When Size Matters: Trends in Innovation and Patents in Latin American Universities

Luis Fernando Ramirez, Jairo Isaza Castro

Abstract


This paper characterizes the trends in technological innovation and intellectual property in four Latin American countries (Chile, Colombia, Mexico, and Peru). Toward this aim, we collected a database of patents granted at the national and university levels in combination with information from a variety of sources to construct a set of plausible explanatory variables. Based on panel data at the national level, we verify that the number of patents granted to universities is strongly associated with the share of resources, as a percentage of GDP, invested in science and technology. At the university level, we find that institutions with more scientific publications and larger enrolment size tend to be granted more innovation patents. To some extent, the evidence presented in this paper indicates that both the absolute and relative sizes of resources invested in scientific and technological research at the university level are subject to economies of scale: a greater amount of resources invested in technological research is associated with increasing levels of innovation and patenting activity.

Keywords


innovation, patents, R&D policy, universities, Latin America

Full Text:

PDF

References


Audretsch, D.B. (2014). From the entrepreneurial university to the university for the entrepreneurial society. Journal of Technology Transfer, 39, 313-321

Baglieri, D., Baldi, F., & Tucci, Ch. (2018). University technology transfer office business models: One size does not fit all. Technovation, 76–77, 51–63

Bradley, S., Hayter, C. S., & Link, A. N. (2013). Models and methods of university technology transfer. Foundations and trends in Entrepreneurship, 9 (6), 571 - 650.

Bush, V. (1945). Science, the Endless Frontier: a Report to the President. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Calcagnini, G. & Favaretto, I. (2016). Models of university technology transfer: analyses and policies. Journal of Technology Transfer, 41, 655 – 660

Cameron, C. & Trivedi, P. (2009) Microeconometrics using Stata. College Station, Texas, Stata Press.

Cantu-Ortiz, F., Galeano, N., Mora-Castro, P., & Fangmeyer Jr., J. (2017). Spreading academic entrepreneurship: Made in Mexico. Business Horizons, 60, 541-550

Chang, S. (2017). The technology networks and development trends of university-industry collaborative patents. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 118, 107-113

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. European Economic Review, 86, 131 – 146

Drivas, K., Economidou, C., Karamanis, D., & Zank, A. (2016). Academic patents and technology transfer. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 40, 45-63

Edquist, C., & Hommen, L. (1999). Systems of innovation: theory and policy for the demand side. Technology in Society, 21(1), 63-79.

Fish, C., Hassel, T., Sandner, P., & Block, J. (2015). University patenting: a comparison of 300 leading universities worldwide. Journal of Technology Transfer, 40(2), 318 - 345. doi:10.1007/s10961-014-9355-x

Fischer, B., Schaeffer, P., Vonortas, N., & Queiroz, S. (2018). Quality comes first: university-industry collaboration as a source of academic entrepreneurship in a developing country. Journal of Technology Transfer, 43 (2), 263-284

Geuna, A., & Rossi, F. (2011). Changes to university IPR regulations in Europe and the impact on academic patenting. Research Policy, 40, 1068 - 1076.

Godin, B. (2006). The Linear Model of Innovation: The Historical Construction of an Analytical Framework. Science, Technology & Human Values, 31, 639 - 667

Grimaldi, R., Kenney, M., Siegel, D., & Wright, M. (2011). 30 years after Bayh-Dole: Reassessing academic entrepreneurship. Research Policy, 40, 1045 – 1057

Guerrero, M., & Urbano, D. (2017). The impact of Triple Helix agents on entrepreneurial innovations' performance: An inside look at enterprises located in an emerging economy. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 119, 294 – 309

Hayter, C., & Rooksby, J. (2016). A legal perspective on university technology transfer. Journal of Technology Transfer, 43(8), 270 - 289. doi:10.1007/s10961-015-9436-5

Ho, M., Liu, J., Lu, W., & Hang, C. (2014). A new perspective to explore the technology transfer efficiencies in US universities. Journal of Technology Transfer, 39, 247 – 275

Hsu, W., & Ken, Y. (2014). License income of technology commercialization: The case of U.S. universities. The International Journal of Organizational Innovation, Vol 6, Num. 3, 21-30

Hsu, D., Shen, Y., Yuan, B., & Chou, C.J. (2015). Toward successful commercialization of university technology: Performance drivers of university technology transfer in Taiwan. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 92, 25-39

Jefferson, D.J., Maida, M., Farkas, A., Alandete-Saez, M., & Bennett, A.B. (2017). Technology transfer in the Americas: common and divergent practices among major research universities and public sector institutions. Journal of Technology Transfer, 42, 1307 – 1333

Kesan, J. P. (2015). Economic rationales for the Patent System in current context. George Mason Law Review, Vol 22:4, 897-924

Lundvall, B.A. (Ed.). (1992). National innovation systems: Towards a theory of innovation and interactive learning. London, UK: Pinter

Moutinho, R., Au-Yong-Oliveira, M., Coelho, A., & Manso, J.P. (2016). Determinants of knowledge-based entrepreneurship: an exploratory approach. International Entrepreneurship Management Journal, 12, 171-197

Nelson, R. (Ed.). (1993). National innovation systems: A comparative analysis. New York, NY: Oxford University Press

OECD (2014). Gross domestic spending on R&D (indicator). http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/d8b068b4

OECD (2016). Start-Up Latin America 2016: building an innovative future. Paris, France: OECD Publishing

Primi, A. (2014). Promoting Innovation in Latin America: What Countries Have Learned (and What They Have Not) in Designing and Implementing Innovation and Intellectual Property Polices (Doctoral Thesis, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands).

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, 92– 106

Rodeiro, D., López, F., Otero, L., & Sandías, R. (2010). Factores determinantes de la creación de spin-offs universitarias. Revista Europea de Dirección y Economía de la Empresa, 19(1), 47 – 68.

Russo-Spena, T., Tregua, M., & Bifulco, F. (2017). Searching through the jungle of innovation conceptualizations: System, network and ecosystem perspectives. Journal of Service Theory and Practice, Vol. 27 (5), p.977-1005

Sargent, J., & Matthews, L. (2014). Latin American Universities and Technology Commercialization. Latin American Business Review, 15, 167–190

Savescu, D. (2017, January). The importance of Intellectual Property Protection in Technological Transfer. Some aspects. Fiability & Durability, No. 1, 135 – 141

Siegel, D.S., & Wright, M. (2015). Academic Entrepreneurship: Time for a Rethink? British Journal of Management, 2, 582-595

Thompson, N.C., Ziedonis, A.A., & Mowery, D.C. (2016). University Licensing and the Flow of Scientific Knowledge. MIT Sloan School Working Paper, 5189-16, 1-33

UNDP (2017). The Sustainable Development Goals Report. New York, NY: United Nations Publications

White, H. (1980). A Heteroskedasticity-Consistent Covariance Matrix Estimator and a Direct Test for Heteroskedasticity. Econometrica, 48, 817-838.

WIPO (2016). Understanding Industrial Property. Genève, Switzerland: WIPO Publications.

Wooldridge, J.M. (2002) Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.




Copyright (c) 2019 Journal of Technology Management & Innovation

2019 © Universidad Alberto Hurtado - Facultad de Economía y Negocios. 
Erasmo Escala 1835 - Santiago, Chile.
Economic Analysis Review | Observatorio Económico | Gestión y Tendencias 

Journal Supported by