nach oben

Small Business Economics

Erschienen in:

01.08.2014

Are public research spin-offs more innovative?

verfasst von: Andreas Stephan

Erschienen in: Small Business Economics | Ausgabe 2/2014

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

The main purpose of this paper is to analyse whether research spin-offs, that is, spin-offs from either public research institutes or universities, have greater innovation capabilities than comparable knowledge-intensive firms created in other ways. Using a sample of about 2,800 firms from highly innovative sectors, propensity score matching is used to create a sample group of control firms that is comparable to the group of spin-offs. The article provides evidence that the 121 research spin-offs investigated have more patent applications and more radical product innovations, on average, compared to similar firms. The results also show that research spin-offs’ superior innovation performance can be explained by their high level of research cooperation and by location factors. An urban region location and proximity to the parent institution are found to be conducive to innovation productivity. The article also finds evidence that research spin-offs are more successful in attracting support from public innovation support programmes in comparison to their peers.

Vorheriger Artikel How innovative are spin-offs at later stages of development? Comparing innovativeness of established research spin-offs and otherwise created firms

Nächster Artikel Job machine, think tank, or both: what makes corporate spin-offs different?

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

Examples of such programmes are TBU, FUTOUR and EXIST; see Egeln et al. (2002), Pleschak et al. (2002). Overall, 112 different innovation promotion programmes were covered in the survey and the results show that participation by the research spin-offs in the programmes is widespread. Note that only programme participation 2 years prior to the survey in 2004 is covered. Many innovation programmes focussed on stimulating network and cooperation activities of SMEs in East Germany, but some also gave a general subsidy to R&D wage costs (Belitz et al. 2001).

Studies using PSM are Cantner et al. (2011) and Egeln et al. (2009), and, in the context of evaluating R&D subsidy effects, Czarnitzki et al. (2007).

For the PSM method description, I closely follow Gantumur and Stephan (2012).

Note that this data set has also been used in a previous study, see Lejpras and Stephan (2011).

The survey questions are available from the author upon request.

The STATA procedure psmatch2, version 4.0.6 17, May 2012, was used. For details on this procedure, refer to Leuven and Sianesi (2003).

The results of the three probit models are shown in the "Appendix".

As one reviewer pointed out, Models I and II could have been omitted in the analysis because they are unnecessary if Model III turns out to be the correct model. On the other hand, Models I and II enable us to study the effects from including cooperation activities and location factors on the observed differences between treated (spin-offs) and their controls. For this reason, I report these benchmark results. However, when major results for university and research institute spin-offs are analysed later on, I omit Models I and II and directly present results from Model III.

Model I is based on 123 spin-offs, but due to missing values this drops to 121 observations for Model III.

It has been noted by one reviewer that the number of observations is rather low for this group. Therefore it is difficult to find robust effects, and the results should be interpreted with some caution.

Abadie, A., & Imbens, G. W. (2008). On the failure of the bootstrap for matching estimators. Econometrica, 76(6), 1537–1557. doi:10.3982/ECTA6474.CrossRef

Andersson, M., & Klepper, S. (2013). Characteristics and performance of new firms and spinoffs in sweden. Industrial and Corporate Change 22(1), 245–280. http://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/indcch/v22y2013i1p245-280.html.

Audretsch, D. B., & Dohse, D. (2007). Location: A neglected determinant of firm growth. Review of World Economics, 143, 79–107. doi:10.1007/s10290-007-0099-7.CrossRef

Audretsch, D. B., & Feldman, M. P. (1996). R&d spillovers and the geography of innovation and production. American Economic Review 86(3), 630–630. http://search.proquest.com/docview/233013124?accountid=11754.

Audretsch, D. B., & Feldman, M. P. (2004). Chapter 61 knowledge spillovers and the geography of innovation. In J. V. Henderson, J.-F. Thisse (Eds.), Cities and geography. Vol. 4 of handbook of regional and urban economics, (pp. 2713–2739). Amsterdam: Elsevier. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S157400800480018X.

Audretsch, D. B., & Fritsch, M. (1994). On the measurement of entry rates. Empirica, 21, 105–113. doi:10.1007/BF01383974.CrossRef

Audretsch, D. B., Lehmann, E. E., & Warning, S. (2005). University spillovers and new firm location. Research Policy 34(7), 1113–1122. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733305001071.

Audretsch, D. B., & Stephan, P. E. (1996). Company-scientist locational links: The case of biotechnology. American Economic Review 86(3), 641–641. http://search.proquest.com/docview/233024724?accountid=11754.

Baba, Y., Shichijo, N., & Sedita, S. R. (2009). How do collaborations with universities affect firms’ innovative performance? The role of Pasteur scientists in the advanced materials field. Research Policy 38(5), 756–764. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733309000067.

Beise, M., & Stahl, H. (1999). Public research and industrial innovations in germany. Research Policy 28(4), 397–422. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733398001267.

Belitz, H., Fleischer, F., & Stephan, A. (2001). Staatliche förderung von forschung und entwicklung in der ostdeutschen wirtschaft: Eine bilanz. DIW Wochenbericht 68(35), 537–544. http://ideas.repec.org/a/diw/diwwob/68-350-10.html.

Boeker, W. (1989). Strategic change: The effects of founding and history. The Academy of Management Journal, 32(3), 489–515.CrossRef

Buenstorf, G., & Geissler, M. (2009). Not invented here: Technology licensing, knowledge transfer and innovation based on public research. Papers on Economics and Evolution 2009-20, Max Planck Institute of Economics, Evolutionary Economics Group. http://ideas.repec.org/p/esi/evopap/2009-20.html.

Caliendo, M., & Kopeinig, S. (2008). Some practical guidance for the implementation of propensity score matching. Journal of Economic Surveys, 22(1), 31–72. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6419.2007.00527.x.CrossRef

Cameron, C. A., & Trivedi, P. K. (2005). Microeconometrics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef

Cantner, U., & Goethner, M. (2011). Performance differences between academic spin-offs and non-academic start-ups: A comparative analysis using a non-parametric matching approach.

Cantner, U., & Kösters, S. (2012). Picking the winner? Empirical evidence on the targeting of R&D subsidies to start-ups. Small Business Economics, 39(4), 921–936. doi:10.1007/s11187-011-9340-9.CrossRef

Clarysse, B., Wright, M., & Van de Velde, E. (2011). Entrepreneurial origin, technological knowledge, and the growth of spin-off companies. Journal of Management Studies, 48(6), 1420–1442. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2010.00991.x.CrossRef

Cleyn, S. H. D., & Braet, J. (2009). The influence of government subsidies and risk capital on survival of university spin-offs: Findings from 16 early stage case studies. World Review of Entrepreneurship, Management and Sustainable Development, 5(4), 376–394.CrossRef

Colombo, M. G., Dadda, D., & Piva, E. (2010). The contribution of university research to the growth of academic start-ups: An empirical analysis. Journal of Technology Transfer 35(1), 113–140. http://search.proquest.com/docview/203658381?accountid=11754.

Czarnitzki, D., Ebersberger, B., & Fier, A. (2007). The relationship between R&D collaboration, subsidies and R&D performance: Empirical evidence from finland and germany. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 22(7), 1347–1366. doi:10.1002/jae.992.CrossRef

Czarnitzki, D., & Hottenrott, H. (2009). Are local milieus the key to innovation performance? Journal of Regional Science 49(1), 81–112. http://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/jregsc/v49y2009i1p81-112.html.

Czarnitzki, D., Rammer, C., & Toole, A. A. (2013). University spinoffs and the 'performance premium'. ZEW Discussion Papers 13-004, ZEW-Zentrum für Europäische Wirtschaftsforschung/Center for European Economic Research. http://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/zewdip/13004.html.

Dehejia, R. H., & Wahba, S. (2002). Propensity score-matching methods for nonexperimental causal studies. Review of Economics and Statistics, 84(1), 151–161.CrossRef

Egeln, J., Fryges, H., Gottschalk, S., & Rammer, C. (2009). Performance von akademischen spinoff-gründungen in österreich. AStA Wirtschafts- und Sozialstatistisches Archiv, 3(4), 265–283.CrossRef

Egeln, J., Gottschalk, S., & Rammer, C. (2004). Location decisions of spin-offs from public research institutions. Industry and Innovation 11(3), 207–223. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1366271042000265384.

Egeln, J., Gottschalk, S., Rammer, C., & Spielkamp, A. (2002). Public research spin-offs in germany: Summary report. ZEW Dokumentationen 03-04, ZEW-Zentrum für Europäische Wirtschaftsforschung/Center for European Economic Research. http://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/zewdok/0304.html.

Eickelpasch, A., & Pfeiffer, I. (2006). Unternehmen in ostdeutschland: Wirtschaftlicher erfolg mit innovationen. DIW Wochenbericht 73(14), 173–180. http://ideas.repec.org/a/diw/diwwob/73-14-1.html.

Gantumur, T., & Stephan, A. (2012). Mergers and acquisitions and innovation performance in the telecommunications equipment industry. Industrial and Corporate Change 21(2), 277–314. http://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/indcch/v21y2012i2p277-314.html.

Jensen, R., & Thursby, M. (2001). Proofs and prototypes for sale: The licensing of university inventions. The American Economic Review, 91(1), 240–259.CrossRef

Keeble, D., Lawson, C., Smith, H. L., Moore, B., & Wilkinson, F. (1998). Collective learning processes and inter-firm networking in innovative high-technology regions. http://www.cbr.cam.ac.uk/pdf/WP086.pdf.

Klepper, S., & Sleeper, S. (2005). Entry by spinoffs. Management Science 51(8), 1291–1306. http://mansci.journal.informs.org/cgi/doi/10.1287/mnsc.1050.0411.

Koster, S. (2006). Whose child? How existing firms foster new firm formation: Individual start-ups, spin-outs and spin-offs. http://books.google.se/books?id=EPNdYgEACAAJ.

Krabel, S., & Mueller, P. (2009). What drives scientists to start their own company? An empirical investigation of max planck society scientists. Research Policy 38(6), 947–956. http://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/respol/v38y2009i6p947-956.html.

Lejpras, A., & Stephan, A. (2011). Locational conditions, cooperation, and innovativeness: Evidence from research and company spin-offs. The Annals of Regional Science, 46, 543–575. doi:10.1007/s00168-009-0356-x.CrossRef

Leuven, E., & Sianesi, B. (2003). Psmatch2: Stata module to perform full mahalanobis and propensity score matching, common support graphing, and covariate imbalance testing. Statistical Software Components, Boston College Department of Economics. http://ideas.repec.org/c/boc/bocode/s432001.html.

Lockett, A., Siegel, D., Wright, M., & Ensley, M. D. (2005). The creation of spin-off firms at public research institutions: Managerial and policy implications. Research Policy 34(7), 981–993. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733305001113.

Longhi, C. (1999). Networks, collective learning and technology development in innovative high technology regions: The case of Sophia-Antipolis. Regional Studies 33(4), 333–342. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/713693559.

Meyer, M. (2003). Academic entrepreneurs or entrepreneurial academics? Research-based ventures and public support mechanisms. R&D Management, 33(2), 107–115. doi:10.1111/1467-9310.00286.CrossRef

Moray, N., & Clarysse, B. (2005). Institutional change and resource endowments to science-based entrepreneurial firms. Research Policy 34(7), 1010–1027. http://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/respol/v34y2005i7p1010-1027.html.

Mustar, P., Renault, M., Colombo, M. G., Piva, E., Fontes, M., Lockett, A., Wright, M., Clarysse, B., & Moray, N. (2006). Conceptualising the heterogeneity of research-based spin-offs: A multi-dimensional taxonomy. Research Policy 35(2), 289–308. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733305002192.

Pérez, M. P., & Sánchez, A. M. (2003). The development of university spin-offs: Early dynamics of technology transfer and networking. Technovation 23(10), 823–831. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166497202000342.

Pirnay, F., Surlemont, B., & Nlemvo, F. (2003). Toward a typology of university spin-offs. Small Business Economics, 21(4), 355–369.CrossRef

Pleschak, F., Berteit, H., Ossenkopf, B., & Stummer, F. (2002). Gründung und Wachstum FuE-intensiver Unternehmen. Untersuchungen in Ostdeutschland. Vol. 47 of Technik, Wirtschaft und Politik. Heidelberg: Physica.CrossRef

Rosenbaum, P. R., & Rubin, D. B. (1984). Reducing bias in observational studies using subclassification on the propensity score. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 79(387), 516–524.CrossRef

Rosenbaum, P. R., & Rubin, D. B. (1985). Constructing a control group using multivariate matched sampling methods that incorporate the propensity score. The American Statistician, 39(1), 33–38.

Rubin, D. B. (1997). Estimating causal effects from large data sets using propensity scores. Annals of Internal Medicine, 127(2), 757–763.CrossRef

Åstebro, T., Braunerhjelm, P., & Broström, A. (2013). Does academic entrepreneurship pay? Industrial and Corporate Change 22(1), 281–311. http://icc.oxfordjournals.org/content/22/1/281.abstract.

Tenenhaus, M., Vinzi, V. E., Chatelin, Y.-M., & Lauro, C. (2005). Pls path modeling. Computational Statistics and Data Analysis 48(1), 159–205. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167947304000519.

Walter, A., Auer, M., & Ritter, T. (2006). The impact of network capabilities and entrepreneurial orientation on university spin-off performance. Journal of Business Venturing 21(4), 541–567. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0883902605000261.

Wennberg, K., Wiklund, J., & Wright, M. (2011). The effectiveness of university knowledge spillovers: Performance differences between university spinoffs and corporate spinoffs. Research Policy 40(8), 1128–1143. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733311000953.

Wright, M., Lockett, A., Clarysse, B., & Binks, M. (2006). University spin-out companies and venture capital. Research Policy 35(4), 481–501. http://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/respol/v35y2006i4p481-501.html.

Zahra, S. A., Van de Velde, E., & Larraeta, B. (2007). Knowledge conversion capability and the performance of corporate and university spin-offs. Industrial and Corporate Change 16(4), 569–608. http://icc.oxfordjournals.org/content/16/4/569.abstract.

Zhang, J. (2009). The performance of university spin-offs: An exploratory analysis using venture capital data. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 34, 255–285. doi:10.1007/s10961-008-9088-9.CrossRef

Zucker, L., Darby, M., & Brewer, M. (1998). Intellectual human capital and the birth of U.S. biotechnology enterprises. American Economic Review, American Economic Association, 88(1), 290–306.

Titel: Are public research spin-offs more innovative?
verfasst von: Andreas Stephan
Publikationsdatum: 01.08.2014
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: Small Business Economics / Ausgabe 2/2014
Print ISSN: 0921-898X
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-0913
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-013-9539-z

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 2/2014

The role of knowledge variety and intensity for regional innovation

Technology transfer offices as boundary spanners in the pre-spin-off process: the case of a hybrid model

Entrepreneurship and innovation networks

Survival, productivity and growth of new ventures across locations

Entrepreneurship and survival over the business cycle: how do new technology-based firms differ?

University spin-offs and the “performance premium”