A Dynamic Analysis of University Agricultural Biotechnology Patent Production

Abstract

This article examines the factors that account for agricultural biotechnology patenting success among universities using a dynamic count data model. It builds a theoretical and econometric model to capture the inherently dynamic and nonlinear process of technological innovation, wherein a feedback mechanism from previous success partially determines current patent counts. The econometric estimates reveal the importance to agricultural biotechnology patent production of land grant infrastructure, quality faculty, patent-oriented technology transfer offices, as well as dynamic feedback effects.

Are scientific capacities and industrial funding critical for universities' knowledgetransfer activities? - A case study of South Korea

“…Moreover, the positive and significant influence of industrial funding on knowledge-transfer activities is also found in the empirical results of Powers (2003) and Di in the case of US universities. However, this result is contradictory to the findings of Payne and Siow (2003) and Foltz et al (2000) in terms of the effect of central government funding, and also contradictory to Foltz et al (2000), Foltz et al (2001) and Powers (2004) in terms of the effect of industrial funding. In this regard, this research might be seen as merely contributing to inconsistent empirical "confusion."…”

“…Payne and Siow (2003) also find that federal funding is significantly and positively related to the patent production of universities. However, in contrast to their results from previous a study in 2000, Foltz et al (2001 find that internal funding and state funding are positively and significantly related to patenting activities in the field of April/May 2011 |19 agricultural biotechnology, while industrial and federal funding are not. In a similar vein, Powers (2004) also confirms that industrial R&D support is not significantly related to university technology transfer.…”

“…Our finding on the insignificance of central government funding (regarding three out of four knowledge-transfer activities) is in the same vein as the empirical evidence of Foltz et al (2001). Moreover, the positive and significant influence of industrial funding on knowledge-transfer activities is also found in the empirical results of Powers (2003) and Di in the case of US universities.…”

“…The characteristics of the university samples selected, as well as the population adopted, vary from study to study. For example, both Foltz et al (2001) and Foltz et al (2000) are interested in agricultural biotechnology patents. However, the former's research is based on cross-sectional data of 142 US universities from the US patent office database, while the latter's research is based on eight years of panel data for 127 US universities from the AUTM (Association of University Technology Managers) survey.…”

In which regions do universities patent and publish more?

“…The first six (Foltz et al [26]; [27]; Carlsson and Fridh [13]; Payne and Siow [41]; Coupé [17]; Baldini et al [6]) use universities as a unit of observation, five in the US case and one in the Italian case. Two of them refer to the department or laboratory level of single European universities (Azagra et al [3], [4] The most frequent determinant included is R&D expenditure.…”