IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/respol/v38y2009i2p268-280.html

A national systems view of university entrepreneurialism: Inferences from comparison of the German and US experience

Author

Listed:
  • Lehrer, Mark
  • Nell, Phillip
  • Gärber, Lisa

Abstract

Examining parallels in the long-term evolution of the German and US university systems, this paper formulates hypotheses about the rise and decline of university entrepreneurialism at the national level. Three macro-level antecedents of university entrepreneurialism are identified: (1) decentralized competition; (2) latitude in mission and revenue mix; (3) a nationwide, diversified bidding system for the funding of large-scale university-based research. Of these, the third is real lynchpin of university entrepreneurialism. Arguing for a multidimensional understanding of such entrepreneurialism (i.e. beyond just the commercialization of scientific discoveries), the paper identifies three developments within universities emanating from a favorable national environment: (1) organizational innovations for achieving economies of scope; (2) an institutionalized capacity for strategic selection of research foci; and (3) a capacity to contribute to the development of new industries. The analysis suggests that as national university systems grow and run into cost containment problems, political pressures for reform increase, leading to system homogenization; system homogenization weakens the contextual sources of entrepreneurialism and triggers a process of decline.

Suggested Citation

  • Lehrer, Mark & Nell, Phillip & Gärber, Lisa, 2009. "A national systems view of university entrepreneurialism: Inferences from comparison of the German and US experience," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 268-280, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:38:y:2009:i:2:p:268-280
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048-7333(08)00278-3
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Steven Casper & Mark Lehrer & David Soskice, 1999. "Can High-technology Industries Prosper in Germany? Institutional Frameworks and the Evolution of the German Software and Biotechnology Industries," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 6(1), pages 5-24.
    2. Mark Lehrer, 2007. "Organizing knowledge spillovers when basic and applied research are interdependent: German biotechnology policy in historical perspective," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 32(3), pages 277-296, June.
    3. Paul A. David, 2004. "Understanding the emergence of 'open science' institutions: functionalist economics in historical context," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 13(4), pages 571-589, August.
    4. Gulbrandsen, Magnus & Smeby, Jens-Christian, 2005. "Industry funding and university professors' research performance," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(6), pages 932-950, August.
    5. Di Gregorio, Dante & Shane, Scott, 2003. "Why do some universities generate more start-ups than others?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 209-227, February.
    6. Joanna Poyago-Theotoky & John Beath & Donald S. Siegel, 2002. "Universities and Fundamental Research: Reflections on the Growth of University--Industry Partnerships," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 18(1), pages 10-21, Spring.
    7. Siegel, Donald S. & Waldman, David & Link, Albert, 2003. "Assessing the impact of organizational practices on the relative productivity of university technology transfer offices: an exploratory study," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 27-48, January.
    8. Whitley, Richard, 2007. "Business Systems and Organizational Capabilities: The Institutional Structuring of Competitive Competences," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199205189.
    9. Rosenberg,Nathan, 1994. "Exploring the Black Box," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521459556, November.
    10. Bruni S. Frey, 1999. "The New Democratic Federalism For Europe," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 1679 edited by Reiner Eichenberger, June.
    11. Lenoir, Timothy, 1998. "Revolution from Above: The Role of the State in Creating the German Research System, 1810-1910," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 88(2), pages 22-27, May.
    12. Gittelman, Michelle, 2006. "National institutions, public-private knowledge flows, and innovation performance: A comparative study of the biotechnology industry in the US and France," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(7), pages 1052-1068, September.
    13. Miozzo, Marcela & Walsh, Vivien, 2006. "International Competitiveness and Technological Change," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199259243.
    14. Partha, Dasgupta & David, Paul A., 1994. "Toward a new economics of science," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 23(5), pages 487-521, September.
    15. Geuna, Aldo & Nesta, Lionel J.J., 2006. "University patenting and its effects on academic research: The emerging European evidence," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(6), pages 790-807, July.
    16. C. Freeman, 2004. "Technological infrastructure and international competitiveness," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 13(3), pages 541-569, June.
    17. Steven Casper & Hannah Kettler, 2001. "National Institutional Frameworks And The Hybridization Of Entrepreneurial Business Models: The German And Uk Biotechnology Sectors," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(1), pages 5-30.
    18. Mowery,David C. & Nelson,Richard R. (ed.), 1999. "Sources of Industrial Leadership," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521645201, Enero-Abr.
    19. Dirk Dohse, 2003. "Taking Regions Seriously: Recent Innovations in German Technology Policy," Advances in Spatial Science, in: Johannes Bröcker & Dirk Dohse & Rüdiger Soltwedel (ed.), Innovation Clusters and Interregional Competition, chapter 18, pages 372-394, Springer.
    20. Owen-Smith, Jason & Powell, Walter W., 2003. "The expanding role of university patenting in the life sciences: assessing the importance of experience and connectivity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(9), pages 1695-1711, October.
    21. Frank T. Rothaermel & David L. Deeds, 2004. "Exploration and exploitation alliances in biotechnology: a system of new product development," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(3), pages 201-221, March.
    22. Dohse, Dirk, 2000. "Technology policy and the regions -- the case of the BioRegio contest," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(9), pages 1111-1133, December.
    23. Johannes Bröcker & Dirk Dohse & Rüdiger Soltwedel (ed.), 2003. "Innovation Clusters and Interregional Competition," Advances in Spatial Science, Springer, number 978-3-540-24760-9.
    24. Richard R. Nelson, 2006. "The Market Economy and the Scientific Commons," Chapters, in: Birgitte Andersen (ed.), Intellectual Property Rights, chapter 1, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    25. Lockett, Andy & Siegel, Donald & Wright, Mike & Ensley, Michael D., 2005. "The creation of spin-off firms at public research institutions: Managerial and policy implications," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(7), pages 981-993, September.
    26. Zucker, Lynne G & Darby, Michael R & Brewer, Marilynn B, 1998. "Intellectual Human Capital and the Birth of U.S. Biotechnology Enterprises," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 88(1), pages 290-306, March.
    27. Joanna Poyago-Theotoky & John Beath & Donald S. Siegel, 2002. "Universities and Fundamental Research: Reflections on the Growth of University--Industry Partnerships," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 18(1), pages 10-21, Spring.
    28. Achilladelis, Basil & Antonakis, Nicholas, 2001. "The dynamics of technological innovation: the case of the pharmaceutical industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 535-588, 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. A. Bellucci & L. Pennacchio, 2016. "University knowledge and firm innovation: evidence from European countries," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 41(4), pages 730-752, August.
    2. Schuetzenmeister, Falk, 2010. "University Research Management: An Exploratory Literature Review," Institute of European Studies, Working Paper Series qt77p3j2hr, Institute of European Studies, UC Berkeley.
    3. Naudé, Wim & Nagler, Paula, 2022. "The Ossified Economy: The Case of Germany, 1870-2020," IZA Discussion Papers 15607, IZA Network @ LISER.
    4. Haeussler, Carolin & Colyvas, Jeannette A., 2011. "Breaking the Ivory Tower: Academic Entrepreneurship in the Life Sciences in UK and Germany," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 41-54, February.
    5. Peter Tinnemann & Jonas Özbay & Victoria A Saint & Stefan N Willich, 2010. "Patenting of University and Non-University Public Research Organisations in Germany: Evidence from Patent Applications for Medical Research Results," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(11), pages 1-12, November.
    6. Ankrah, Samuel & AL-Tabbaa, Omar, 2015. "Universities–industry collaboration: A systematic review," Scandinavian Journal of Management, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 387-408.
    7. Emilio Bellini & Giuseppe Piroli & Luca Pennacchio, 2019. "Collaborative know-how and trust in university–industry collaborations: empirical evidence from ICT firms," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 44(6), pages 1939-1963, December.
    8. Wenqing Wu & Kexin Yu & Saixiang Ma & Chien-Chi Chu & Shijie Li & Chengcheng Ma & Sang-Bing Tsai, 2018. "An Empirical Study on Optimal Strategies of Industry-University-Institute Green Innovation with Subsidy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-17, May.
    9. repec:ers:journl:v:xxiv:y:2021:i:2:p:294-313 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Jing Li & Hong Fang & Siran Fang & Sultana Easmin Siddika, 2018. "Investigation of the Relationship among University–Research Institute–Industry Innovations Using a Coupling Coordination Degree Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-18, June.
    11. Ming Chu Leung & John A. Mathews, 2011. "Origins and dynamics of university spin-offs: the case of Hong Kong," International Journal of Transitions and Innovation Systems, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 1(2), pages 175-201.
    12. Adegbile, Abiodun Samuel & Sarpong, David & Kolade, Oluwaseun, 2021. "Environments for Joint University-Industry Laboratories (JUIL): Micro-level dimensions and research implications," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).
    13. Qiantao A. Zhang & Brian M. Lucey, 2019. "Globalisation, the Mobility of Skilled Workers, and Economic Growth: Constructing a Novel Brain Drain/Gain Index for European Countries," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 10(4), pages 1620-1642, December.
    14. Kato, Masatoshi & Odagiri, Hiroyuki, 2012. "Development of university life-science programs and university–industry joint research in Japan," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(5), pages 939-952.
    15. Lydia Segal & Mark Lehrer, 2013. "The Conflict of Ethos and Ethics: A Sociological Theory of Business People’s Ethical Values," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 114(3), pages 513-528, May.

    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. Lehrer, Mark & Nell, Phillip & Gärber, Lisa, 2007. "A National Systems View of University Development: Towards a Broadened Perspective on the Entrepreneurial University Based on the German and US Experience," Kiel Working Papers 1370, Kiel Institute for the World Economy.
    2. Mark Lehrer, 2007. "Organizing knowledge spillovers when basic and applied research are interdependent: German biotechnology policy in historical perspective," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 32(3), pages 277-296, June.
    3. Larsen, Maria Theresa, 2011. "The implications of academic enterprise for public science: An overview of the empirical evidence," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 6-19, February.
    4. Franz Tödtling & Michaela Trippl & Joshua von Gabain, 2006. "Clusterentwicklung und -politik im Biotechnologiesektor Wien im Kontext internationaler Erfahrungen," SRE-Disc sre-disc-2006_02, Institute for Multilevel Governance and Development, Department of Socioeconomics, Vienna University of Economics and Business.
    5. Ani Gerbin & Mateja Drnovsek, 2016. "Determinants and public policy implications of academic-industry knowledge transfer in life sciences: a review and a conceptual framework," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 41(5), pages 979-1076, October.
    6. Wipo, 2011. "World Intellectual Property Report 2011- The Changing Face of Innovation," WIPO Economics & Statistics Series, World Intellectual Property Organization - Economics and Statistics Division, number 2011:944, April.
    7. Wright, Mike & Clarysse, Bart & Lockett, Andy & Knockaert, Mirjam, 2008. "Mid-range universities' linkages with industry: Knowledge types and the role of intermediaries," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 1205-1223, September.
    8. Christian Fisch & Tobias Hassel & Philipp Sandner & Joern Block, 2015. "University patenting: a comparison of 300 leading universities worldwide," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 40(2), pages 318-345, April.
    9. Lehrer, Mark & Asakawa, Kazuhiro, 2004. "Rethinking the public sector: idiosyncrasies of biotechnology commercialization as motors of national R&D reform in Germany and Japan," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(6-7), pages 921-938, September.
    10. Gideon D. Markman & Donald S. Siegel & Mike Wright, 2008. "Research and Technology Commercialization," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 45(8), pages 1401-1423, December.
    11. Lee, Kyootai & Jung, Hyun Ju, 2021. "Does TTO capability matter in commercializing university technology? Evidence from longitudinal data in South Korea," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(1).
    12. Cornelia Lawson, 2013. "Academic Inventions Outside the University: Investigating Patent Ownership in the UK," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(5), pages 385-398, July.
    13. Gideon D. Markman & Peter T. Gianiodis & Phillip H. Phan, 2009. "Supply‐Side Innovation and Technology Commercialization," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(4), pages 625-649, June.
    14. Giuliani, Elisa & Arza, Valeria, 2009. "What drives the formation of 'valuable' university-industry linkages?: Insights from the wine industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(6), pages 906-921, July.
    15. Lee, Hsing-fen & Miozzo, Marcela, 2024. "Beyond complementarity and substitutability? Understanding relational governance and formal contracts in university-industry collaborations for innovation," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    16. Cornelia Lawson, 2013. "Academic patenting: the importance of industry support," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 38(4), pages 509-535, August.
    17. Gittelman, Michelle, 2006. "National institutions, public-private knowledge flows, and innovation performance: A comparative study of the biotechnology industry in the US and France," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(7), pages 1052-1068, September.
    18. Ricardo Moutinho & Manuel Au-Yong-Oliveira & Arnaldo Coelho & José Pires Manso, 2016. "Determinants of knowledge-based entrepreneurship: an exploratory approach," International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Springer, vol. 12(1), pages 171-197, March.
    19. Knockaert, M. & Ucbasaran, D. & Wright, M. & Clarysse, B., 2009. "How does tacit knowledge transfer influence innovation speed? The case of science based entrepreneurial firms," Vlerick Leuven Gent Management School Working Paper Series 2009-07, Vlerick Leuven Gent Management School.
    20. Mirjam Knockaert & Deniz Ucbasaran & Mike Wright & Bart Clarysse, 2011. "The Relationship Between Knowledge Transfer, Top Management Team Composition, and Performance: The Case of Science–Based Entrepreneurial Firms," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 35(4), pages 777-803, July.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;

    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:eee:respol:v:38:y:2009:i:2:p:268-280. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/respol .

    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.