Collaboration Between a Research University and Firms and Other Institutions

  • Aldo Geuna
  • Patrick Llerena
  • Mireille Matt
  • Maria Savona


This paper examines the evolution of contractual relationships in chemistry at the University Louis Pasteur of Strasbourg during the 1990s. Using entry, exit and persistency indicators we analyse the changes in the contracting behaviour of the various university laboratories and compare the types of contracts signed by persistent and non-persistent laboratories, persistent laboratories being those that had contractual relationships throughout the period. Four main conclusions emerge. First, an increasing number of new actors (firms and university laboratories) have become contractual partners. Second, persistent laboratories are the most active actors inside the university. Third, the increasing number of contractual agreements signed by persistent laboratories underlines the existence of an ongoing management learning process. Finally, there is no clear-cut difference in the type of contracts signed by persistent and non-persistent laboratories indicating that the development of university-industry relationships is demand-driven. These results are framed within the debate on the ongoing changes in the role and behaviour of universities.

Key words

University-industry relationships Technology transfer University research 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Arundel, A. and A. Geuna. 2004. Proximity and the use of public science by innovative European firms. Forthcoming in Economics of Innovation and new Technology.Google Scholar
  2. Beath, J. Owen, R. Poyago-Theotoky, J., and D. Ulph 2000. Optimal incentives for income generation within universities. University of Nottingham, School of economics, Discussion Paper 00/16.Google Scholar
  3. Beath J., Katsoulacos, Y. Poyago-Theotoky, J. and D. Ulph 2002. University-firm cooperation and knowledge transfer. Mimeo.Google Scholar
  4. Behrens, T.R. and D.O. Gray. 2001. Unintended consequences of cooperative research: Impact of industry sponsorship on climate for academic freedom and other graduate student outcome. Research Policy. 30: 179–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beise, M. and H. Stahl. 1999. Public research and industrial innovation in Germany. Research Policy. 28: 397–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blumenthal, D. Campbell, E.G. Anderson, M.S. Causino, N. and K.S. Louis. 1997. Withholding research results in academic life science: evidence from a national survey of faculty. Journal of the American Medical Association. 277. 1224–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Breschi S. and F. Lissoni. 2001. Knowledge spillovers and local innovation systems: a critical survey. Industrial and Corporate Change. 10:975–1005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brooks, H. 1994. The relationship between science and technology policy. Research Policy. 25: 477–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Caro, J.M.A., I.F. de Lucia and A.G. Gracia. 2003. University patents: Output and input indicators of what?. Research Evaluation 12: 5–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cohen, W.M., R.R. Nelson and J. Walsh. 2002. Links and impacts: The influence of public research on industrial R&D. Management Science. 48: 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dasgupta, P. and P. A. David 1994. Towards a new economics of science. Research Policy. 23: 487–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Etzkowitz, H. and L. Leydesdorff (eds.). 1997. Universities and the Global Knowledge Economy: A Triple Helix of University-Industry-Government Relations. London: Cassell Academic.Google Scholar
  13. Feldman M.P. 1999. The new economics of innovation, spillovers and agglomeration: a review of empirical studies. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 8: 5–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Florida, R 1999. The role of the university: Leveraging talent, not technology. Issues on Science and Technology. 15: 67–73.Google Scholar
  15. Fontana, R., Geuna, A. and M. Matt 2004. Firm size and openness: The driving forces of university-industry collaboration. In Y. Caloghirou, N. Constantelou, N. Vonortas (eds) Knowledge flows in European Industry: Mechanisms and Policy Implications, Routledge, Forthcoming.Google Scholar
  16. Gibbons, M., Limoges, C, Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., and M. Trow 1994. The New Production of Knowledge. Sage: LondonGoogle Scholar
  17. Geuna, A. 1999. The Economics of Knowledge Production: Funding and the Structure of University Research. Edward Elgar: LondonGoogle Scholar
  18. Geuna, A. 2001. ‘The changing rationale for European university research funding: Are there negative unintended consequences’, Journal of Economic Issues. 35: 607–632.Google Scholar
  19. Geuna, A., Steinmueller W.E. and A.J. Salter (eds). 2003 Science and Innovation. Rethinking the Rationales for Funding and Governance. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  20. Gulbrandsen, M. and J.-C. Smeby (2002) ‘The external orientation of university researchers and implications for academic performance and management’ submitted to Science and Public Policy.Google Scholar
  21. Jaffe, A. 1989. Real effects of academic research. American Economic Review. 79: 957–970.Google Scholar
  22. Laursen, K. and A. Salter. 2003. Searching low and high: Why do firms use universities as a source of innovation? Paper presented at the 3rd European Meeting on Applied Evolutionary Economics, Augsburg, Germany, 10–12 April.Google Scholar
  23. Leydesdorff, L. and H. Etzkowitz. 1996. Emergence of a triple helix of university-industry-government relations. Science and Public Policy. 23: 279–286.Google Scholar
  24. Llerena, P. and Meyer-Krahmer, F. 2003. Interdisciplinary research and the organization of the university: general challenges and a case study in A. Geuna, A.J. Salter and W.E. Steinmueller Science and Innovation: Rethinking rationales for funding and governance, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 80–81.Google Scholar
  25. Louis, K.S., Jones, L.M., Anderson, M.S., Blumenthal, D. and E.G. Campbell. 2001. Entrepreneurship, secrecy, and productivity: a comparison of clinical and non-clinical faculty. Journal of Technology Transfer. 26: 233–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mansfield E. 1991. Academic research and industrial innovation. Research Policy. 26: 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mansfield E. and J.Y. Lee. 1996. The modern university: contributor to industrial innovation and recipient of industrial R&D support. Research Policy. 25(7): 1047–1058.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Meyer-Krahmer, F. and U. Schmoch 1998. Science-based technologies: university-industry interactions in four fields. Research Policy. 27: 835–852.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Molas-Gallart, J., Salter A.J., Patel, P., Scott A. and X. Duran. 2002. Measuring and mapping third stream activities. Brighton: SPRU-University of Sussex.Google Scholar
  30. Mohnen, P. and C. Hoareau. 2002. What type of enterprise forges close with universities and government labs? Evidence from CIS 2. Managerial and Decision Economics. 24: 133–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mowery, D., Nelson R., Sampat B., and A. Ziedonis. 2001. The Growth of Patenting and Licensing by U.S. Universities: An Assessment of the Effects of the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980. Research Policy30:99–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Narin F. et al. 1997. The linkages between US technology and public science. Research Policy. 26: 317–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Nelson, R.R. 2001. Observations on the Post-Bayh-Dole rise of patenting at American universities. Journal of Technology Transfer. 26: 13–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. OECD. 2002. Benchmarking industry-science relationships. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  35. Pavitt, K.L.R. 2001. Public policies to support basic research: What can the rest of the world learn from the US theory and practice? (And what they should not learn). Industrial and Corporate Change. 10: 761–779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

6. Collaboration between a research university and firms and other institutions

  1. Poyago-Theotoky, Beath, J. and D.S. Siegel 2002. Universities and fundamental research: reflections on the growth of university-industry partnerships. Oxford Review of Economic Policy. 18(1): 10–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ranga, M., (2003) ‘The exploration-exploitation dichotomy and the impact of environment dynamics on university-industry partnerships’, Dphil Thesis SPRU, University of Sussex, forthcoming.Google Scholar
  3. Salter, A.J., D’Este P., Martin B., Geuna A., Scott A., Pavit K., Patel P. and P. Nightingale. 2000. Talent, not technology: Policy funded research and innovation in the UK. Report commissioned by Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals (CVCP) and the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE). (last accessed 30/6/2003).Google Scholar
  4. Salter, A.J. and Martin, B.R. 2001. The economic benefits of publicly funded basic research: a critical review. Research Policy. 30: 509–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Schartinger, D., A. Schibany and H. Gassier. 2001. Interactive relations between universities and firms: empirical evidence for Austria. Journal of Technology Transfer. 26: 255–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Siegel, D.S., Waldman, D. and A.N. Link. 2002. Assessing the impact of organizational practices on the productivity of university technology transfer offices: an exploratory study. Research Policy. 31: 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Stephan P.E. 2001. Educational implications of university-industry technology transfer. Journal of Technology Transfer. 26: 199–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Aldo Geuna
    • 1
  • Patrick Llerena
    • 1
  • Mireille Matt
    • 2
  • Maria Savona
    • 1
  1. 1.SPRU-University of SussexUK
  2. 2.BETA-University of StrasbourgFrance

Personalised recommendations