4.3 Article

The Effects of Academic Incubators on University Innovation

期刊

STRATEGIC ENTREPRENEURSHIP JOURNAL
卷 11, 期 2, 页码 145-170

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/sej.1242

关键词

incubators; patents; innovation; forward citations; licensing

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Research summaryIn this article, we analyze the impact of academic incubators on the quality of innovations produced by U.S. research-intensive academic institutions. We show that establishing a university-affiliated incubator is followed by a reduction in the quality of university innovations. The conclusion holds when we control for the endogeneity of the decision to establish an incubator using the presence of incubators at peer institutions as an instrument. We also document a reduction in licensing income following the establishment of an incubator. The results suggest that university incubators compete for resources with technology transfer offices and other campus programs and activities, such that the useful outputs they generate can be partially offset by reductions in innovation elsewhere. Managerial summaryDo university incubators drain resources from other university efforts to generate innovations with commercial relevance? Our analysis suggests that they do: after research-intensive U.S. universities establish incubators, the quality of university innovations, which we measure with patents, drops. This finding has immediate implications for practice, as it suggests that the benefits and costs of incubation should not be analyzed in isolation. Rather, the effects of incubators extend to the overall innovation performance of the university. It follows that measuring the net economic effect of incubators is challenging because besides the effects on innovation efforts, the presence of an incubator may attract particular kinds of faculty and students, enhance the prestige of the university, generate economic multiplier effects, and benefit the community as a whole. Copyright (c) 2016 Strategic Management Society.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据