Improving or Impairing? Following Technology Transfer Changes at the University of Cambridge

Breznitz, Shiri M.

doi:10.1080/00343401003601909

Cited by 31 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 52 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…University initiatives may for example tend to follow in stead of cause vibrant high-technology clusters. Breznitz (2011) describes how constant one-sided changes in technology transfer policy and organization have had a negative effect on Cambridge University's ability to commercialize technology. more efficient processes and products and hence spur growth (Romer, 1986(Romer, , 1990.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Contribution of Universities to Growth: Empirical Evidence for Italy

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

New entrepreneurial ventures may represent a viable and effective mechanism to transform academic knowledge into regional economic growth. We test this notion for the Italian provinces between 2001 and 2006. We evaluate three outputs of academic activities: teaching, research and Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) activities management. New ventures may be able to transform the mentioned outputs into improved economic performance. The findings show that the effects of academic outputs on provincial economic growth (all sectors) are appreciable when they are associated with sustained entrepreneurial activities in the province. It suggests that academic inquiry may provide new ventures with valuable commercial opportunities overseen by established companies. IntroductionHow does knowledge spur economic growth? The theories of endogenous growth use the informational characteristics of knowledge as introduced by Arrow (1962) to explain endogenous growth trajectories (Romer, 1986;Lucas, 1988). According to these theories, it is the generation of knowledge that spurs growth and such knowledge is partially appropriable as it spills over into the hands of third parties that in turn use it to generate new knowledge and useful ideas.Although endogenous growth theories have predicted general patterns of growth, they fail in explaining the several "paradoxes" that are currently crowding decision-makers'agendas. In fact, some scholars have contended that it is not investment in knowledge per se that spurs growth and thus competitiveness; rather, the critical facet of the economic relevance of knowledge is the commercialization of the results that knowledge produces (Acs et al., 2009;Audretsch and Keilbach, 2008;Braunerhjelm et al., 2010). These authors posit the existence of a "knowledge filter" between investment in new knowledge and its economic exploitation. Such a filter results from the inherent peculiarities of knowledge, as opposed to information itself. Knowledge generating activities produce uncertain economic results that are associated with high degrees of asymmetries between inventors and potential exploiters.High uncertainty and high asymmetries result in high transaction costs among economic agents (Audretsch, 2007).These characteristics become even more evident when knowledge is generated in academic laboratories. A strand of literature in the sociology and economics of science fields stresses that the incentive system in place within the academic community would rarely lead scientists to produce findings of immediate industrial application (Dasgupta and David, 1994;Merton, 1973;Stephan, 1996). The recent involvement of universities in technological development has in fact shown that whenever academic findings display potential technological applications, they are at an early stage of development and tend to serve a variety of industrial purposes (Colyvas et al., 2002;Jensen and Thursby, 2001;Piergiovanni and Santarelli, 2001).In such a context, entrepreneurship is seen as the main mechanism that ens...

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Contribution of Universities to Growth: Empirical Evidence for Italy

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The enablers discussed and proposed in this study allow for an assessment on qualitative measures in addition to quantitative measures and in so doing, they contribute to a better understanding of the transfer process and its determinants. Technology transfer is considered a highly relevant activity that generates learning and capabilities with the purpose of introducing and stimulating innovation on the part of the recipient (Breznitz, 2011;Cooke and Mayes, 1996;Van Zwanenberg and Arza, 2013). Given the paucity of literature focusing specifically on technology transfer in rural contexts (e.g.…”

Section: Conclusion and Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Transferring intermediate technologies to rural enterprises in developing economies: a conceptual framework

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is not necessarily the case that a Bayh-Dole-type institutional change will have a positive effect on technology transfer and economic growth. Kenney and Patton (2011) provided three examples where adopting a Bayh-Dole-type model has not been successful: Cambridge, UK (Breznitz, 2011), Japan (Carraz, 2008;Takahasi and Carraz, 2009) and Denmark (Valentin and Jensen, 2007). Of these, the University of Cambridge is the clearest case for showing that an inventor ownership model can be successful for transferring technology and encouraging entrepreneurship (Breznitz, 2011).…”

Section: University Spin-offs and Technology Transfermentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Kenney and Patton (2011) provided three examples where adopting a Bayh-Dole-type model has not been successful: Cambridge, UK (Breznitz, 2011), Japan (Carraz, 2008;Takahasi and Carraz, 2009) and Denmark (Valentin and Jensen, 2007). Of these, the University of Cambridge is the clearest case for showing that an inventor ownership model can be successful for transferring technology and encouraging entrepreneurship (Breznitz, 2011). Abandoning this model, to mimic the US Bayh-Dole model, in this case did not lead to increased technology transfer or entrepreneurship.…”

Section: University Spin-offs and Technology Transfermentioning

confidence: 99%

Academic Entrepreneurship: Spin-offs in Sweden and the UK

Dahlstrand

Smith

Baines

2016

International Studies in Entrepreneurship

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Discussions of academic entrepreneurship often focus on efforts to commercialize inventions appropriated within the intellectual property (IP) system. However, studies in the U.S. have shown that a substantial amount of entrepreneurship happens outside of the formal IP system.In the UK each university sets its own rules on ownership of IP. In a few European countries, like Sweden, an inventor ownership model is dominating. There is a lack of studies of European academic entrepreneurship outside of the formal IP system; and accordingly there have been few possibilities to analyze the effects of different institutional set ups.To help fill this gap, this chapter analyses how different institutional settings affect academic entrepreneurship in Europe. By analyzing both patents and spinoffs (from Oxford University, UK and Chalmers University, Sweden) we will shed light on two processes for commercialization of university research. We empirically investigate university technology transfer at two different universities in two countries with a different inventor ownership regulation.

show abstract

Improving or Impairing? Following Technology Transfer Changes at the University of Cambridge

Cited by 31 publications

References 52 publications

The Contribution of Universities to Growth: Empirical Evidence for Italy

The Contribution of Universities to Growth: Empirical Evidence for Italy

Transferring intermediate technologies to rural enterprises in developing economies: a conceptual framework

Academic Entrepreneurship: Spin-offs in Sweden and the UK

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About