nach oben

Small Business Economics

Erschienen in:

01.08.2014

University spin-offs and the “performance premium”

verfasst von: Dirk Czarnitzki, Christian Rammer, Andrew A. Toole

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 creation of spin-off companies is often promoted as a desirable mechanism for transferring knowledge and technologies from research organizations to the private sector for commercialization. In the promotion process, policymakers typically treat these “university” spin-offs like industry start-ups. However, when university spin-offs involve an employment transition by a researcher from the not-for-profit sector, the creation of a university spin-off is likely to impose a higher social cost than the creation of an industry start-up. To offset this higher social cost, university spin-offs must produce a larger stream of social benefits than industry start-ups, a performance premium. This paper outlines the arguments explaining why the social costs of entrepreneurship are likely to be higher for academic entrepreneurs, and empirically investigates the existence of a performance premium using a sample of German start-up companies. We find that university spin-offs exhibit a performance premium of 3.4 % points higher employment growth over industry start-ups. The analysis also shows that the performance premium varies across types of academic entrepreneurs and founders’ academic disciplines.

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

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

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

Throughout the paper, we will use “university” as shorthand for all public research organizations (PROs) in the not-for-profit sector.

In our definition, a new company is a university spin-off when it involves an academic entrepreneur. New companies that were formed to commercialize a university technology (e.g., through the technology transfer office) or that received some kind of support from the university do not qualify as university spin-offs under our definition unless they also have an academic entrepreneur in the founding team.

See Salter and Martin (2001) for an overview.

There is a much broader literature studying the influence of patenting and industry sponsorship on academic research (see, for instance, Agrawal and Henderson 2002; Azoulay et al. 2009; Breschi et al. 2007; Czarnitzki et al. 2009, 2012; Rosenberg 1998).

The current body of empirical evidence on changes in research productivity is limited to samples drawn from science and engineering fields. Importantly, the theoretical argument about the potential social costs of university spin-offs is not limited to any particular field of study. For instance, academic researchers in law and social science fields may reduce their contributions to open science when pursuing entrepreneurship. Given the stage of research in the literature, there is no information available that would suggest one field of study is more socially valuable than another.

The stream of benefits that would have been derived from a university researcher’s future contributions to academic research and disclosure is an unobservable counterfactual since the academic entrepreneur cannot be observed as both a full-time university researcher and a spin-off entrepreneur at the same time. This complicates any attempt to directly estimate the necessary size of the performance premium.

See Rothaermel et al. (2007) and Helm and Mauroner (2007) for recent reviews of the literature.

See, e.g., Heckman (1976, 1979), or Verbeek (2012: 248–252) for details of the Heckman selection model.

Recall that we will use the term “university” when referring to any type of science institution. With respect to the German situation, science institutions primarily comprise state-funded universities and other publicly funded research organisations (such as Max Planck Institutes, Fraunhofer Institutes, and governmental laboratories and research centres) as well as a few private universities.

Appendix 2 reports the results of the survival equation estimation. As a robustness check, all the models were re-estimated using sampling weights from the survey. These results are reported in Table 4 in Appendix 3. There are no significant differences between weighted and non-weighted results.

In our empirical analysis, we compared university spin-offs to industry start-ups based on a random sample that was stratified by industry (in particular, knowledge-intensive industries), year of company foundation, and region. Other scholars such as Wennberg et al. (2011) compared university spin-offs to corporate spin-offs. This is a subgroup of industry start-ups that is likely to perform better than average and thereby serves as higher standard of comparison for university spin-offs. For general policy justification, we believe the overall population of industry start-ups (properly stratified) is the relevant control group.

Adams, J. (1990). Fundamental stocks of knowledge and productivity growth. Journal of Political Economy, 98(4), 673–702.CrossRef

Agrawal, A., & Henderson, R. (2002). Putting patents into context: Exploring knowledge transfer from MIT. Management Science, 48(1), 44–60.CrossRef

Almus, M., Engel, D., & Prantl, S. (2000). The Mannheim Foundation Panels of the Centre for European Economic Research (ZEW), ZEW Documentation No. 00-02, Mannheim, Germany.

Azoulay, P., Ding, W., & Stuart, T. (2009). The effect of academic patenting on the rate, quality, and direction of (Public) research output. Journal of Industrial Economics, 57(4), 637–676.CrossRef

Breschi, S., Lissoni, F., & Montobbio, F. (2007). The scientific productivity of academic inventors: New evidence from Italian data. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 16(2), 101–118.CrossRef

Buenstorf, G. (2009). Is commercialization good or bad for science? Individual-level evidence from the Max Planck Society. Research Policy, 38, 281–292.CrossRef

Cantner, U., & Goethner, M. (2011). Performance differences between academic spin-offs and non-academic spin-ups: A comparative analysis using non-parametric matching approach. Mimeo: DIME Final Conference, Maastricht University, April.

Colombo, M. G., & Piva, E. (2005). Are academic start-ups different? A matched pair analysis. Mimeo: Politecnico di Milano.

Czarnitzki, D., Grimpe, C., & Toole, A. A. (2012). Delay and secrecy: Does industry sponsorship jeopardize disclosure of academic research? ZEW Discussion Paper No. 11-009, Mannheim, Germany.

Czarnitzki, D., Glänzel, W., & Hussinger, K. (2009). Heterogeneity of patenting activity and its implications for scientific research. Research Policy, 38, 26–34.CrossRef

Czarnitzki, D., & Toole, A. A. (2010). Is there a trade-off between academic research and faculty entrepreneurship? Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 19(5), 505–520.CrossRef

Dasgupta, P., & David, P. A. (1994). Toward a new economics of science. Research Policy, 23(5), 487–521.CrossRef

Desruisseaux, P. (2000), Universities venture into venture capitalism, Chronicle Higher Education (May) A44.

Di Gregorio, D., & Shane, S. (2003). Why do some universities generate more start-ups than others? Research Policy, 32, 209–227.CrossRef

Druilhe, C., & Garnsey, E. (2004). Do academic spin-outs differ and does it matter? The Journal of Technology Transfer, 29, 269–285.CrossRef

Egeln, J., Gottschalk, S., Rammer, C., & Spielkamp, A. (2003). Public research spin-offs in Germany. ZEW Documentation No. 03-04, Mannheim, Germany.

Ensley, M. D., & Hmieleski, K. M. (2005). A comparative study of new venture top management team composition, dynamics and performance between university-based and independent start-ups. Research Policy, 34, 1091–1105.CrossRef

Etzkowitz, H. (2004). The evolution of the entrepreneurial university. International Journal of Technology and Globalization, 1, 64–77.

Etzkowitz, H., Webster, A., Gebhardt, C., & Cantisano Terra, B. R. (2000). The future of the university and the university of the future: Evolution of Ivory Tower to Entrepreneurial Paradigm. Research Policy, 29, 313–330.CrossRef

Feldman, M., Feller, I., Bercovitz, J., & Burton, R. (2002). Equity and the technology transfer strategies of American research universities. Management Science, 48(1), 105–121.CrossRef

Heckman, J. J. (1976). The common structure of statistical models of truncation, sample selection, and limited dependent variables and a simple estimator for such models. Annals of Economic and Social Measurement, 5, 475–492.

Heckman, J. J. (1979). Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica, 47, 153–161.CrossRef

Helm, R., & Mauroner, O. (2007). Success of research-based spin-offs. State-of-the-art and guidelines for further research. Review of Managerial Science, 1(3), 237–270.CrossRef

Jaffe, A. (1989). The real effects of academic research. American Economic Review, 79(5), 957–970.

Kenny, M. (1986). Bio-technology: The university-industrial complex. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Lacetera, N. (2009). Academic entrepreneurship. Managerial and Decision Economics, 30, 443–464.CrossRef

Lockett, A., & Wright, M. (2005). Resources, capabilities, risk capital and the creation of university spin-out companies. Research Policy, 34, 1043–1057.CrossRef

Lockett, A., Wright, M., & Franklin, S. (2003). Technology transfer and universities’ spin-out strategies. Small Business Economics, 20, 185–201.CrossRef

Lowe, R. A., & Gonzalez-Brambila, C. (2007). Faculty entrepreneurs and research productivity. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 32(3), 173–194.CrossRef

Mukherjee, A., & Stern, S. (2009). Disclosure or secrecy? The dynamics of open science. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 27(3), 449–462.CrossRef

Murray, F. (2004). The role of academic inventors in entrepreneurial firms: Sharing the laboratory life. Research Policy, 33, 643–659.CrossRef

Murray, F., Aghion, P., Dewatripont, M., Kolev, J., & Stern, S. (2009). Of mice and academics: Examining the effect of openness on innovation. NBER Working paper No. 14819, Cambridge.

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, 42–65.CrossRef

Nelson, R. R. (2004). The market economy, and the scientific commons. Research Policy, 33, 455–471.CrossRef

Nerker, A., & Shane, S. (2003). When do start-ups that exploit patented academic knowledge survive? International Journal of Industrial Organization, 21, 1391–1410.CrossRef

Nicolaou, N., & Birley, S. (2003a). Social networks in organizational emergence: The university spinout phenomenon. Management Science, 49(2), 1702–1725.CrossRef

Nicolaou, N., & Birley, S. (2003b). Academic networks in a trichotomous categorisation of university spinouts. Journal of Business Venturing, 18, 333–359.CrossRef

O’Shea, R. P., Allen, T. J., Chevalier, A., & Roche, F. (2005). Entrepreneurial orientation, technology transfer and spin-off performance of U.S. universities. Research Policy, 24, 994–1009.CrossRef

OECD. (2000). Fostering high-tech spin-offs. A public strategy for innovation. STI Review 26, Paris: OECD.

Rosenberg, N. (1998). Chemical engineering as a general purpose technology. In E. Helpman (Ed.), General purpose technologies and economic growth (pp. 167–192). Cambridge: MIT Press.

Rothaermel, F. T., Agung, S. D., & Jiang, L. (2007). University entrepreneurship: A taxonomy of the literature. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16(4), 691–791.CrossRef

Rothaermel, F. T., & Thursby, M. (2005). University-incubator firm knowledge flows: Assessing their impact on incubator firm performance. Research Policy, 34, 305–320.CrossRef

Salter, A. J., & Martin, B. R. (2001). The economic benefits of publicly funded basic research: A critical review. Research Policy, 30, 509–532.CrossRef

Shane, S. (2000). Prior knowledge and the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities. Organization Science, 11(4), 338–469.CrossRef

Shane, S. (2001). Technological opportunities and new firm creation. Management Science, 47(2), 205–220.CrossRef

Shane, S. (2004). Academic Entrepreneurship. University spin-offs and Wealth Creation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Shane, S., & Stuart, T. (2002). Organizational endowments and the performance of university start-ups. Management Science, 48, 154–170.CrossRef

Stephan, P. E. (1996). The economics of science. Journal of Economic Literature, 34(3), 1199–1235.

Storey, D. J. (1994). Understanding the small business sector. London: Thomson Learning.

Toole, A. A. (2012). The impact of public basic research on industrial innovation: Evidence from the pharmaceutical industry. Research Policy, 41(1), 1–12.CrossRef

Toole, A. A., & Czarnitzki, D. (2007). Biomedical academic entrepreneurship through the SBIR program. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 63(4), 716–738.CrossRef

Toole, A. A., & Czarnitzki, D. (2009). Exploring the relationship between scientist human capital and firm performance: The case of biomedical academic entrepreneurs in the SBIR program. Management Science, 55(1), 101–114.CrossRef

Toole, A. A., & Czarnitzki, D. (2010). Commercializing science: Is there a university “brain drain” from academic entrepreneurship? Management Science, 56(9), 1599–1614.CrossRef

Verbeek, M. (2012). A guide to modern econometrics (4th ed.). Chichester: Wiley.

Vohora, A., Wright, M., & Lockett, A. (2004). Critical junctures in the development of university high-tech spinout companies. Research Policy, 33, 147–175.CrossRef

Wennberg, K., Wiklund, J., & Wright, M. (2011). The effectiveness of university knowledge spillovers: Performance differences between university spin-offs and corporate spin-offs. Research Policy, 40, 1128–1143.CrossRef

World Bank. (2012). World Development Report 2013, Washington.

Wright, M., Vohora, A., & Lockett, A. (2004). The formation of high-tech university spinouts: The role of joint ventures and venture capital investors. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 29, 287–310.CrossRef

Zahra, S. A., van de Velde, E., & Larraneta, B. (2007). Knowledge conversion capability and the performance of corporate and university spin-offs. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16(4), 569–608.CrossRef

Zhang, J. (2009). The performance of university spin-offs: An exploratory analysis using venture capital data. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 24, 255–285.CrossRef

Zucker, L. G., Darby, M. R., & Armstrong, J. S. (2002). Commercializing knowledge: University science, knowledge capture, and firm performance in biotechnology. Management Science, 48(1), 138–153.CrossRef

Zucker, L. G., Darby, M. R., & Brewer, M. B. (1998). Intellectual Human Capital and the Birth of U.S. Biotechnology Enterprises. American Economic Review, 88, 290–306.

Titel: University spin-offs and the “performance premium”
verfasst von: Dirk Czarnitzki
Christian Rammer
Andrew A. Toole
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/s11187-013-9538-0

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

Survival, productivity and growth of new ventures across locations

New firms and labor market entrants: Is there a wage penalty for employment in new firms?

Innovation embedded in entrepreneurs’ networks and national educational systems

Are public research spin-offs more innovative?

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

Entrepreneurship and innovation networks