The determinants of university–industry collaboration in food science in Italy

Muscio, Alessandro; Nardone, Giorgio

doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2012.07.003

Cited by 43 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 56 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This result, which is apparently not in accordance with Muscio and Nardone (2012), can be explained by observing that the introduction of the technology transfer offices was too recent, and the diffusion of administrative practices that leverage new opportunities for university-industry interactions takes a minimum amount of time to demonstrate a direct effect. However, an indirect effect is evident in that the presence of a transfer technology office produces a displacement effect on the existence of intra muros R&D investment (Table 5) and R&D collaboration with private firms (the latter effect is less robust; see Table 8).…”

Section: The Empirical Evidencementioning

confidence: 86%

“…For firms with high absorptive capacity, geographical proximity to a top university has no effect on collaboration choice. Muscio and Nardone (2012) find that academic research quality positively impacts the private funding of university research activities, particularly with respect to food sciences departments. Academic reputation is also proxied by university age, measured in years .…”

Section: The Determinants Of University-industry Collaboration and Unmentioning

confidence: 88%

“…To account for the fact that academic institutions require a critical mass of researchers to improve their chances of interacting with firms, scholars have introduced university and department size into the analysis, which are quantified as the number of researchers (or the percentage of time) devoted to research activities (D'Este and Iammarino, 2010;Landry et al, 2007;Muscio and Nardone, 2012) or the R&D intensity of the higher education sector (Huynh and Rotondi, 2009).…”

Section: The Determinants Of University-industry Collaboration and Unmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The latter is also proxied by the existence of an intermediation structure, such as a technology transfer office, that is established to minimise the cognitive distance between business and academics (Muscio and Nardone, 2012), or by the university's regional location for tacit-knowledge-intensive industries (Fitjar and Rodríguez-Pose, 2012).…”

Section: The Determinants Of University-industry Collaboration and Unmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Determinants of university–firm R&D collaboration and its impact on innovation: A perspective from a low-tech industry

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: The Empirical Evidencementioning

confidence: 86%

Section: The Determinants Of University-industry Collaboration and Unmentioning

confidence: 88%

Section: The Determinants Of University-industry Collaboration and Unmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Determinants Of University-industry Collaboration and Unmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Determinants of university–firm R&D collaboration and its impact on innovation: A perspective from a low-tech industry

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Technology transfer in the agri-food sector is particularly influenced by university size and the intermediation of TTOs, academic research performance, and geographical proximity between universities and food businesses (Muscio and Nardone, 2012). Another way to support entrepreneurship is through scouting and matchmaking between companies and technological intellectual property or technological opportunities.…”

Section: Technologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Promoting Entrepreneurship in the Agri-food Industry: Policy Insights from a Pan-European Public–Private Consortium

Bolzani

Carli

Fini

et al. 2015

Industry and Innovation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite the importance of entrepreneurship as an engine for socio-economic growth, few attempts have been made to study how and to what extent industry-specific policies can sustain it. In particular, to date, there is only anecdotal evidence on which factors policymakers can utilize to foster entrepreneurship within the agri-food sector. In this paper, we attempt to fill this gap by developing, testing, and validating a multiitem scale, identifying five factors (i.e., people, money, network, technology, infrastructure) and sixteen specific tools (i.e., items) to be leveraged in promoting entrepreneurship within the agri-food industry. We carry out our study in the context of Foodbest, a pan-European public-private consortium created in 2012 to support entrepreneurship and innovation in the agri-food sector. By testing for differences in perceptions of factors' and tools' effectiveness, we find variations according to respondents' organizational and country affiliation. We thus offer new insights into how public policy and public-private consortiums can proactively promote entrepreneurship in the agri-food domain.Keywords: agri-food; entrepreneurship; public policy; public-private consortium; scale development; factor analysis.JEL codes: O3; L26; Q16, Q18, Key pointsWe cover three key points. First, by conducting a literature review and working with a focus group, we identify a set of theoretically grounded factors and tools that could help promote entrepreneurship in the agri-food industry. Second, we develop and test a multi-item scale of these factors within the context of a pan-European publicprivate consortium. Third, we show that perceptions of factor effectiveness vary among consortium participants according to participants' personal characteristics and organizational affiliations.2

show abstract