IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/respol/v42y2013i3p776-787.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

National institutional differences and cross-border university–industry knowledge transfer

Author

Listed:
  • Malik, Tariq H.

Abstract

Does inter-national institutional difference hamper technology transfer from the foreign university to the business enterprises? A multinational study on institutions suggests that some elements of institutions of nations positively influence international technology transfer, some other elements of institutions negatively influence the international technology transfer, and yet some other elements of institutions of nations have no influence on the international technology transfer. The empirical analysis on six institutional dimensions reveals variegated results: (i) religious distance has a positive effect on international technology transfer when listed companies are controlled; (ii) social distance has a positive effect when listed firms are not controlled; (iii) education distance has a positive effect when listed companies are not controlled; (iv) political distance has no effect on international technology transfer; and (vi) industrial distance has negative effect on international technology transfer. However, Hofstede's measures on national cultural dimensions show no significant effects. The non-significant results could be due to the measurement of national cultures, characteristics of the biopharmaceutical industry, or due to changes in the patterns of national cultures over time.

Suggested Citation

  • Malik, Tariq H., 2013. "National institutional differences and cross-border university–industry knowledge transfer," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(3), pages 776-787.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:42:y:2013:i:3:p:776-787 DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2012.09.008
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733312002247
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    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. Jason Owen-Smith & Massimo Riccaboni & Fabio Pammolli & Walter W. Powell, 2002. "A Comparison of U.S. and European University-Industry Relations in the Life Sciences," Management Science, INFORMS, pages 24-43.
    2. Bruce Kogut & Harbir Singh, 1988. "The Effect of National Culture on the Choice of Entry Mode," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 19(3), pages 411-432, September.
    3. Geoffrey M. Hodgson, 2003. "The hidden persuaders: institutions and individuals in economic theory," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 27(2), pages 159-175, March.
    4. Ashish Arora & Andrea Fosfuri, 2000. "Wholly Owned Subsidiary Versus Technology Licensing in the Worldwide Chemical Industry," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 31(4), pages 555-572, December.
    5. Wesley David Sine & Scott Shane & Dante Di Gregorio, 2003. "The Halo Effect and Technology Licensing: The Influence of Institutional Prestige on the Licensing of University Inventions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 49(4), pages 478-496, April.
    6. Paul D Ellis, 2008. "Does psychic distance moderate the market size–entry sequence relationship?," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 39(3), pages 351-369, April.
    7. Susan Bartholomew, 1997. "National Systems of Biotechnology Innovation: Complex Interdependence in the Global System," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 28(2), pages 241-266, June.
    8. Casper, Steven & Matraves, Catherine, 2003. "Institutional frameworks and innovation in the German and UK pharmaceutical industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(10), pages 1865-1879, December.
    9. Dosi, Giovanni, 1993. "Technological paradigms and technological trajectories : A suggested interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 102-103, April.
    10. Geoffrey M. Hodgson, 1998. "The Approach of Institutional Economics," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 36(1), pages 166-192, March.
    11. Gilding, Michael, 2008. "'The tyranny of distance': Biotechnology networks and clusters in the antipodes," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(6-7), pages 1132-1144, July.
    12. Håkanson, Lars & Ambos, Björn, 2010. "The antecedents of psychic distance," Journal of International Management, Elsevier, vol. 16(3), pages 195-210, September.
    13. Arthur, W Brian, 1989. "Competing Technologies, Increasing Returns, and Lock-In by Historical Events," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 99(394), pages 116-131, March.
    14. Kenneth Arrow, 1962. "Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention," NBER Chapters,in: The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors, pages 609-626 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    15. McMillan, G. Steven & Narin, Francis & Deeds, David L., 2000. "An analysis of the critical role of public science in innovation: the case of biotechnology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 1-8, January.
    16. Bengt-ake Lundvall & Bjorn Johnson, 1994. "The Learning Economy," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 1(2), pages 23-42.
    17. Shawna O'Grady & Henry W Lane, 1996. "The Psychic Distance Paradox," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 27(2), pages 309-333, June.
    18. Douglas Dow & Amal Karunaratna, 2006. "Developing a multidimensional instrument to measure psychic distance stimuli," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 37(5), pages 578-602, September.
    19. Bruce Kogut & Udo Zander, 1993. "Knowledge of the Firm and the Evolutionary Theory of the Multinational Corporation," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 24(4), pages 625-645, December.
    20. Jorge Niosi, 2011. "Complexity and path dependence in biotechnology innovation systems," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, vol. 20(6), pages 1795-1826, December.
    21. Kneller, Robert, 2003. "Autarkic drug discovery in Japanese pharmaceutical companies: insights into national differences in industrial innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(10), pages 1805-1827, December.
    22. Casper, Steven & Whitley, Richard, 2004. "Managing competences in entrepreneurial technology firms: a comparative institutional analysis of Germany, Sweden and the UK," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 89-106, January.
    23. Eric von Hippel, 1994. ""Sticky Information" and the Locus of Problem Solving: Implications for Innovation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 40(4), pages 429-439, 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. repec:ttu:rebcee:92 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Yuandi Wang & Xin Pan & Lutao Ning & Jian Li & Jin Chen, 2015. "Technology exchange patterns in China: an analysis of regional data," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 40(2), pages 252-272, April.
    3. 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.
    4. repec:eee:tefoso:v:123:y:2017:i:c:p:35-44 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. repec:eee:tefoso:v:123:y:2017:i:c:p:199-209 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. repec:spr:scient:v:103:y:2015:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-015-1552-3 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. repec:eee:respol:v:46:y:2017:i:7:p:1299-1311 is not listed on IDEAS

    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:42:y:2013:i:3:p:776-787. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/respol .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.