Skip to main content
Book cover

Technology Transfer and Entrepreneurial Innovations pp 3–20Cite as

Academic Tendencies in Policy Frameworks for Fostering Entrepreneurial Innovations

  • 427 Accesses

Part of the International Studies in Entrepreneurship book series (ISEN,volume 51)

Abstract

This chapter provides a better understanding of the theoretical, managerial, and policy implications of entrepreneurial innovation policies. By examining the accumulation of literature published from 1970 to 2019, this chapter clarifies the definition of entrepreneurial innovations and the policy frameworks’ role in fostering this phenomenon worldwide. We conclude by outlining an agenda for additional research on this topic and implications for different stakeholders.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-70022-5_1
  • Chapter length: 18 pages
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
eBook
USD   139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • ISBN: 978-3-030-70022-5
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
Softcover Book
USD   179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Hardcover Book
USD   179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Learn about institutional subscriptions
Fig. 1.1
Fig. 1.2

References

  • Ahworegba, A. H., Omoloba, J. O., & Estay, C. (2020). How firms risk through entrepreneurial innovations: Behavioural patterns and implications. The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 21, 146575032090362. https://doi.org/10.1177/1465750320903621.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Alcalde, H., & Guerrero, M. (2016). Open business models in entrepreneurial stages: Evidence from young Spanish firms during expansionary and recessionary periods. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 12(2), 393–413.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amorós, J. E., Poblete, C., & Mandakovic, V. (2019). R&D transfer, policy and innovative ambitious entrepreneurship: Evidence from Latin American countries. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 44(5), 1396–1415.

    Google Scholar 

  • Asmoro, P. K. (2017). Technology transfer in Indonesian state universities: Do IPRS play a significant role? Indonesian Law Review, 1, 49–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D. B. (2004). Sustaining innovation and growth: Public policy support for entrepreneurship. Industry and Innovation, 11(3), 167–191.

    Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D. B., & Link, A. N. (2012). Entrepreneurship and innovation: Public policy frameworks. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 37(1), 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D. B., Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2002). Public/private technology partnerships: Evaluating SBIR-supported research. Research Policy, 31(1), 145–158.

    Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D. B., Kuratko, D. F., & Link, A. N. (2016). Dynamic entrepreneurship and technology-based innovation. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 26(3), 603–620.

    Google Scholar 

  • Autio, E., Kenney, M., Mustar, P., Siegel, D., & Wright, M. (2014). Entrepreneurial innovation: The importance of context. Research Policy, 43(7), 1097–1108.

    Google Scholar 

  • Azagra-Caro, J. M. (2011). Do public research organizations own most patents invented by their staff? Science and Public Policy, 38, 237–250.

    Google Scholar 

  • Batabyal, A. A., & Nijkamp, P. (2012). A Schumpeterian model of entrepreneurship, innovation, and regional economic growth. International Regional Science Review, 35(3), 339–361.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brenkert, G. (2009). Innovation, rule-breaking and the ethics of entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 24(5), 448–464.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burgelman, R. A. (1986). Managing corporate entrepreneurship: New structures for implementing technological innovation. In Technology in the modern corporation (pp. 1–13). New York: Pergamon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Castro Peñarrieta, L., & Canavire-Bacarreza, G. (2019). Can intellectual property rights affect multinational enterprises’ entry modes? The Chilean case. International Journal of the Economics of Business, 26(1), 177–198. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/13571516.2019.1553656?needAccess=true.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, B. (2006). Sustainable valley entrepreneurial ecosystems. Business Strategy and the Environment, 15(1), 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cunningham, P. M., Cunningham, M., & Ekenberg, L. (2016a). Factors impacting on the current level of open innovation and ICT entrepreneurship in Africa. The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries, 73(1), 1–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cunningham, P. M., Gök, A., & Larédo, P. (2016b). The impact of direct support to R&D and innovation in firms. In Handbook of innovation policy impact (pp. 54–107). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. 

    Google Scholar 

  • Dossou Yedehou, L., & Ju, K. T. (2019). Opportunities and challenges for entrepreneurial innovations in Africa on the example of the Republic of Benin. St. Petersburg State Polytechnical University Journal Economics, 78(4), 144–156.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunlap-Hinkler, D., Kotabe, M., & Mudambi, R. (2010). A story of breakthrough versus incremental innovation: Corporate entrepreneurship in the global pharmaceutical industry. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 4(2), 106–127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eesley, C. E., & Miller, W. F. (2018). Impact: Stanford University’s economic impact via innovation and entrepreneurship. Foundations and Trends® in Entrepreneurship, 14(2), 130–278.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gallochat, A. (2003). French technology transfer and policies. In Turning science into business: Patenting and licensing at public research organizations (pp. 139–151). Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldsmith, R. E., & Kerr, J. R. (1991). Entrepreneurship and adaption-innovation theory. Technovation, 11(6), 373–382.

    Google Scholar 

  • Golodner, A. M. (2001). Antitrust, innovation, entrepreneurship and small business. Small Business Economics, 16(1), 31–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gorsuch, J., & Link, A. N. (2018). Nanotechnology: A call for policy research. Annals of Science and Technology Policy, 2(4), 307–463.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guerrero, M., & Urbano, D. (2017). The impact of Triple Helix agents on entrepreneurial innovations’ performance: An inside look at enterprises located in an emerging economy. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 119, 294–309.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guerrero, M., & Urbano, D. (2019). Effectiveness of technology transfer policies and legislation in fostering entrepreneurial innovations across continents: an overview. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 44(5), 1347–1366.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guerrero, M., Urbano, D., Fayolle, A., Klofsten, M., & Mian, S. (2016). Entrepreneurial universities: Emerging models in the new social and economic landscape. Small Business Economics, 47(3), 551–563.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guerrero, M., Urbano, D., & Herrera, F. (2019). Innovation practices in emerging economies: Do university partnerships matter? The Journal of Technology Transfer, 44(2), 615–646.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guerrero, M., & Urbano, D. (2012). The development of an entrepreneurial university. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 37(1), 43–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guo, H. (2007). IP management at Chinese universities. In A. Krattiger, R. T. Mahoney, L. Nelsen, et al. (Eds.), Intellectual property management in health and agricultural innovation: A handbook of best practices (pp. 1673–1682). Oxford, UK: MIHR.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harvey, K. (1992). Managing the exploitation of intellectual property: An analysis of policy and practice in nine UK Universities, Doctor of Philosophy thesis at the University of Stirling, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haufler, A., Norbäck, P. J., & Persson, L. (2014). Entrepreneurial innovations and taxation. Journal of Public Economics, 113, 13–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kilger, C., & Bartenbach, K. (2002). New rules for German professors. Science, 298, 1173–1175.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kochupillai, M. (2010). The protection and utilization of public funded intellectual property bill, 2008: A critique in the light of India’s innovation environment. Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 15, 19–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Komlósi, É., Páger, B., & Márkus, G. (2019). Entrepreneurial innovations in countries at different stages of development. Форсайт, 13(4), 23–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Langhorn, K. (2014). Encouraging entrepreneurship with innovation vouchers: Recent experience, lessons, and research directions. Canadian Public Administration, 57(2), 318–326.

    Google Scholar 

  • Letaifa, S. B., & Rabeau, Y. (2013). Too close to collaborate? How geographic proximity could impede entrepreneurship and innovation. Journal of Business Research, 66(10), 2071–2078.

    Google Scholar 

  • Link, A. N., & van Hasselt, M. (2019a). Exploring the impact of R&D on patenting activity in small women-owned and minority-owned entrepreneurial firms. Small Business Economics, 1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Link, A. N., & van Hasselt, M. (2019b). On the transfer of technology from universities: The impact of the Bayh–Dole Act of 1980 on the institutionalization of university research. European Economic Review, 119(october 2019), 472–481.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lo, T. H., Liou, S., & Yuan, B. (2005). Organization innovation and entrepreneurship: The role of the national laboratories in promoting industrial development. International Journal of Technology Management, 30(1–2), 67–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malerba, F., & McKelvey, M. (2020). Knowledge-intensive innovative entrepreneurship integrating Schumpeter, evolutionary economics, and innovation systems. Small Business Economics, 54(2), 503–522.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marozau, R., & Guerrero, M. (2016). Conditioning factors of knowledge transfer and commercialization in the context of post-socialist economies: The case of Belarusian higher education institutions. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 27(4), 441–462.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milthers, S. (2003). Changing IPR regulations for researchers in Denmark. In Turning science into business: Patenting and licensing at public research organizations (pp. 129–138). Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mosey, S., Guerrero, M., & Greenman, A. (2017). Technology entrepreneurship research opportunities: Insights from across Europe. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 42(1), 1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mowery, D. C., Nelson, R. R., Sampat, B., & Ziedonis, A. A. (1999). The effects of the Bayh-Dole Act on US university research and technology transfer: An analysis of data from Columbia University, the University of California, and Stanford University. Research Policy, 29, 729–740.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mrożewski, M., & Kratzer, J. (2017). Entrepreneurship and country-level innovation: Investigating the role of entrepreneurial opportunities. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 42(5), 1125–1142.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nathan, M., & Lee, N. (2013). Cultural diversity, innovation, and entrepreneurship: Firm-level evidence from London. Economic Geography, 89(4), 367–394.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nnakwe, C. C., Cooch, N., & Huang-Saad, A. (2018). Investing in academic technology innovation and entrepreneurship: Moving beyond research funding through the NSF I-CORPS™ program. Technology and Innovation, 19(4), 773–786.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norbäck, P. J., & Persson, L. (2012). Entrepreneurial innovations, competition, and competition policy. European Economic Review, 56(39), 488–506.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2008). Promoting entrepreneurship and innovative SMEs in a global economy. Paris: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264044357-en.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2009). Cluster, innovation and entrepreneurship. Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2010). Knowledge networks and markets: A typology of markets in explicit knowledge. DSTI/IND/STP/ICCP(2010)3.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2011a). Business innovation policies: Selected country comparisons. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264115668-en

  • OECD. (2011b). Intellectual assets and innovation: The SME dimension, OECD studies on SMEs and entrepreneurship. Paris: OECD Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2012a). Financing business R&D and innovation in OECD science, technology and industry outlook 2012. Paris: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/sti_outlook-2012-12-en.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2012b). Stimulating demand for innovation in OECD science, technology and industry outlook 2012. Paris: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/sti_outlook-2012-en.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2012c). Science, technology and industry outlook 2012. Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2012d). Operational environment for SMEs (dimension 4): Make public administrations responsive to SMEs’ needs (small business act principle 4), in SME Policy Index: Eastern Partner Countries 2012: Progress in the Implementation of the Small Business Act for Europe, OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264178847-11-en

  • Pojo, S. D., Vidal, V. S., Zen, A. C., & Barros, H. M. (2013). Management of intellectual property in Brazilian Universities: A multiple case study, working monograph of Insper.

    Google Scholar 

  • Qian, X. D., Xia, J., Liu, W., & Tsai, S. B. (2018). An empirical study on sustainable innovation academic entrepreneurship process model. Sustainability, 10(6), 1974.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reichelt, K. M. (2007). University technology transfer and national innovation policy: Success stories from Brazil, Colombia and South Africa. International Intellectual Property Institute. http://iipi.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/UniversityTechTransfer_072507.pdf

  • Ryan, P., & Giblin, M. (2012). High-tech clusters, innovation capabilities, and technological entrepreneurship: Evidence from Ireland. The World Economy, 35(10), 1322–1339.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sáez-Martínez, F. J., González-Moreno, Á., & Hogan, T. (2014). The role of the university in eco-entrepreneurship: Evidence from the Eurobarometer survey on attitudes of European entrepreneurs towards eco-innovation. Environmental Engineering and Management Journal, 13(10), 2541–2541.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schumpeter, J. A. (1942). Capitalism, socialism and democracy. New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shapira, P., Youtie, J., & Kay, L. (2011). Building capabilities for innovation in SMEs: A cross-country comparison of technology extension policies and programmes. International Journal of Innovation and Regional Development, 3, 254–272.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharma, S., & Sharma, S. (2019). Agri-entrepreneurial innovations for rural prosperity and sustainable development. Journal of Community Mobilization and Sustainable Development, 14(1), 206–211.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D., & Link, A. (2003). Assessing the impact of organizational practices on the relative productivity of university technology transfer offices: An exploratory study. Research Policy, 32(1), 27–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siegel, D. S., & Guerrero, M. (2021). The impact of quarantines, lockdowns, and ‘reopenings’ on the commercialization of science: micro and macro issues. Journal of Management Studies. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12692

    Google Scholar 

  • Steen, J. V. (2012). Modes of public funding of research and development: Towards internationally comparable indicators, OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers, 2012/04. Paris: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/5k98ssns1gzs-en.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Studdard, N., & Darby, R. (2008). From social capital to human resource development: A cross-cultural study of the role of HRM in innovation and entrepreneurship in high technology organizations. European Journal of International Management, 2(3), 333–355.

    Google Scholar 

  • Takenaka, T. (2005). Technology licensing and university research in Japan. International Journal of Intellectual Property Law, Economy and Management, 1, 27–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thongpravati, O., Maritz, A., & Stoddart, P. (2016). Fostering entrepreneurship and innovation through a biomedical technology Ph.D. program in Australia. International Journal of Engineering Education, 32(3), 1222–1235.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tomes, A., Erol, R., & Armstrong, P. (2000). Technological entrepreneurship: Integrating technological and product innovation. Technovation, 20(3), 115–127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toner, P. (2011). Workforce skills and innovation: An overview of major themes in the literature, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 55, OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/5kgk6hpnhxzq-en

  • Urbaniec, M. (2018). Sustainable entrepreneurship: Innovation-related activities in European enterprises. Polish Journal of Environmental Studies, 27(4), 1773–1779.

    Google Scholar 

  • Urbano, D., Guerrero, M., Ferreira, J. J., & Fernandes, C. I. (2019). New technology entrepreneurship initiatives: Which strategic orientations and environmental conditions matter in the new socio-economic landscape?. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 44(5), 1577–1602.

    Google Scholar 

  • Von Bargen, P., Freedman, D., & Pages, E. R. (2003). The rise of the entrepreneurial society. Economic Development Quarterly, 17(4), 315–324.

    Google Scholar 

  • Westmore, B. (2013). R&D, patenting and growth: The role of public policy, OECD Economics Department Working Papers, No. 1047, OECD Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winters, R., & Stam, E. (2007). Innovation networks of high-tech SMEs: Creation of knowledge but no creation of value. Jena Economic Research Papers, No. 2007-042.

    Google Scholar 

  • WIPO. (2004). Intellectual property rights and innovation in small and medium enterprises. Geneva: World Intellectual Property Organization.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wölfl, A., et al. (2010). Product market regulation: Extending the analysis beyond OECD countries, OECD Economics Department Working Papers, No. 799, OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/5km68g3d1xzn-en

  • Woolley, J. L., & Rottner, R. M. (2008). Innovation policy and nanotechnology entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32(5), 791–811.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zahra, S., & Wright, M. (2011). Entrepreneurship’s next act. Academy of Management Perspectives, 25, 67–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zenie, F. H. (2003). Innovation and entrepreneurship: From science to practice. American Laboratory, 35(20), 42–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zolotykh, N. (2003). Legal regulation of protection and commercialization of intellectual property created by Russian public research organizations. In Turning science into business: Patenting and licensing at public research organizations (pp. 153–166). Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Maribel Guerrero acknowledges the Facultad de Economía y Negocios at the Universidad del Desarrollo (Chile), the Northumbria Centre for Innovation, Regional Transformation and Entrepreneurship based on Newcastle Business School at Northumbria University (UK), and the Centre for Innovation Research (CIRCLE) at Lund University (SE) for their invaluable support. David Urbano acknowledges the financial support from the Spanish Ministry of Economy & Competitiveness [project ECO2017-87885-P], the Economy & Knowledge Department—Catalan Government [project 2017-SGR-1056], and ICREA under the ICREA Academia Programme.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Facultad de Economía y Negocios, Universidad del Desarrollo, Santiago, Chile

    Maribel Guerrero

  2. Northumbria Centre for Innovation, Regional Transformation and Entrepreneurship (iNCITE), Newcastle Business School, Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK

    Maribel Guerrero

  3. Centre for Innovation Research (CIRCLE), Lund University, Lund, Sweden

    Maribel Guerrero

  4. Department of Business and Centre for Entrepreneurship and Social Innovation Research (CREIS), Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Bellaterra, Spain

    David Urbano

Authors
  1. Maribel Guerrero
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David Urbano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maribel Guerrero .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Facultad de Economía y Negocios, Universidad del Desarrollo, Santiago, Chile

    Maribel Guerrero

  2. Northumbria Centre for Innovation Regional Transformation and Entrepreneurship (iNCITE) Newcastle Business School, Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK

    Prof. David Urbano

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Guerrero, M., Urbano, D. (2021). Academic Tendencies in Policy Frameworks for Fostering Entrepreneurial Innovations. In: Guerrero, M., Urbano, D. (eds) Technology Transfer and Entrepreneurial Innovations. International Studies in Entrepreneurship, vol 51. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-70022-5_1

Download citation