Determinants of Industry-Academy Linkages and Their Impacts on Firm Performance:

This paper utilizes the Korea Innovation Survey data to identify the determinants of industry–university and industry–government research institute (IUG) cooperation, and its impact on firm performance. First, we find that among the determinants of IUG cooperation, traditional firm characteristic variables of size and R&D intensity are not significant, while participation in national R&D project turns out be most significant and robust in both cooperation modes. This is in contrast to the results from the cases in European countries and reflects the significance of government policies in promoting IUG cooperation in latecomer economies. Second, with regard to the impact of IUG cooperation, we conspicuously find no significant impact on the innovation probability of firms when we control the possible endogeneity, such that already innovative firms would participate more at such cooperation modes. This implies that the IUG cooperation cannot guarantee the success of a firm in technological innovation. Rather, it may have an influence on the selection or direction of the research projects of a firm. When we limited the analysis to innovative firms, we do find a positive impact of the IUG cooperation on patents generated from new product innovation but find none in terms of volume of sales or labor productivity. These results seem to reflect the still transitional nature of the national innovation system (NIS) and knowledge industrialization in Korea. © 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

[1]  Akira Goto,et al.  Business groups in a market economy , 1982 .

[2]  J. Heckman.  Sample selection bias as a specification error , 1979 .

[3]  Shaker A. Zahra,et al.  The effects of business-university alliances on innovative output and financial performance: a study of publicly traded biotechnology companies , 2002 .

[4]  A. Geuna,et al.  Factors affecting university-industry R&D projects: The importance of searching, screening and signalling , 2006 .

[5]  John Bessant,et al.  Small firms, R&D, technology and innovation in the UK: a literature review , 1998 .

[6]  J. P. Lester,et al.  The utilization of public policy analysis: A conceptual framework☆☆☆ , 1990 .

[7]  P. David,et al.  Toward a new economics of science , 1994 .

[8]  U. Schmoch,et al.  Science-based technologies: university-industry interactions in four fields , 1998 .

[9]  Sea-Jin Chang,et al.  Economic Performance of Group-Affiliated Companies in Korea: Intragroup Resource Sharing and Internal Business Transactions , 2000 .

[10]  A. Oliveira,et al.  A new competitive landscape , 2007 .

[11]  F. Malerba,et al.  Technological Regimes and Schumpeterian Patterns of Innovation , 2000 .

[12]  M. Santoro.  Success breeds success , 2000 .

[13]  Rosemarie H. Ziedonis,et al.  The patent paradox revisited: an empirical study of patenting in the U , 2001 .

[14]  Maryann P. Feldman,et al.  R&D spillovers and recipient firm size , 1994 .

[15]  Linsu Kim,et al.  National system of industrial innovation : dynamics of capability building in Korea , 1991 .

[16]  Stephen Roper,et al.  The Determinants of Innovation: R & D, Technology Transfer and Networking Effects , 1999 .

[17]  Alok K. Chakrabarti,et al.  FIRM SIZE AND TECHNOLOGY CENTRALITY IN INDUSTRY-UNIVERSITY INTERACTIONS , 2002 .

[18]  Keun Lee,et al.  Explaining the “University-run enterprises” in China: A theoretical framework for university–industry relationship in developing countries and its application to China☆ , 2006 .

[19]  Eliezer Geisler,et al.  Industry–university technology cooperation: a theory of inter-organizational relationships , 1995 .

[20]  M. Carree,et al.  Cooperative R&D and Firm Performance , 2004 .

[21]  B. Looy,et al.  Interorganizational collaboration and innovation: Toward a portfolio approach , 2005 .

[22]  D. Mowery,et al.  The Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 and University–Industry Technology Transfer: A Model for Other OECD Governments? , 2004 .

[23]  Loet Leydesdorff,et al.  A Triple Helix of University—Industry—Government Relations , 1998, Scientometrics.

[24]  Paula E. Stephan,et al.  Company-Scientist Locational Links: The Case of Biotechnology , 1996 .

[25]  Marie C. Thursby,et al.  Disclosure and licensing of University inventions: 'The best we can do with the s**t we get to work with' , 2003 .

[26]  B. Dalum.  National Systems of Innovation: Towards a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning , 1992 .

[27]  A. Jaffe.  Technological Opportunity and Spillovers of R&D: Evidence from Firms&Apos; Patents, Profits and Market Value , 1986 .

[28]  N. Leff,et al.  Industrial Organization and Entrepreneurship in the Developing Countries: The Economic Groups , 1978, Economic Development and Cultural Change.

[29]  성태경,et al.  국내외 공공연구시스템의 변천과 우리의 발전과제(The evolution of public research systems of major countries and policy recommendations for Korea) , 2007 .

[30]  Henry Etzkowitz,et al.  Universities and the global knowledge economy , 1997 .

[31]  M. Carree,et al.  Heterogeneity in R&D cooperation strategies , 2004 .

[32]  Richard T. Harrison,et al.  Innovation and cooperation in the small firm sector: Evidence from ‘Northern Britain’ , 2006 .

[33]  Morton I. Kamien,et al.  Market Structure and Innovation: A Survey , 1975 .

[34]  Petri Rouvinen,et al.  Characteristics of product and process innovators: some evidence from the Finnish innovation survey , 2002 .

[35]  Keun Lee,et al.  Technological Regimes, Catching-Up and Leapfrogging: Findings from the Korean Industries , 2001 .

[36]  E. Penrose.  The theory of the growth of the firm twenty-five years after , 1960 .

[37]  H. Etzkowitz,et al.  The Future of the University and the University of the Future: Evolution of Ivory Tower to Entrepreneurial Paradigm , 2000 .

[38]  L. Leydesdorff,et al.  The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and , 2000 .

[39]  Reinhilde Veugelers,et al.  Complementarity in the Innovation Strategy: Internal R&D, External Technology Acquisition, and Cooperation in R&D , 2002 .

[40]  B. Tether.  Who co-operates for innovation, and why: An empirical analysis , 2002 .

[41]  Christopher F. Baum.  An Introduction to Modern Econometrics Using Stata , 2006 .

[42]  Jack H. Knott,et al.  If Dissemination Is the Solution, What Is the Problem ? , 1980 .

[43]  K. Pavitt.  Sectoral Patterns of Technical Change : Towards a Taxonomy and a Theory : Research Policy , 1984 .

[44]  Nabil Amara,et al.  Determinants of knowledge transfer: evidence from Canadian university researchers in natural sciences and engineering , 2007 .

[45]  George J. Stigler,et al.  The Organization of Industry , 1969 .

[46]  Pierre Mohnen,et al.  Série Scientifique Scientific Series What Type of Enterprise Forges Close Links with Universities and Government Labs? Evidence from Cis 2 What Type of Enterprise Forges Close Links with Universities and Government Labs? Evidence from Cis 2 , 2022 .

[47]  Patrick Waelbroeck,et al.  Assessing spillovers from universities to firms: evidence from French firm-level data , 2003 .

[48]  Albert N. Link,et al.  Opening the ivory tower's door: An analysis of the determinants of the formation of U.S. university spin-off companies , 2005 .

[49]  R. Veugelers,et al.  R&D Cooperation between Firms and Universities: Some Empirical Evidence from Belgian Manufacturing , 2003 .

[50]  Keun Lee,et al.  Emerging digital technology as a window of opportunity and technological leapfrogging: catch-up in digital TV by the Korean firms , 2005, Int. J. Technol. Manag..