IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/jtecht/v46y2021i5d10.1007_s10961-020-09828-z.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The formation of Coasean institutions to provide university knowledge for innovation: a case study and econometric evidence for Switzerland

Author

Listed:
  • Dominique Foray

    (EPFL)

  • Martin Woerter

    (ETH Zürich, KOF Swiss Economic Institute)

Abstract

“Coasean” institutions are an alternative institutional form that provides a solution to some market and coordination failures. As such they can weaken considerably the case for public subsidies in a vast range of context. They are “market-based” and an inexpensive way to address the public good issues of R&D. They are, however, a largely overlooked institutional option. Early theoretical notions emphasize the advantages of such an institutional setting, however, broader empirical evidence about their effectiveness is lacking. We apply two different empirical approaches to assess the relationship between “Coasean” institutions and the innovation performance of SMEs. In a case study, we investigate Inspire AG, a successful bottom-up, institutional invention in the spirit of a “Coasean” institution. To assess the general validity of this model, we use representative firm-level data to econometrically investigate the relationship between “Coasean” institutions and the sales share of innovative products. “Coasean” institutions are positively related with innovative sales only if the company has a sufficiently large absorptive capacity for external knowledge. This positive moderating effect of “Coasean” institutions for the innovation performance is larger for SMEs. Our empirical findings provide a strong case for policies aimed at encouraging the operation of this type of institution.

Suggested Citation

  • Dominique Foray & Martin Woerter, 2021. "The formation of Coasean institutions to provide university knowledge for innovation: a case study and econometric evidence for Switzerland," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 46(5), pages 1584-1610, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:jtecht:v:46:y:2021:i:5:d:10.1007_s10961-020-09828-z
    DOI: 10.1007/s10961-020-09828-z
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10961-020-09828-z
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10961-020-09828-z?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nicholas Bloom & John Van Reenen & Heidi Williams, 2019. "A toolkit of policies to promote innovation," Voprosy Ekonomiki, NP Voprosy Ekonomiki, issue 10.
    2. Paul A. David & J. Stanley Metcalfe, 2010. "‘Only Connect’: Academic–Business Research Collaborations and the Formation of Ecologies of Innovation," Chapters, in: Riccardo Viale & Henry Etzkowitz (ed.), The Capitalization of Knowledge, chapter 2, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    3. Peter Grindley & David C. Mowery & Brian Silverman, 1994. "SEMATECH and collaborative research: Lessons in the design of high-technology consortia," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(4), pages 723-758.
    4. Aghion, Philippe & David, Paul A. & Foray, Dominique, 2009. "Science, technology and innovation for economic growth: Linking policy research and practice in 'STIG Systems'," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(4), pages 681-693, May.
    5. Kelley, Maryellen R. & Arora, Ashish, 1996. "The role of institution-building in US industrial modernization programs," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 265-279, March.
    6. Lee G. Branstetter & Mariko Sakakibara, 2002. "When Do Research Consortia Work Well and Why? Evidence from Japanese Panel Data," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(1), pages 143-159, March.
    7. Spyros Arvanitis & Nora Sydow & Martin Woerter, 2008. "Is there any Impact of University–Industry Knowledge Transfer on Innovation and Productivity? An Empirical Analysis Based on Swiss Firm Data," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 32(2), pages 77-94, March.
    8. Iain Cockburn & Rebecca Henderson & Scott Stern, 1999. "The Diffusion of Science-Driven Drug Discovery: Organizational Change in Pharmaceutical Research," NBER Working Papers 7359, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    9. Bruno Cassiman & Reinhilde Veugelers, 2002. "R&D Cooperation and Spillovers: Some Empirical Evidence from Belgium," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(4), pages 1169-1184, September.
    10. Cohen, Wesley M & Levinthal, Daniel A, 1989. "Innovation and Learning: The Two Faces of R&D," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 99(397), pages 569-596, September.
    11. Rolf Weder & Herbert Grubel, 1993. "The New Growth Theory and Coasean economics: Institutions to capture externalities," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 129(3), pages 488-513, September.
    12. Foray, Dominique & Lissoni, Francesco, 2010. "University Research and Public–Private Interaction," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 275-314, Elsevier.
    13. Thursby, Jerry G & Thursby, Marie C, 2003. "Industry/University Licensing: Characteristics, Concerns and Issues from the Perspective of the Buyer," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 28(3-4), pages 207-213, August.
    14. Julie Callaert & Bart Van Looy & Dominique Foray & Koenraad Debackere, 2008. "Combining the Production and the Valorization of Academic Research: A Qualitative Investigation of Enacted Mechanisms," Chapters, in: Carmelo Mazza & Paolo Quattrone & Angelo Riccaboni (ed.), European Universities in Transition, chapter 7, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    15. Dominique Foray & Hugo Hollanders, 2015. "An assessment of the Innovation Union Scoreboard as a tool to analyse national innovation capacities: The case of Switzerland," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 24(2), pages 213-228.
    16. Sabel, Charles F., 1996. "A measure of federalism: assessing manufacturing technology centers," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 281-307, March.
    17. Maurice Cassier & Dominique Foray, 2002. "Public Knowledge, Private Property and the Economics of High-tech Consortia," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(2), pages 123-132.
    18. Bozeman, Barry, 2000. "Technology transfer and public policy: a review of research and theory," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(4-5), pages 627-655, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Lisa Craiut & Constantin Bungau & Tudor Bungau & Cristian Grava & Pavel Otrisal & Andrei-Flavius Radu, 2022. "Technology Transfer, Sustainability, and Development, Worldwide and in Romania," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(23), pages 1-33, November.
    2. Hameeda A. AlMalki & Christopher M. Durugbo, 2023. "Systematic review of institutional innovation literature: towards a multi-level management model," Management Review Quarterly, Springer, vol. 73(2), pages 731-785, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Foray, Dominique & Lissoni, Francesco, 2010. "University Research and Public–Private Interaction," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 275-314, Elsevier.
    2. Beck, Mathias & Junge, Martin & Kaiser, Ulrich, 2017. "Public Funding and Corporate Innovation," IZA Discussion Papers 11196, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    3. Banal-Estañol, Albert & Duso, Tomaso & Seldeslachts, Jo & Szücs, Florian, 2022. "R&D spillovers through RJV cooperation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(4).
    4. Pedro de Faria & Francisco Lima, 2012. "Interdependence and spillovers: is firm performance affected by others’ innovation activities?," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 44(36), pages 4765-4775, December.
    5. Hyunbae Chun & Sung-Bae Mun, 2012. "Determinants of R&D cooperation in small and medium-sized enterprises," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 39(2), pages 419-436, September.
    6. Bonte, Werner & Keilbach, Max, 2005. "Concubinage or marriage? Informal and formal cooperations for innovation," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 23(3-4), pages 279-302, April.
    7. Kaiser, Ulrich & Grimpe, Christoph, 2008. "Gains and Pains from Contract Research: A Transaction and Firm-level Perspective," ZEW Discussion Papers 08-002, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    8. Thomas Bolli & Martin Woerter, 2013. "Competition and R&D cooperation with universities and competitors," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 38(6), pages 768-787, December.
    9. BeomJu Park & Chang-Yang Lee, 2023. "Does R&D cooperation with competitors cause firms to invest in R&D more intensively? evidence from Korean manufacturing firms," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 48(3), pages 1045-1076, June.
    10. Scandura, Alessandra, 2016. "University–industry collaboration and firms’ R&D effort," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(9), pages 1907-1922.
    11. Nobuya Fukugawa, 2013. "University spillovers into small technology-based firms: channel, mechanism, and geography," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 38(4), pages 415-431, August.
    12. Silipo, Damiano B., 2008. "Incentives and forms of cooperation in research and development," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(2), pages 101-119, June.
    13. Aguiar, Luis & Gagnepain, Philippe, 2017. "European cooperative R&D and firm performance: Evidence based on funding differences in key actions," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 1-31.
    14. Annalisa Caloffi & Marco Mariani & Fabrizia Mealli, 2013. "What kinds of R&D consortia enhance SMEs productivity? Evidence from a small-business innovation policy," "Marco Fanno" Working Papers 0172, Dipartimento di Scienze Economiche "Marco Fanno".
    15. Dirk Czarnitzki & Bernd Ebersberger & Andreas Fier, 2007. "The relationship between R&D collaboration, subsidies and R&D performance: Empirical evidence from Finland and Germany," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(7), pages 1347-1366.
    16. Mari­n, Pedro L. & Siotis, Georges, 2008. "Public policies towards Research Joint Venture: Institutional design and participants' characteristics," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(6-7), pages 1057-1065, July.
    17. Lööf, Hans, 2022. "What prevents spillovers from the pool of knowledge?," Working Paper Series in Economics and Institutions of Innovation 489, Royal Institute of Technology, CESIS - Centre of Excellence for Science and Innovation Studies.
    18. Arora, Ashish & Gambardella, Alfonso, 2010. "The Market for Technology," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 641-678, Elsevier.
    19. Venturini, Roberto & Ceccagnoli, Marco & van Zeebroeck, Nicolas, 2019. "Knowledge integration in the shadow of tacit spillovers: Empirical evidence from U.S. R&D labs," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 180-205.
    20. Hanaki, Nobuyuki & Nakajima, Ryo & Ogura, Yoshiaki, 2010. "The dynamics of R&D network in the IT industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 386-399, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:jtecht:v:46:y:2021:i:5:d:10.1007_s10961-020-09828-z. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.