IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cpr/ceprdp/6120.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Harnessing Success: Determinants of University Technology Licensing Performance

Author

Listed:
  • Schankerman, Mark
  • Belenzon, Sharon

Abstract

We study the impact of incentive pay, local development objectives and government constraints on university licensing performance. We develop and test a simple contracting model of technology licensing offices, using new survey information together with panel data on U.S. universities for 1995-99. We find that private universities are much more likely to adopt incentive pay than public ones, but ownership does not affect licensing performance conditional on the use of incentive pay. Adopting incentive pay is associated with about 30-40 percent more income per license. Universities with strong local development objectives generate about 30 percent less income per license, but are more likely to license to local (in-state) startup companies. Stronger government constraints are ?costly? in terms of foregone license income and startup activity. These results are robust to controls for observed and unobserved heterogeneity.

Suggested Citation

  • Schankerman, Mark & Belenzon, Sharon, 2007. "Harnessing Success: Determinants of University Technology Licensing Performance," CEPR Discussion Papers 6120, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    • Handle: RePEc:cpr:ceprdp:6120
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://cepr.org/publications/DP6120
    Download Restriction: CEPR Discussion Papers are free to download for our researchers, subscribers and members. If you fall into one of these categories but have trouble downloading our papers, please contact us at subscribers@cepr.org
    ---><---

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

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Edward P. Lazear, 2000. "The Power of Incentives," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 90(2), pages 410-414, May.
    2. 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.
    3. Adam B. Jaffe & Manuel Trajtenberg & Rebecca Henderson, 1993. "Geographic Localization of Knowledge Spillovers as Evidenced by Patent Citations," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 108(3), pages 577-598.
    4. Philippe Aghion & Mathias Dewatripont & Jeremy C. Stein, 2008. "Academic freedom, private‐sector focus, and the process of innovation," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 39(3), pages 617-635, September.
    5. Saul Lach & Mark Schankerman, 2008. "Incentives and invention in universities," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 39(2), pages 403-433, June.
    6. Jaffe, Adam B, 1989. "Real Effects of Academic Research," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 79(5), pages 957-970, December.
    7. Jaffe, Adam B & Lerner, Josh, 2001. "Reinventing Public R&D: Patent Policy and the Commercialization of National Laboratory Technologies," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 32(1), pages 167-198, Spring.
    8. Adams, James D, 1990. "Fundamental Stocks of Knowledge and Productivity Growth," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 98(4), pages 673-702, August.
    9. Ajay Agrawal & Rebecca Henderson, 2002. "Putting Patents in Context: Exploring Knowledge Transfer from MIT," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 48(1), pages 44-60, January.
    10. Marie Thursby & Richard Jensen, 2001. "Proofs and Prototypes for Sale: The Licensing of University Inventions," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(1), pages 240-259, March.
    11. Blundell, Richard & Griffith, Rachel & Windmeijer, Frank, 2002. "Individual effects and dynamics in count data models," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 108(1), pages 113-131, May.
    12. Audretsch, David B & Stephan, Paula E, 1996. "Company-Scientist Locational Links: The Case of Biotechnology," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 86(3), pages 641-652, June.
    13. Francois, Patrick, 2000. "'Public service motivation' as an argument for government provision," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(3), pages 275-299, November.
    14. Guido W. Imbens, 2004. "Nonparametric Estimation of Average Treatment Effects Under Exogeneity: A Review," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 86(1), pages 4-29, February.
    15. 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.
    16. Jerry G. Thursby & Marie C. Thursby, 2002. "Who Is Selling the Ivory Tower? Sources of Growth in University Licensing," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 48(1), pages 90-104, January.
    17. Richard Blundell & Rachel Griffith & John van Reenen, 1999. "Market Share, Market Value and Innovation in a Panel of British Manufacturing Firms," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 66(3), pages 529-554.
    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. Pluvia Zuniga, 2011. "The State of Patenting at Research Institutions in Developing Countries: Policy Approaches and Practices," WIPO Economic Research Working Papers 04, World Intellectual Property Organization - Economics and Statistics Division, revised Dec 2011.
    2. Saul Lach & Mark Schankerman, 2008. "Incentives and invention in universities," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 39(2), pages 403-433, June.
    3. Claudia Curi & Cinzia Daraio & Patrick Llerena, 2012. "University technology transfer: how (in)efficient are French universities?," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 36(3), pages 629-654.
    4. Conti, Annamaria & Gaule, Patrick, 2011. "Is the US outperforming Europe in university technology licensing? A new perspective on the European Paradox," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 123-135, February.
    5. Giuri, Paola & Munari, Federico & Scandura, Alessandra & Toschi, Laura, 2019. "The strategic orientation of universities in knowledge transfer activities," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 261-278.
    6. repec:wip:wpaper:4 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Felicia Diana Nicoara & Dorin Maier & Andreea Maier, 2013. "General Aspects Related To The Technology Transfer, The Main Source Of Innovation And Development Among Economic Operators," Annals - Economy Series, Constantin Brancusi University, Faculty of Economics, vol. 4, pages 139-147, August.

    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. Sharon Belenzon & Mark Schankerman, 2007. "The Impact of Private Ownership, Incentives and Local Development Objectives on University Technology Transfer Performance," CEP Discussion Papers dp0779, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    2. Sharon Belenzon & Mark Schankerman, 2009. "University Knowledge Transfer: Private Ownership, Incentives, and Local Development Objectives," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 52(1), pages 111-144, February.
    3. Belenzon, Sharon & Schankerman, Mark, 2007. "The impact of private ownership, incentives and local development objectives on university technology transfer performance," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 3724, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    4. Belenzon, Sharon & Schankerman, Mark, 2007. "Harnessing success: determinants of university technology licensing performance," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 3726, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    5. Saul Lach & Mark Schankerman, 2008. "Incentives and invention in universities," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 39(2), pages 403-433, June.
    6. Lee Branstetter & Kwon Hyeog Ug, 2004. "The Restructuring Of Japanese Research And Development: The Increasing Impact Of Science On Japanese R&D," Discussion papers 04021, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).
    7. Nobuya Fukugawa, 2011. "Impacts and channels of university spillovers before the national innovation system reform in Japan," International Journal of Transitions and Innovation Systems, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 1(4), pages 383-393.
    8. Macho-Stadler, Ines & Perez-Castrillo, David & Veugelers, Reinhilde, 2007. "Licensing of university inventions: The role of a technology transfer office," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 483-510, June.
    9. Cornelia Lawson, 2013. "Academic patenting: the importance of industry support," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 38(4), pages 509-535, August.
    10. Stephan, Paula E., 2010. "The Economics of Science," 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 217-273, Elsevier.
    11. repec:wip:wpaper:4 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Caldera, Aida & Debande, Olivier, 2010. "Performance of Spanish universities in technology transfer: An empirical analysis," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(9), pages 1160-1173, November.
    13. Reinhilde Veugelers, 2014. "The Contribution of Academic Research to Innovation and Growth. WWWforEurope Working Paper No. 71," WIFO Studies, WIFO, number 50856, April.
    14. 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.
    15. Hottenrott, Hanna & Thorwarth, Susanne, 2010. "Industry funding of university research and scientific productivity," ZEW Discussion Papers 10-105, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    16. Perkmann, Markus & Tartari, Valentina & McKelvey, Maureen & Autio, Erkko & Broström, Anders & D’Este, Pablo & Fini, Riccardo & Geuna, Aldo & Grimaldi, Rosa & Hughes, Alan & Krabel, Stefan & Kitson, Mi, 2013. "Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of the literature on university–industry relations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(2), pages 423-442.
    17. Lee Branstetter & Reiko Aoki, 2005. "Is Academic Science Raising Innovative Productivity? Theory and Evidence from Firm-Level Data," Hi-Stat Discussion Paper Series d05-86, Institute of Economic Research, Hitotsubashi University.
    18. Pluvia Zuniga, 2011. "The State of Patenting at Research Institutions in Developing Countries: Policy Approaches and Practices," WIPO Economic Research Working Papers 04, World Intellectual Property Organization - Economics and Statistics Division, revised Dec 2011.
    19. Pierre Azoulay & Waverly Ding & Toby Stuart, 2006. "The Impact of Academic Patenting on the Rate, Quality, and Direction of (Public) Research Output," NBER Working Papers 11917, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    20. Lee Davis & Maria Larsen & Peter Lotz, 2011. "Scientists’ perspectives concerning the effects of university patenting on the conduct of academic research in the life sciences," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 36(1), pages 14-37, February.
    21. Aschhoff, Birgit & Grimpe, Christoph, 2014. "Contemporaneous peer effects, career age and the industry involvement of academics in biotechnology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 367-381.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Incentives; Performance pay; Universities; Technology transfer; Licensing; Local development;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • F23 - International Economics - - International Factor Movements and International Business - - - Multinational Firms; International Business
    • O31 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives
    • O32 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Management of Technological Innovation and R&D
    • O33 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Technological Change: Choices and Consequences; Diffusion Processes

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:cpr:ceprdp:6120. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cepr.org .

    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.