Policy approaches regarding technology transfer: Portugal and Switzerland compared
The environment in which technology transfer takes place plays a key role in defining the best approaches and, ultimately, their success. In the present paper we analyse the extent to which Technology Transfer Offices (TTOs) efficiency is influenced by framework conditions and, in particular, by the innovation policies and programmes. We hypothesise that countries with higher technology transfer efficiency levels would have innovation policies more supportive to technology transfer efforts. Results based on an in depth account and statistical analysis of over 60 innovation policies from Switzerland (widely associated to high levels of technology transference efficiency) and Portugal (a laggard country in this particular) corraborate our initial hypothesis. Switzerland policies overall include more references to knowledge and technology transfer, in the form of licenses, R&D collaboration and spin-offs, than Portuguese policies. One exception is the case of patents (intellectual property rights, in general) with stronger weight in Portuguese policies and, to some extent, the support to spin-off creation and venture capital. The findings highlighted significant differences in variables with impact in technology transfer, namely the priorities addressed, target groups and funding eligibility, aspects of the innovation process targeted and forms of funding. From the exercise it was possible to derive some policy implications. Specifically, we advance that if a country wishes to increase technology transfer efficiency then it should implement a mandate for R&D cooperation between different actors, give priority to fund cutting edge science and research performers, and attribute a higher emphasis on applied industrial research and prototype creation aspects of the innovation process.
|Date of creation:||Sep 2009|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: |
Web page: http://www.fep.up.pt/
More information through EDIRC
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Jeannette Colyvas & Michael Crow & Annetine Gelijns & Roberto Mazzoleni & Richard R. Nelson & Nathan Rosenberg & Bhaven N. Sampat, 2002. "How Do University Inventions Get Into Practice?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 48(1), pages 61-72, January.
- Macho-Stadler Inés & Pérez-Castrillo David & Veugelers Reinhilde, 2005.
"Licensing of University Inventions: The Role of a Technology Transfer Office,"
201022, Fundacion BBVA / BBVA Foundation.
- 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.
- Frank T. Rothaermel & Shanti D. Agung & Lin Jiang, 2007. "University entrepreneurship: a taxonomy of the literature," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, vol. 16(4), pages 691-791, August.
- Debackere, Koenraad & Veugelers, Reinhilde, 2005. "The role of academic technology transfer organizations in improving industry science links," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 321-342, April.
- 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.
- Wendy Chapple & Andy Lockett & Donald S. Siegel & Mike Wright, 2004.
"Assessing the Relative Performance of U.K. University Technology Transfer Offices: Parametric and Non-Parametric Evidence,"
Rensselaer Working Papers in Economics
0423, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Department of Economics.
- Chapple, Wendy & Lockett, Andy & Siegel, Donald & Wright, Mike, 2005. "Assessing the relative performance of U.K. university technology transfer offices: parametric and non-parametric evidence," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 369-384, April.
- Donald S. Siegel & Reinhilde Veugelers & Mike Wright, 2007. "Technology transfer offices and commercialization of university intellectual property: performance and policy implications," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 23(4), pages 640-660, Winter.
- Goldfarb, Brent & Henrekson, Magnus, 2003. "Bottom-up versus top-down policies towards the commercialization of university intellectual property," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 639-658, April.
- Link, Albert N. & Scott, John T. & Siegel, Donald S., 2003. "The economics of intellectual property at universities: an overview of the special issue," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 21(9), pages 1217-1225, November.
- 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.
- Falk, Rahel, 2007. "Measuring the effects of public support schemes on firms' innovation activities: Survey evidence from Austria," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(5), pages 665-679, June.
- Friedman, Joseph & Silberman, Jonathan, 2003. " University Technology Transfer: Do Incentives, Management, and Location Matter?," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 28(1), pages 17-30, January.
- Thursby, Jerry G. & Kemp, Sukanya, 2002. "Growth and productive efficiency of university intellectual property licensing," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 109-124, January.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:por:fepwps:334. 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: ()
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.