Click here to download

Supporting academic entrepreneurship: cross-country evidence in Europe
Author/s: Paola Giuri, Rosa Grimaldi, Elisa Villani 
Year:  2014 Issue: Language: English 
Pages:  22 Pg. 215-236 FullText PDF:  93 KB
DOI:  10.3280/POLI2014-004010
(DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation:  clicca qui   and here 

TTOs have been considered the most important instrument for universities to support and develop academic entrepreneurship. Various policies and instruments can be implemented by TTOs to support the commercialization of academic knowledge. We focus on factors such as TTOs’ governance and their internal organization, the mission/ strategy underlying their activities, and the national and specific constrains under which they work to better understand the role of TTOs and the role of universities as facilitators (or inhibitors) of academic entrepreneurship. Using the data from a survey developed under the FinKT (Financing Knowledge Transfer in Europe) project, we provide evidence on the support that academic, European TTOs offer to academic entrepreneurship using a cross-country lens.
Keywords: TTOs, technology transfer, survey data, multi-country analysis
Jel Code: M10, M13, C42

  1. Algieri B., Aquino A., Succurro M. 2013. Technology transfer offices and academic spin-off creation: the case of Italy. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 38 (4): 382-400,, DOI: 10.1007/s10961-011-9241-8
  2. Arundel A., Es-Sadki N., Barjak F., Perrett P., Samuel O., Lilischkis S. 2013. Directorate for Impact Assessment and European Added Value Directorate General for Internal Policies, European Parliament. Knowledge Transfer Study 2010-2012.
  3. Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg,, DOI: 10.2777/31336.BaxA.,CorrieriS.,DanieleC.,GuarnieriL.,ParenteR.,PiccalugaA.,RamaciottiL.,TiezziR.2014.XIRapportoNetvalsullavalorizzazionedellaricercapubblicaitaliana.Unireipuntinipercompletareildisegnodell’innovazione.Networkperlavalorizzazionedellaricercauniversitaria.Netval:Milano
  4. 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,, DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2010.03.006
  5. Clarysse B., Wright M., Lockett A., Van de Velde E., Vohora A. 2005. Spinning out new ventures: a typology of incubation strategies from European research institutions. Journal of Business Venturing, 20 (2): 183-216,, DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusvent.2003.12.004
  6. D’Este P., Patel P. 2007. University-industry linkages in the UK: what are the factors underlying the variety of interactions with industry?. Research policy, 36 (9): 1295-1313,, DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2007.05.002
  7. 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,, DOI: 10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00069-4
  8. European Parliament. 2012. Knowledge Transfer from Public Research Organizations. Final Report, published online.
  9. Fini R., Lacetera N., Shane S. 2010. Inside or outside the IP system? Business creation in academia. Research Policy, 39 (8): 1060-1069,, DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2010.05.014
  10. Geuna A. 1998. The internationalization of European universities: a return to medieval roots. Minerva, 36 (3): 253-270.
  11. Geuna A., Muscio A. 2009. The governance of university knowledge transfer: a critical review of the literature. Minerva, 47 (1): 93-114,, DOI: 10.1007/s11024-009-9118-2
  12. Geuna A., Rossi F. 2011. Changes to university IPR regulations in Europe and the impact on academic patenting. Research Policy, 40 (8): 1068-1076,, DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2011.05.008
  13. Giuri P., Munari F., Pasquini M. 2013. What determines university patent commercialization? Empirical evidence on the role of IPR ownership. Industry and Innovation, 20 (5): 488-502,, DOI: 10.1080/13662716.2013.824195
  14. Goldfarb B., Henrekson M. 2003. Bottom-up versus top-down policies towards the commercialization of university intellectual property. Research Policy, 32 (4): 639-658,, DOI: 10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00034-3
  15. Grimaldi R., Von Tunzelmann N. 2002. Assessing collaborative, pre-competitive R&D projects: the case of the UK LINK scheme. R&D Management, 32 (2): 165-173.
  16. 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: 10.1016/j.respol.2011.04.005
  17. Hülsbeck M., Lehmann E.E., Starnecker A. 2013. Performance of technology transfer offices in Germany. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 38 (3): 199-215,, DOI: 10.1007/s10961-011-9243-6.LissoniF.,PezzoniM.,PotiB.,RomagnosiS.2013.Universityautonomy,theprofessorprivilegeandacademicpatenting:Italy,1996-2007.IndustryandInnovation,20(5):399-421,doi:10.1080/13662716.2013.824192
  18. Mansfield E., Lee J.Y. 1996. The modern university: contributor to industrial innovation and recipient of industrial R&D support. Research Policy, 25 (7), 1047-1058,, DOI: 10.1016/S0048-7333(96)00893-1
  19. 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. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 35 (1): 42-65,, DOI: 10.1007/s10961-009-9113-7
  20. Perkmann M., Walsh K. 2007. University-industry relationships and open innovation: towards a research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 9 (4): 259-280,, DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2370.2007.00225.x
  21. Quintas P., Guy K. 1995. Collaborative, pre-competitive R&D and the firm. Research Policy, 24 (3): 325-348,, DOI: 10.1016/0048-7333(93)00769-P
  22. 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
  23. Rasmussen E., Borch O.J. 2006. The university and the spin-off process. A dynamic capability approach, in Urbano D. (ed.) Diversity in entrepreneurship. Online Publication: Napoli.
  24. Rasmussen E., Rice M. 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.2012.043934
  25. 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,, DOI: 10.1016/S0048-7333(01)00196-2
  26. Siegel D.S., 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,, DOI: 10.1093/oxrep/grm036
  27. Tahvanainen A.J., Hermans R. 2011. Making sense of the TTO production function: university technology transfer offices as process catalysts, knowledge converters and impact amplifiers. ETLA Discussion Paper 1236.
  28. Villani E. 2013. How external support may mitigate the barriers to university-industry collaboration. Journal of Industrial and Business Economics, 40 (4): 117-145,, DOI: 10.3280/POLI2013-004005
  29. Wright M., Clarysse B., Mustar P., Lockett A. 2007. Academic Entrepreneurship in Europe. Edgar Elgar Publishing: London.

Paola Giuri, Rosa Grimaldi, Elisa Villani, in "ECONOMIA E POLITICA INDUSTRIALE " 4/2014, pp. 215-236, DOI:10.3280/POLI2014-004010


FrancoAngeli is a member of Publishers International Linking Association a not for profit orgasnization wich runs the CrossRef service, enabing links to and from online scholarly content