Competition and R&D cooperation with universities and competitors

This paper analyses the relationship between competitive environment and R&D cooperation with universities and competitors. Our simple model suggests that cooperation creates benefits in terms of synergies but also induces costs due to spillovers. Since the value of these synergies and spillovers depends on the competitive pressure, cooperation propensity depends on the competitive environment. Differentiating between the dimensions of competition, we hypothesize that university cooperation corresponds to quality competition, while horizontal cooperation relates to price competition. Furthermore, we predict that a higher number of competitors reduces the incentives for horizontal cooperation as it diminishes the gains from “collusion”. We test these hypotheses using Swiss firm-level panel data that allows us to control for simultaneity of cooperation decisions and endogeneity of competition. Our empirical analysis supports the relevance of distinguishing between competition dimensions and cooperation partners, respectively. We find that price competition has an influence on university cooperation in the form of an inverted U. Quality competition only has an influence on university cooperation and the relationship shows a U-form. Moreover, we see that the number of principal competitors reduces cooperation between competitors.     

The formation of Coasean institutions to provide university knowledge for innovation: a case study and econometric evidence for Switzerland

The Journal of Technology Transfer - “Coasean” institutions are an alternative institutional form that provides a solution to some market and coordination failures. As such they can...     

Technology proximity between firms and universities and technology transfer

This paper investigates the technological orientation of firms and universities and their propensity to have knowledge and technology transfer (KTT) activities. This study looks at the technological potential for KTT and how it is used, emphasizing differences between smaller and larger firms. To this end we collected information about the technology activities of firms (patent statistics) and the technology activities of universities. Furthermore, we used survey data on technology transfer activities. We combined the three datasets and found??especially for smaller firms??that great technology proximity fosters transfer activities with different universities (case 1). The same is true if proximity is low and expertise is considerable at universities in the respective technology field (case 2). In both cases additional transfer potential exists. In the second case firms engage in transfer activities in order to update and modify their knowledge base and as a consequence improve ??competitiveness?? in certain technology fields. Furthermore, firms show a tendency to diversify their contacts with universities in order to avoid knowledge lock-in.     

Do specific forms of university-industry knowledge transfer have different impacts on the performance of private enterprises? An empirical analysis based on Swiss firm data

This study investigates the impact of a wide spectrum of Knowledge and Technology Transfer (KTT) activities (educational and research activities, activities related with technical infrastructure, and consulting) on two innovation indicators (a) in the framework of an innovation equation with variables for specific forms of KTT activities as additional determinants of innovation, and (b) based on a matched-pairs analysis for several specific forms of KTT activities. The data used in the study were collected by means of a survey of Swiss enterprises that took place at the beginning of 2005. We found that research and educational activities improve the innovation performance of firms in terms of sales of considerably modified products, research activities in addition also in terms of sales of new products. This could be shown by several methods: the innovation equation approach with instrument variables for specific forms of KTT activities as well as two matching methods.