IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Academic knowledge commercialization in Romania - a discriminant analysis





In the modern knowledge economy, Higher Education Institutions are being required to operate more entrepreneurially, commercializing the results of their research and spinning out new, knowledge-based enterprises. However, the possibility to engage in entrepreneurial behaviours varies substantially between regions and countries. As a post-communist country, Romania faces numerous constraints in this respect. According to Erawatch Country Report (2010), technology transfer activities from universities to business firms are relatively limited, due to a low demand from industry and also relatively weak offer from universities, but many universities are currently actively involved in strengthening their technology transfer capacity. This paper explores different patterns of academic knowledge commercialization in 90 Romanian universities, using the data collected by the Romanian Ministry of Education, Research, Youth and Sports in 2011. In this purpose, we have used the discriminant analysis, due to its advantages in both synthesizing a set of variables and expressing the relationships between them. The discriminant variable by which we divided the universities in groups was the commercial (licensing) income generated by the 90 Romanian universities in 2010. The statistical observation has been carried out on a set of eight variables that were previously standardised using the Z-score technique and tested for normal distributions and homogeneity of variances. The test F for Wilks's Lambda was significant at 0.05 for four of our variables (FTE research staff, research expenditure, patent applications at EPO and new products) and had a Sig. smaller or equal to 0.1 for another four variables (patent applications in Romania, R&D grants with domestic private funding, number of partnerships with private companies and sponsorships). The first discriminate function accounting for 55,8 of between group variability revealed four significant predictors, of which research expenditure (,811*) was by far the strongest one. The other four predictors were grouped under the second canonical discriminate function. The cross validated classification showed that 58,9% of original grouped cases were correctly classified. Finally, we have grouped the universities by their region of origin and placed them in a 2x2 matrix that reflects their position in relation to the two discriminant functions. Policy implications aimed at improving academic knowledge commercialization at each region level are further advanced. Keywords: academic entrepreneurship, knowledge commercialization, discriminant analysis, regional patterns JEL codes: I2, O3, R58

Suggested Citation

  • Cristina Serbanica, 2012. "Academic knowledge commercialization in Romania - a discriminant analysis," ERSA conference papers ersa12p478, European Regional Science Association.
  • Handle: RePEc:wiw:wiwrsa:ersa12p478

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Behrens, Teresa R. & Gray, Denis O., 2001. "Unintended consequences of cooperative research: impact of industry sponsorship on climate for academic freedom and other graduate student outcome," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 179-199, February.
    2. Van Looy, Bart & Ranga, Marina & Callaert, Julie & Debackere, Koenraad & Zimmermann, Edwin, 2004. "Combining entrepreneurial and scientific performance in academia: towards a compounded and reciprocal Matthew-effect?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 425-441, April.
    3. 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.
    4. Slavo Radosevic, 2011. "Science-industry links in Central and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States: conventional policy wisdom facing reality," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 38(5), pages 365-378, June.
    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. Etzkowitz, Henry, 2003. "Research groups as 'quasi-firms': the invention of the entrepreneurial university," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 109-121, January.
    7. Tina C. Ambos & Kristiina Mäkelä & Julian Birkinshaw & Pablo D'Este, 2008. "When Does University Research Get Commercialized? Creating Ambidexterity in Research Institutions," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 45(8), pages 1424-1447, December.
    8. David C. Mowery & Bhaven N. Sampat, 2005. "The Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 and University--Industry Technology Transfer: A Model for Other OECD Governments?," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 30(2_2), pages 115-127, January.
    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. 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.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • I2 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Education
    • O3 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights
    • R58 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - Regional Government Analysis - - - Regional Development Planning and Policy

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:


    Access and download statistics


    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:wiw:wiwrsa:ersa12p478. 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: (Gunther Maier). General contact details of provider: .

    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.