Artigo - Open Access.

Idioma principal


FISCHER, Bruno Brandão ; VONORTAS, Nicholas S. ; SCHAEFFER, Paola Rücker ; QUEIROZ, Sérgio ;


Policy decision makers and industry strategists have dedicated increased attention to initiatives that foster University-Industry Collaboration (UIC) in an environment of open innovation. The overarching goal is to enhance the capabilities/efficiencies of innovation systems, leveraging the role of universities as generators and disseminators of valuable knowledge, an issue of particular importance to developing economies. We empirically assess the extent to which institutional openness in universities towards UIC linkages affect one mode of knowledge transfer, namely the generation of knowledge-intensive spin-offs, in the context of laggard innovation systems. We use data for 462 knowledge-intensive entrepreneurial projects related to academics receiving grants from the PIPE Program of the State of São Paulo, Brazil. Additionally, we have gathered data for UIC activity (2002-2010) of 126 universities and research institutes in the affected region. We estimate both direct effects of collaboration to entrepreneurial projects and indirect effects through university patenting behavior. Results suggest that the quality of linkages is a stronger predictor of both types of university entrepreneurship than the quantity of connections.


Tomadores de decisão em políticas industriais têm crescentemente dedicado atenção a iniciativas que promovem a interação universidade-empresa (IUE). O principal objetivo é alavancar as capacidades dos sistemas de inovação, a partir da concepção de que as universidades geram e disseminam conhecimento, questão essa de importância particular para as economias em desenvolvimento. Assim, neste trabalho buscou-se empiricamente avaliar em que medida a abertura institucional das universidades em relação a IUE afeta a geração de spin-offs acadêmicos intensivos em conhecimento no contexto dos sistemas de inovação imaturos. Para isso, foram utilizados dados referentes a 462 projetos de empreendedorismo intensivo em conhecimento relacionados a acadêmicos que receberam recursos do Programa PIPE do Estado de São Paulo, Brasil. Além disso, utilizaram-se dados referentes às interações entre empresas e 126 universidades e institutos de pesquisa. Foram estimados os efeitos diretos da interação nos projetos de empreendedorismo, bem como os efeitos indiretos da interação nas atividades de patenteamento das universidades. Os resultados sugerem que a qualidade das interações é um preditor de maior relevância do que a quantidade de ligações em ambos os tipos de empreendedorismo universitário (spin-offs e patentes).

Palavras-chave: Knowledge-Intensive Entrepreneurship; University-Industry Collaboration; Open Innovation; Academic Spin-offs,

Palavras-chave: Empreendedorismo intensivo em conhecimento; Interação Universidade-Empresa; Inovação Aberta; Spin-offs acadêmicos,

DOI: 10.5151/engpro-1enei-024

Referências bibliográficas
  • [1] Abereijo, I. (2015). Transversing the “valley of death”: understanding the determinants to commercialisation of research outputs in Nigeria. African Journal of Economic and Management Studies, 6(1), 90-106.
  • [2] Abreu, M., & Grinevich, V. (2013). The nature of academic entrepreneurship in the UK: widening the focus on entrepreneurial activities. Research Policy, 42(2), 408-42
  • [3] Agrawal, A. (2001). University-to-industry knowledge transfer: literature review and unanswered questions. International Journal of Management Reviews, 3(4), 285-302.
  • [4] Arocena, R., & Sutz, J. (2001). Changing knowledge production in Latin American universities. Research Policy, 30(8), 1221-123
  • [5] Arvanitis, S., Kubli, U., & Woerter, M. (2008). University-industry knowledge and technology transfer in Switzerland: What university scientists think about co-operation with private enterprises. Research Policy, 37(10), 1865-1883.
  • [6] Arza, V. (2010). Channels, benefits and risks of public-private interactions for knowledge transfer: conceptual framework inspired by Latin America. Science and Public Policy, 37(7), 473-484.
  • [7] Audretsch, D., Kuratko, D., & Link, A. (2016). Dynamics entrepreneurship and technology-based innovation. [Working Paper 16-02]. The University of North Carolina, Department of Economics Working Paper Series.
  • [8] Beckman, C., Eisenhardt, K., Kotha, S., Meyer, A., & Rajagopalan, N. (2012). Technology entrepreneurship. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 6(2), 89-93.
  • [9] Birley, S. (1985). The role of networks in the entrepreneurial process. Journal of Business Venturing, 24(1), 107-117.
  • [10] Boh, W., De-Haan, U., & Strom, R. (2015). University technology transfer through entrepreneurship: faculty and students in spinoffs. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 1-9.
  • [11] Bonaccorsi, A., & Piccaluga, A. (1994). A theoretical framework for the evaluation of university-industry relationships. R&D Management, 24(3), 229-247.
  • [12] Brown, R. (2016). Mission impossible? Entrepreneurial universities and peripheral innovation systems. Industry and Innovation, 23(2), 1-17.
  • [13] Caloghirou, Y., Tsakanikas, A., & Vonortas, N. (2001). University-industry cooperation in the context of the European Framework Programmes. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(1), 153-161.
  • [14] Chesbrough, H. (2003). The era of open innovation. MIT Sloan Management Review, 44(3), 35-41.
  • [15] Cohen, W., Nelson, R., & Walsh, J. (2002). Links and impacts: the influence of public research on industrial R&D. Management Science, 48(1), 1-23.
  • [16] Colyvas, J., Crow, M., Gelijns, A., Mazzoleni, R., Nelson, R., Rosenberg, N., & Sampat, B. (2002). How do university inventions get into practice? Management Science, 48(1), 61-72.
  • [17] Czarnitzki, D., Doherr, T., Hussinger, K., Schliessler, P., & Toole, A. (2016). Knowledge creates markets: the influence of entrepreneurial support and patent rights on academic entrepreneurship. [Discussion Paper n. 16-036]. Center for European Economic Research.
  • [18] Di Gregorio, D., & Shane, S. (2003). Why do some universities generate more start-ups than others? Research Policy, 32(2), 209-227.
  • [19] Dietz, J., & Bozeman, B. (2005). Academic careers, patents, and productivity: industry experience as scientific and technical human capital. Research Policy, 34(3), 349-367.
  • [20] Dorfman, N. (1983). Route 128: the development of a regional high technology economy. Research Policy, 12(6), 299-316.
  • [21] Etzkowitz, H. (1998). The norms of entrepreneurial science: cognitive effects of the new university-industry linkages. Research Policy, 27(8), 823-833.
  • [22] Etzkowitz, H. (2004). The evolution of the entrepreneurial university. International Journal of Technology and Globalisation, 1(1), 64-77.
  • [23] Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and ‘‘Mode 2’’ to a Triple Helix of university–industry–government relations. Research Policy, 29(2), 109-1
  • [24] Fernandes, A., Souza, B., Silva, A., Suzigan, W., Chaves, C., & Albuquerque, E. (2010). Academy-industry links in Brazil: evidence about channels and benefits for firms and researchers. Science and Public Policy, 37(7), 485-498.
  • [25] Goel, R., & Grimpe. C. (2012). Are all academic entrepreneurs created alike? Evidence from Germany. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 21(3), 247-266.
  • [26] Gulbrandsen, M., & Smeby, J. (2005). Industry funding and university professors’ research performance. Research Policy, 34(6), 932-950.
  • [27] Hayter, C. (2016). Constraining entrepreneurial development: A knowledge-based view of social networks among academic entrepreneurs. Research Policy, 45(2), 475-490.
  • [28] Hirsch-Kreinsen, H., & Schwinge, I. (2014). Knowledge-intensive entrepreneurship in low-tech industries. London: Edward Elgar.
  • [29] Kenney, M., & Patton, D. (2005). Entrepreneurial geographies: support networks in three high-technology industries. Economic Geography, 81(2), 201-228.
  • [30] Krabel, S., & Mueller, P. (2009). What drives scientists to start their own company? An empirical investigation of Max Planck Society scientists. Research Policy, 38(6), 947-956.
  • [31] Landry, R., Amara, N., & Ouimet, M. (2007). Research transfer in natural science and engineering: Evidence from Canadian universities. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 32(6), 561-592.
  • [32] Landry, R., Amara, N., & Rherrad, I. (2006). Why are some university researchers more likely to create spin-offs than others? Evidence from Canadian universities. Research Policy, 35(10), 1599-1615.
  • [33] Lederman, D., Messina, J., Pienknagura, S., & Rigolini, J. (2014). Latin American entrepreneurs: many firms but little innovation. Washington, DC: The World Bank.
  • [34] Lee, Y. (2000). The Sustainability of University-Industry Research Collaboration: An Empirical Assessment. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 25(2), 111-133.
  • [35] Lee, K., Lim, G., & Tan, S. (1999). Dealing with resource disadvantage: generic strategies for SMEs. Small Business Economics, 12(4), 299-311.
  • [36] Lockett, A., Wright, M., & Franklin, S. (2003). Technology Transfer and Universities’ Spin-Out Strategies. Small Business Economics, 20(2), 185-200.
  • [37] Lockett, A., & Wright, M. (2005). Resources, capabilities, risk capital and the creation of university spin-out companies. Research Policy, 34(7), 1043-1057.
  • [38] Looy, B., Landoni, P., Callaert, J., van Pottelsberghe, Sapsalis, E., & Debackere, K. (2011). Entrepreneurial effectiveness of European universities: An empirical assessment of antecedents and trade-offs. Research Policy, 40(4), 553-564.
  • [39] Moutinho, R., Au-Yong-Oliveira, M., Coelho, A., & Manso, J. (2014). Determinants of knowledge-based entrepreneurship: an exploratory approach. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 12(1), 171-197.
  • [40] Nicolaou, N. & Birley, S. (2003). Social networks in organizational emergence: the university spinout phenomenon. Management Science, 49(12), 1702-1726.
  • [41] O’Shea, R., Allen, T., Chevalier, A., & Roche, F. (2005). Entrepreneurial orientation, technology transfer and spinoff performance of U.S. universities. Research Policy, 34(7), 994-1009.
  • [42] Padilla-Meléndez, A., & Garrido-Moreno, A. (2012). Open innovation in universities. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior and Research, 18(4), 417-439.
  • [43] Perkmann, M., & Walsh, K. (2007). University–industry relationships and open innovation: Towards a research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 9(4), 259-280.
  • [44] Perkmann, M., Tartari, V., McKelvey, M., Autio, E., Broström, A., D’Este, P., Fini, R., Geuna, A., Grimaldi, R., Hughes, A., Krabel, S., Kitson, M., Llerena, P., Lissoni, F., Saltor, A., & Sobrero, M. (2013). Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of the literature on university–industry relations. Research Policy, 42(2), 423-442.
  • [45] Pfirrmann, O. (1998). Small firms in high-tech: a European analysis. Small Business Economics, 10(3), 227-241.
  • [46] Powers, J., & McDougall, P. (2005). University start-up formation and technology licensing with firms that go public: a resource-based view of academic entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 20(3), 291-311.
  • [47] Rapini, M., Albuquerque, E., Chave, C., Silva, L., Souza, S., Righi, H., & Cruz, W. (2009). University-industry interactions in an immature system of innovation: evidence from Minas Gerais, Brazil. Science and Public Policy, 36(5), 373-386.
  • [48] Rasmussen, E., Mosey, S., & Wright, M. (2014). The influence of university departments on the evolution of entrepreneurial competencies in spin-off ventures. Research Policy, 43(1), 92-106.
  • [49] Roshani, M., Lehoux, N., & Frayret, J. (2015). University-Industry collaborations and open innovations: an integrated methodology for mutually beneficial relationships. [Working Paper 2015-22]. Centre Interuniversitaire de Recherche sur les Réseaux d’Enterprise, la Logistique et le Transport – CIRRELT.
  • [50] Salimi, N., Bekkers, R., & Frenken, K. (2015). Does working with industry come at a price? A study of doctoral candidates’ performance in collaborative vs. non-collaborative PhD projects. Technovation, 41-42, 51-61.
  • [51] Salles-Filho, S., Bonacelli, M., Carneiro, A., Castro, P., & Santos, F. (2011). Evaluation of ST&I programs: a methodological approach to the Brazilian Small Business Program and some comparisons with the SBIR program. Research Evaluation, 20(2), 157-169.
  • [52] Schartinger, D., Rammer, C., Fischer, M., & Frölich, J. (2002). Knowledge interactions between universities and industry in Austria: sectoral patterns and determinants. Research Policy, 31(3), 303-328.
  • [53] Shane, S., & Stuart, T. (2002). Organizational endowments and the performance of university start-ups. Management Science, 48(1), 154-170.
  • [54] Stam, E. (2009). Entrepreneurship, Evolution and Geography. [Papers in Evolutionary Economic Geography]. Utrecht University - Urban & Regional Research Centre.
  • [55] Striukova, L., & Rayna, T. (2015). University-industry knowledge exchange. European Journal of Innovation Management, 18(4), 471-492.
  • [56] Stuart, T., & Ding, W. (2006). When do scientists become entrepreneurs? The social structural antecedents of commercial activity in the academic life sciences. American Journal of Sociology, 112(1), 97-144.
  • [57] Tether, B. (2002). Who co-operates for innovation, and why. Research Policy, 31(6), 947-967.
  • [58] Thursby, J., & Thursby, M. (2002). Who is selling the ivory tower? Sources of growth in university licensing. Management Science, 48(1), 90-104.
  • [59] Walter, A., Auer, M., & Ritter, T. (2006). The impact of network capabilities and entrepreneurial orientation on university spin-off performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 21(4), 541-567.
  • [60] Zawislak, P., & Dalmarco, G. (2011). The silent run: new issues and outcomes for university-industry relations in Brazil. Journal of Technology Management & Innovation, 6(2), 66-82.
  • [61] Zucker, L., & Darby, M. (2001). Capturing technological opportunity via Japan’s star scientists: evidence from Japanese firms’ biotech patents and products. Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(1), 37-58.
  • [62] Zucker, L., Darby, M., & Armstrong, J. (2002). Commercializing knowledge: university science, knowledge capture, and firm performance in biotechnology. Management Science, 48(1), 138-153.
Como citar:

FISCHER, Bruno Brandão; VONORTAS, Nicholas S.; SCHAEFFER, Paola Rücker; QUEIROZ, Sérgio; "DOES UNIVERSITY-INDUSTRY COLLABORATION FOSTER ACADEMIC ENTREPRENEURSHIP? EVIDENCE FROM A DEVELOPING COUNTRY", p. 408-424 . In: Anais do 1º Encontro da Nacional de Economia Industrial e Inovação [=Blucher Engineering Proceedings, v.3 n.4]. São Paulo: Blucher, 2016.
ISSN 2357-7592, DOI 10.5151/engpro-1enei-024

últimos 30 dias | último ano | desde a publicação