Clicca qui per scaricare

Filling the funding gap: university-oriented seed funds in Europe
Titolo Rivista: ECONOMIA E POLITICA INDUSTRIALE  
Autori/Curatori: Martina Pasquini 
Anno di pubblicazione:  2013 Fascicolo: Lingua: Inglese 
Numero pagine:  18 P. 155-172 Dimensione file:  186 KB
DOI:  10.3280/POLI2013-004007
Il DOI è il codice a barre della proprietà intellettuale: per saperne di più:  clicca qui   qui 


This study addresses the problem of the funding gap that characterizes technology transfer activities by investigating a particular type of financial instrument, namely, university-oriented seed funds (USFs) that seek to sustain technology transfer and spin-offs from universities and public research centers. In addition to defining and classifying the investment focus and possible linkages and collaborations of universities and research centers, this study offers empirical evidence about these funds in comparison with others and their portfolio companies. Data pertaining seventy-three USFs and a matched control group of two hundred and eight venture capital funds, with one thousand five hundred and twenty-six portfolio companies (six hundred and fifty USF-backed, eight hundred and seventy-six non-USF-backed) shed light on the characteristics of each type of funds and related companies. The results also suggest key implications for practice and avenues for further research.


Keywords: Fondi di investimento, capitale di rischio, funding gap, spin-off accademici, commercializzazione della tecnologia
Jel Code: G23, G24

  1. Clarysse B., Wright M., Lockett A., Mustar P., Knockaert M. 2007. Academic spinoffs, formal technology transfer and capital raising. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16 (4):609-640,, DOI: 10.1093/icc/dtm019
  2. Colombo M.G., Delmastro M. 2002. How effective are technology incubators? Evidence from Italy. Research Policy, 31 (7): 1103-1122,, DOI: 10.1016/S0048-7333(01)00178-0
  3. Colyvas J., Crow M., Gelijns A., Mazzoleni R., Nelson R.R., Rosenberg N., Sampat B.N. 2002. How do university inventions get into practice? Management Science, 48 (1): 61-72.
  4. Cumming D. 2006. The determinants of venture capital portfolio size: empirical evidence. Journal of Business, 79 (3): 1083-1126.
  5. D’Este P., Perkmann M. 2011. Why do academics engage with industry? The entrepreneurial university and individual motivations. Journal of Technology Transfer, 36 (3): 316-339,, DOI: 10.1007/s10961-010-9153-z
  6. Fini R., Grimaldi R., Sobrero M. 2009. Factors fostering academics to start up new ventures: an assessment of Italian founders’ incentives. Journal of Technology Transfer, 34 (4): 380-402,, DOI: 10.1007/s10961-008-9093-z
  7. Grimaldi R., Kenney M., Siegel D.S., Wright M. 2011. 30 years after Bayh-Dole: reassessing academic entrepreneurship. Research Policy, 40 (8): 1045-1057, doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2011.04.005.
  8. Hsu D.H. 2007. Experienced entrepreneurial founders, organizational capital and venture capital funding. Research Policy, 36 (5): 722-741,, DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2007.02.022
  9. Jacob M., Lundqvist M., Hellsmark H. 2003. Entrepreneurial transformations in the Swedish university system: the case of Chalmers university of technology. Research Policy, 32 (9): 1555-1568.
  10. Jensen R., Thursby M. 2001. Proofs and prototypes for sale: the licensing of university inventions. American Economic Review, 91 (1): 240-259.
  11. Kaplan S.N., Sensoy B., Strömberg P. 2002. How well do venture capital databases reflect actual investments?. University of Chicago Working Paper 09/2002,, DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.939073
  12. Knockaert M., Wright M., Clarysse B., Lockett A. 2010. Agency and similarity effects and the VC’s attitude towards academic spin-out investing. Journal of Technology Transfer, 35 (6): 567-584,, DOI: 10.1007/s10961-009-9138-y
  13. Lerner J. 2005. The university and the start-up: lesson from the past two decades. Journal of Technology Transfer, 30 (1-2): 49-56,, DOI: 10.1007/s10961-004-4357-8
  14. Lockett A., Murray G., Wright M. 2002. Do UK venture capitalists still have a bias against high tech investments?. Research Policy, 31 (6): 1009-1030,, DOI: 10.1016/S0048-7333(01)00174-3
  15. Lockett A., Wright M., Burrows A., Scholes L., Paton D. 2008. The export intensity of venture capital backed companies. Small Business Economics, 31 (1): 39-58,, DOI: 10.1007/s11187-008-9109-y
  16. Moray N., Clarysse B. 2005. Institutional change and resource endowments to sciencebased entrepreneurial firms. Research Policy, 34 (7): 1010-1027,, DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2005.05.016
  17. Munari F., Toschi L. 2011. Do venture capitalists have a bias against investment in academic spin-offs? Evidence from the micro- and nanotechnology sector in the UK. Industrial and Corporate Change, 20 (2): 397-432,, DOI: 10.1093/icc/dtq053
  18. Murray G.C. 1998. A policy response to regional disparities in the supply of risk capital to new technology-based firms in the European union: the European seed capital fund scheme. Regional Studies, 32 (5): 405-419,, DOI: 10.1080/00343409850116817
  19. Murray G.C. 2007. Venture capital and government policy, in Landstrom H. (ed.) Handbook of Research on Venture Capital. Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham.
  20. Mustar P., Wright M. 2010. Convergence or path dependency in policies to foster the creation of university spin-off firms? A comparison of France and the United Kingdom. Journal of Technology Transfer, 35 (1): 42-65,, DOI: 10.1007/s10961-009-9113-7
  21. Myers S.C. 1984. The capital structure puzzle. Journal of Finance, 39 (3): 575-592.
  22. Nightingale P., Murray G., Cowling M., Baden-Fuller C., Mason C., Siepel J., Hopkins M., Dannreuther C. 2009. From Funding Gaps to Thin Markets UK Government Support for Early-Stage Venture Capital. BVCA and NESTA Research Report, published online.
  23. Phan P.H., Siegel D.S., Wright M. 2005. Science parks and incubators: observations, synthesis and future research. Journal of Business Venturing, 20 (2): 165-182,, DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusvent.2003.12.001
  24. Rasmussen E. 2008. Government instruments to support the commercialization of university research: lessons from Canada. Technovation, 28 (8): 506-517,, DOI: 10.1016/j.technovation.2007.12.002
  25. Rasmussen E., Rice M.P. 2012. A framework for government support mechanisms aimed at enhancing university technology transfer: the Norwegian case. International Journal of Technology Transfer and Commercialization, 11 (1-2): 1-25,, DOI: 10.1504/IJTTC.2012.04393
  26. Siegel D.S., Westhead P., Wright M. 2003. Assessing the impact of science parks on the research productivity of firms: exploratory evidence from the United Kingdom. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 21 (9):1357-1369,, DOI: 10.1016/S0167-7187(03)00086-9
  27. Soetanto D.P., Jack S.L. 2013. Business incubators and the networks of technology based firms. Journal of Technology Transfer, 38(4): 432-453.
  28. Sørensen M. 2007. How smart is smart money? A two-sided matching model of venture capital. Journal of Finance, 62 (6): 2725-2762,, DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-6261.2007.01291.x
  29. Wright M., Lockett A., Clarysse B., Binks M. 2006. University spin-out companies and venture capital. Research Policy, 35 (4): 481-501.
  30. Wright M., Filatotchev I. 2008. Stimulating academic entrepreneurship and technology transfer: a case study of Kings College London commercialization strategies, in O’Shea R.P., Allen T.J. (eds.) Building Technology Transfer in Research Universities: An Entrepreneurial Approach. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge (UK).

Martina Pasquini, in "ECONOMIA E POLITICA INDUSTRIALE " 4/2013, pp. 155-172, DOI:10.3280/POLI2013-004007

   

FrancoAngeli è membro della Publishers International Linking Association associazione indipendente e no profit per facilitare l'accesso degli studiosi ai contenuti digitali nelle pubblicazioni professionali e scientifiche