växande småföretag, Stockholm: The Federation of Swedish Industries and NUTEK.Google Scholar
  58. Landström, H., 1993, ‘Informal Risk Capital in Sweden and Some International Comparisons’, Journal of Business Venturing 8 (4), 525–540.Google Scholar
  59. Lindbeck, A., 1997, ‘The Swedish Experiment’, Journal of Economic Literature 35 (3), 1273–1319.Google Scholar
  60. Lindh, T. and H. Ohlsson, 1996, ‘Self-Employment and Windfall Gains: Evidence from the Swedish Lottery’, Economic Journal 106 (439), 1515–1526.Google Scholar
  61. Lindh, T. and H. Ohlsson, 1998, ‘Self-Employment and Wealth Inequality’, Review of Income and Wealth 44 (1), 25–42.Google Scholar
  62. Lindholm Dahlstrand, Å., 1997a, ‘Growth and Inventiveness in Technology-Based Spin-off Firms’, Research Policy 26 (3), 331–344.Google Scholar
  63. Lindholm Dahlstrand, Å., 1997b, ‘Entrepreneurial Spin-off Enterprises in Göteborg, Sweden’, European Planning Studies 5 (5), 659–673.Google Scholar
  64. Lindström, G. and C. Olofsson, 1998, ‘Teknikbaserade företag i tidig utvecklingsfas’, Stockholm: Institute for Management of Innovation and Technology.Google Scholar
  65. Lucas, R.E., 1988, ‘On the Mechanics of Economic Development’, Journal of Monetary Economics 22 (1), 3–42.Google Scholar
  66. Lundberg, L., 1999, Sveriges internationella konkurrenskraft, Expert Report to the Medium-Term Survey (LU), Stockholm: Fritzes.Google Scholar
  67. Mankiw, N.G., D. Romer, and D.N. Weil, 1992, ‘A Contribution to the Empirics of Economic Growth’, Quarterly Journal of Economics 107 (2), 407–437.Google Scholar
  68. Misher, N., 1984, ‘Tax Consequences of Exercising An Incentive Stock Option with Stock of the Granting Corporation’, The Tax Executive, July, 357–363.Google Scholar
  69. Morrison, C.J. and D. Siegel, 1997, ‘External Capital Factors and Increasing Returns in U.S. Manufacturing’, Review of Economics and Statistics 79 (4), 647–654.Google Scholar
  70. National Science Board, 1997, Science and Engineering Indicators, Washington, DC: USGPO.Google Scholar
  71. NUTEK, 1994, Småföretagen.Sveriges framtid? B 1994:4, Stockholm: NUTEK Företag.Google Scholar
  72. OECD, 1995, Education at a Glance, Paris.Google Scholar
  73. OECD, 2000, Education at a Glance, Paris.Google Scholar
  74. Olofsson, C. and B. Stymne, 1995, ‘The Contribution of New Technology-Based Firms to the Swedish Economy I: A Literature Survey’, Stockholm and Göteborg: IMIT Report 97:88.Google Scholar
  75. Olofsson, C. and C. Wahlbin, 1993, Teknikbaserade företag från högskolan, Stockholm: Institute for Management of Innovation and Technology.Google Scholar
  76. Pålsson, A., 1998, ‘De svenska hushållens sparande och förmö-genheter 1986–1996’, Mimeographed. Department of Economics, Lund University.Google Scholar
  77. Rickne, A., 1999, ‘New Technology-Based Firms in the Evolution of a Technological Field.The Case of Biomaterials’, Mimeographed. Department of Industrial Dynamics, Chalmers University of Technology.Google Scholar
  78. Rickne, A. and S. Jacobsson, 1996, ‘New Technology-Based Firms.An Exploratory Study of Technology Exploitation and Industrial Renewal’, International Journal of Technology Management 11 (3/4), 238–257.Google Scholar
  79. Rickne, A. and S. Jacobsson, 1999, ‘New Technology-based Firms in Sweden.A Study of their Direct Impact on Industrial Renewal’, Economics of Innovation and New Technology 8 (2), 197–223.Google Scholar
  80. Rosenberg, N., 1999, ‘American Universities as Endogenous Institutions’, Mimeographed. Department of Economics, Stanford University.Google Scholar
  81. Rosenberg, N., 2000, Schumpeter and the Endogeneity of Technology: Some American Perspectives, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  82. Saint-Paul, G., 1997, ‘Is Labor Rigidity Harming Europe's Competitiveness? The Effect of Job Protection on the Patterns of Trade and Welfare’, European Economic Review 41 (3.5), 499–506.Google Scholar
  83. Saxenian, A., 1996, Regional Advantage. Culture and Competition in Silicon Valley and Route, 128, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  84. Schultz, T.W., 1960, ‘Capital Formation in Education’, Journal of Political Economy 68 (4), 571–583.Google Scholar
  85. Schumpeter, J.A., 1934, The Theory of Economic Development, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  86. Siegel, D., D. Waldman, and A.N. Link, 1999, ‘Assessing the Impact of Organizational Practices on the Productivity of University Technology Transfer Offices: An Exploratory Study’, NBER Working Paper No. 7256.Google Scholar
  87. Slaughter, S. and L.L. Leslie, 1997, Academic Capitalism. Politics, Policies, and the Entrepreneurial University, Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  88. Södersten, J., 1984, ‘Sweden’, in M.A. King and D. Fullerton (eds.), The Taxation of Income from Capital. A Comparative Study of the United States, the United Kingdom, Sweden and West Germany, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  89. Södersten, J., 1993, ‘Sweden’, in D.W. Jorgenson, and R. Landau (eds.), Tax Reform and the Cost of Capital. An International Comparison, Washington, DC: Brookings.Google Scholar
  90. SOU 1996:70, Samverkan mellan högskolan och näringslivet, Huvudbetänkande av NYFOR, Stockholm: Fritzes.Google Scholar
  91. SOU 1996:89, Samverkan mellan högskolan och de små och medelstora företagen, Slutbetänkande av NYFOR, Stockholm: Fritzes.Google Scholar
  92. SOU 1998:128, Forskningspolitik. Slutbetänkande av Kommitt én för översyn av den svenska forskningspolitiken (Forskning 2000), Stockholm: Fritzes.Google Scholar
  93. Stankiewicz, R., 1986, Academics and Entrepreneurs. Developing University.Industry Relations, London: Frances Pinter.Google Scholar
  94. Statistics Sweden, 1996, Vetenskaps-och teknologiindikatorer för Sverige 1996, Stockholm: Statistics Sweden.Google Scholar
  95. Storey, D.J., 1994, Understanding the Small Business Sector, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  96. The Economist, 1999, ‘The Foresight Saga.’, 353 (8150), December 18th, 65–67.Google Scholar
  97. Uhlin, Å., Å. Philips, and L. Sundberg, 1992, Forskning och företagande, ERU-rapport No. 76. Stockholm: Regeringskansliets offsetcentral.Google Scholar
  98. Utterback, J.M. and G. Reitberger, 1982, ‘Technology and Industrial Innovation in Sweden: A Study of New-Technology Based Firms’, Center for Policy Alternatives, MIT and STU, Stockholm.Google Scholar
  99. Vedin, B.-A., 1993, Innovationer för Sverige, SOU 1993:84. Stockholm: Näringsdepartementet.Google Scholar
  100. Wennekers, S. and R. Thurik, 1999, ‘Linking Entrepreneurship and Economic Growth’, Small Business Economics 13 (1), 27–55.Google Scholar
  101. Zetterberg, J., 1994, ‘Avkastning på utbildning i privat och offentlig sektor’, FIEF Working Paper No. 125, Stockholm.Google Scholar
  102. Zider, B., 1998, ‘How Venture Capital Works’, Harvard Business Review, November.December, 131–139.Google Scholar
  103. Zucker, L., M. Darby, and M. Brewer, 1998, ‘Intellectual Human Capital and the Birth of US Biotechnology Enterprises’, American Economic Review 88 (3), 290–306.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Magnus Henrekson
    • 1
  • Nathan Rosenberg
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of EconomicsStockholm School of EconomicsStockholmSweden
  2. 2.Department of EconomicsStanford UniversityStanfordU.S.A.

Personalised recommendations