Selection Between One-Time Transfer and University-Industry Cooperation in Technology Transfer: A Matching Model
International Journal of Economics, Finance and Management Sciences
Volume 5, Issue 5, October 2017, Pages: 235-245
Received: Sep. 12, 2017;
Published: Sep. 14, 2017
Views 2047 Downloads 145
Longtian Zhang, School of Economics and Management, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China
Hong Li, School of Economics and Management, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China
Although the process of technology transfer including university-industry cooperation and other forms has been widely investigated in previous literature, it still lacks a comprehensive modeling of this process. This paper presents a model describing the selection between one-time transfer, which is usually known as patenting and licensing, and university-industry cooperation in the situation of perfect information, and find out that the bargaining power of both sides, along with the periods that the underlying technologies can be profitable are important factors that may influence the decisions of the trade forms and the corresponding fees, respectively. The simulating results show that, given the profitable period of the underlying technologies is long enough, as the bargaining power of scientists become stronger, the selection of form of trade undergoes a changing pattern of from one-time transfer to cooperation. Moreover, to deal with conflicts that the both sides may face in some cases, two rules that are proposed under the situation of with and without intermediaries are discussed respectively, and we find that the allocation under the two rules are the same. This conclusion helps providing theoretical support for introducing technology intermediaries into the process of technology transfer.
Selection Between One-Time Transfer and University-Industry Cooperation in Technology Transfer: A Matching Model, International Journal of Economics, Finance and Management Sciences.
Vol. 5, No. 5,
2017, pp. 235-245.
Audretsch D B. From the entrepreneurial university to the university for the entrepreneurial society [J]. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 2014, 39 (3): 313-321.
Calcagnini G, Favaretto I, Giombini G, Perugini F, Rombaldoni R. The role of universities in the location of innovative start-ups [J]. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 2016, 41 (4): 670-693.
Bos J W B, Candelon B, Economidou C. Does knowledge spill over across borders and technology regimes? [J]. J Prod Anal, 2016, 46 (1): 63-82.
Lychagin S, Pinkse J, Slade M E, Van Reenen J. Spillovers in space: Does geography matter? [J]. J Indust Econ, 2016, 64 (2): 295-335.
Roper S, Love J H, Bonner K. Firms’ knowledge search and local knowledge externalities in innovation performance [J]. Research Policy, 2017, 46 (1): 43-56.
Qian H, Jung H. Solving the knowledge filter puzzle: absorptive capacity, entrepreneurship and regional development [J]. Small Bus Econ, 2017, 48 (1): 99-114.
Debackere K, Veugelers R. The role of academic technology transfer organizations in improving industry science links [J]. Research Policy, 2005, 34 (3): 321-342.
Calcagnini G, Giombini G, Liberati P, Travaglini G. A matching model of university-industry collaborations [J]. Small Bus Econ, 2016, 46 (1): 31-43.
Banal-Estañol A, Macho-Stadler I, Pérez-Castrillo D. Research output from university–industry collaborative projects [J]. Economic Development Quarterly, 2013, 27 (1): 71-81.
Würmseher M. To each his own: Matching different entrepreneurial models to the academic scientist's individual needs [J]. Technovation, 2017, 59 1-17.
Perkmann Metc. Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of the literature on university–industry relations [J]. Research Policy, 2013, 42 (2): 423-442.
Leyden D P, Link A N. Knowledge spillovers, collective entrepreneurship, and economic growth: the role of universities [J]. Small Bus Econ, 2013, 41 (4): 797-817.
Lehmann E E, Menter M. University–industry collaboration and regional wealth [J]. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 2016, 41 (6): 1284-1307.
Weng H-J, Chang D-F. Determining the influence of heterogeneity in graduate institutions on university–industry collaboration policy in Taiwan [J]. Asia Pacific Education Review, 2016, 17 (3): 489-499.
Link A N, Welsh D H B. From laboratory to market: on the propensity of young inventors to form a new business [J]. Small Bus Econ, 2013, 40 (1): 1-7.
Pissarides C A. Search unemployment with on-the-job search [J]. The Review of Economic Studies, 1994, 61 (3): 457-475.
Merz M. Search in the labor market and the real business cycle [J]. Journal of Monetary Economics, 1995, 36 (2): 269-300.
Mortensen D T, Pissarides C A. Job creation and job destruction in the theory of unemployment [J]. The Review of Economic Studies, 1994, 61 (3): 397-415.
Trejos A, Wright R. Search, bargaining, money, and prices [J]. Journal of Political Economy, 1995, 103 (1): 118-141.
Neal D. The complexity of job mobility among young men [J]. Journal of Labor Economics, 1999, 17 (2): 237-261.
Stiglitz J E, Weiss A. Credit rationing in markets with imperfect information [J]. The American Economic Review, 1981, 71 (3): 393-410.
Hossain M. Performance and Potential of Open Innovation Intermediaries [J]. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2012, 58 754-764.
Meoli M, Paleari S, Vismara S. Completing the technology transfer process: M&As of science-based IPOs [J]. Small Bus Econ, 2013, 40 (2): 227-248.
Huyghe A, Knockaert M, Wright M, Piva E. Technology transfer offices as boundary spanners in the pre-spin-off process: The case of a hybrid model [J]. Small Bus Econ, 2014, 43 (2): 289-307.
Belderbos R A, Belderbos R A, Roy V, Duvivier F. International and domestic technology transfers and productivity growth: Firm level evidence [J]. Industrial and corporate change, 2013, 22 (1): 1-32.
Dawid H, Dawid H, Zou B T. Foreign direct investment with endogenous technology choice [J]. Pacific Economic Review, 2017, 22 (1): 3-22.