IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/indcch/v20y2011i2p397-432.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Do venture capitalists have a bias against investment in academic spin-offs? Evidence from the micro- and nanotechnology sector in the UK

Author

Listed:
  • Federico Munari
  • Laura Toschi

Abstract

In this article, we analyze whether venture capital (VC) firms have a bias against investment in academic spin-offs based on empirical evidence from the micro- and nanotechnology sector in the UK. We also investigate the characteristics of academic spin-offs to capture the differences in their ability to attract VC funding. Finally, we examine whether the propensity to invest in such kinds of new ventures varies between private and public VC firms. The results of our regression analyses on a sample of 247 new ventures (123 academic spin-offs and 124 other companies) reject the presence of bias in this type of science-based business. They also highlight intellectual property rights, presence of academic--industrial collaborations, scientific reputation of the parent university and type of business model as important factors in the academic spin-off's ability to access VC financing. Furthermore, we show that private VCs devote a weaker attention than public VCs to the university's scientific reputation when deciding to finance academic spin-offs. Copyright 2011 The Author 2010. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Associazione ICC. All rights reserved., Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Federico Munari & Laura Toschi, 2011. "Do venture capitalists have a bias against investment in academic spin-offs? Evidence from the micro- and nanotechnology sector in the UK," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 20(2), pages 397-432, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:indcch:v:20:y:2011:i:2:p:397-432
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/icc/dtq053
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

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

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:oup:indcch:v:20:y:2011:i:2:p:397-432. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/icc .

    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.