Different Missions and Commitment Power in R&D Organizations: Theory and Evidence on Industry-University Alliances

References

• Adams J., Chiang E., Starkey K. Industry-university cooperative research centers. (2000) . Working Paper 7843, NBER, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
• Aghion P., Dewatripont M., Stein J. Academia, the private sector, and the process of innovation. (2005) . Working Paper 11540, NBER, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
• Argyres N. S., Liebeskind J. P. Privatizing the intellectual common: Universities and the commercialization of biotechnology. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. (1998) 35:427–454Crossref, Google Scholar
• Argyres N. S., Mui V.-L. Rules of engagement, credibility and the political economy of organizational dissent. Strategic Organ. (2007) 5(2):107–154Crossref, Google Scholar
• Arora A., David P., Gambardella A. Reputation and competence in publicly funded science: Estimating the effects on research group productivity. Annales D'Economie Statistique (1998) 49/50:163–198Google Scholar
• Azoulay P., Stellman A., Zivin J. G. Publication harvester: An open-source software tool for science policy research. Res. Policy (2006) 35(7):970–974Crossref, Google Scholar
• Baker G., Gibbons R., Murphy K. J. Informal authority in organizations. J. Law, Econom. Organ. (1999) 15:56–73Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bartlett C. A., Mohammed A. 3M: Profile of an innovating company. (1995) . Harvard Business School Case 9-365-016, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
• Ben-David J.Centres of Learning: Britain, France, Germany, United States (1977) (McGraw-Hill, New York) Google Scholar
• Bok D.Universities in the Marketplace. The Commercialization of Higher Education (2003) (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ) Google Scholar
• Brown E. S. DuPont MIT alliance stretches beyond biotech. Tech. Insider (2005) June):7–8Google Scholar
• Buderi R.Engines of Tomorrow: How the World's Best Companies Are Using Their Research Labs to Win the Future (2000) (Simon & Schuster, New York) Google Scholar
• Cockburn I., Henderson R. Absorptive capacity, coauthoring behavior, and the organization of research in drug discovery. J. Indust. Econom. (1998) 46(2):157–182Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cockburn I., Henderson R., Stern S. Balancing incentives: The tension between basic and applied research. (1999) . Working Paper 6882, NBER, Cambridge, MACrossref, Google Scholar
• Cohen W., Levinthal D. Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Admin. Sci. Quart. (1990) 35(1):128–152Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cohen W., Florida R., Goe W.University-Industry Research Centers in the United States (1994) (Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh) Google Scholar
• Dalpé R. Interaction between public research organizations and industry in biotechnology. Managerial Decision Econom. (2003) 24:171–185Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dasgupta P., David P. Towards a new economics of science. Res. Policy (1994) 23:487–521Crossref, Google Scholar
• David P. Understanding the emergence of “open science” institutions: Functionalist economics in historical context. Indust. Corporate Change (2004) 13(4):571–589Crossref, Google Scholar
• Davies K.Cracking the Genome (2001) (Free Press, New York) Google Scholar
• Gautier A., Wauthy X. Teaching versus research: A multi-tasking approach to multi-department universities. Eur. Econom. Rev. (2007) 51:273–295Crossref, Google Scholar
• Geiger R. L.Knowledge and Money (2004) (Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA) Google Scholar
• Geuna A., Salter A., Steinmueller W. E.Science and Innovation: Rethinking the Rationales for Funding and Governance (2003) (Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK) Google Scholar
• Gibbons M., Limoges C., Nowotny H., Schwartzman S., Scott P.The New Production of Knowledge (1994) (Sage, London) Google Scholar
• Gibbons R. Four formal(izable) theories of the firm? J. Econom. Behav. Organ. (2005) 58:200–245Crossref, Google Scholar
• Goldfarb B. The effect of government contracting on academic research: Does the source of funding affect research output? Res. Policy (2008) 37(1):41–58Crossref, Google Scholar
• Griffiths V. If the science looks good, I'll go after it. Financial Times (2005) February 11Google Scholar
• Guedj I. Ownership versus contract: How does vertical integration affect investment decisions? Evidence from pharmaceutical R&D projects. (2004) . Working paper, University of Texas at Austin, AustinGoogle Scholar
• Hall B. H., Link A. N., Scott J. T. Universities as research partners. (2000) . Working Paper 7643, NBER, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
• Hart O., Holmstrom B. A theory of firm scope. (2002) . Working Paper 02-42, MIT Department of Economics, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
• Higgins M. J. The allocation of control rights in pharmaceutical alliances. J. Corporate Finance (2007) 13:58–75Crossref, Google Scholar
• Howitt P. The economics of science and the future of universities. (2003) . The Timlin Lecture, University of SaskatchewanGoogle Scholar
• IFAS (Institute for Food and Agricultural Standards) External review of the collaborative research agreement between Novartis Agricultural Discovery Institute, Inc. and the regents of the University of California. (2004) (Michigan State University, East Lansing) Google Scholar
• Jensen R., Thursby M. Proofs and prototypes for sale: The licensing of university inventions. Amer. Econom. Rev. (2001) 91(1):240–259Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kenney M.Biotechnology: The Industry-University Complex (1986) (Yale University Press, New Haven, CT) Google Scholar
• Kocabiyik-Hansen Z. Effect of technological progress on contractual agreements: Empirical analysis of pharmaceutical and biotechnology collaborations. (2004) . Working paper, Washington University in St. Louis, St. LouisGoogle Scholar
• Lacetera N. Openness and authority in industry-university relations. (2006) . Working paper, Case Western Reserve University, ClevelandGoogle Scholar
• Lazear E. Incentives in basic research. J. Labor Econom. (1997) 15(1):S167–S197Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lawler A. Last of the big-time spenders? Science (2003) 299:330–333Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lerner J., Merges R. The control of technology alliances: An empirical analysis of the biotechnology industry. J. Indust. Econom. (1998) 46(2):125–156Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lerner J., Malmendier U. Contractibility and the design of research agreements. (2005) . Working paper, Harvard University, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
• Lerner J., Tirole J. The economics of technology sharing: Open source and beyond. J. Econom. Perspectives (2005) 19(2):99–120Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lim K. The many faces of absorptive capacity: Spillovers of copper interconnect technology for semiconductor chips. (2000) . Working paper, MIT, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
• Mansfield E., Lee J.-Y. The modem university: Contributor to industrial innovation and recipient of industrial R&D support. Res. Policy (1996) 25:1047–1058Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mansfield E., Rapoport J., Wagner S., Beardsley G. Social and private rates of return from industrial innovation. Quart. J. Econom. (1977) 91(2):221–240Crossref, Google Scholar
• Manso G. Motivating innovation. (2006) . Working paper, MIT, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
• Markiewitz K. R. Firm capabilities and absorptive capacity: Implications for exploitation of public science and the pace of knowledge exploitation. (2004) . Working paper, Duke University, Durham, NCGoogle Scholar
• Masten S. E. Authority and commitment: Why universities, like legislatures, are not organized as firms. J. Econom. Management Strategy (2006) 15(3):649–684Crossref, Google Scholar
• Merton R. K., Storer N. W.The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations (1973) (University of Chicago Press, Chicago) Google Scholar
• Mowery D., Teece D. J., Rosenbloom , Spencer . Strategic alliances industrial research. Engines Innovation (1996) (Harvard Business School Press, Cambridge, MA) Google Scholar
• National Science FoundationSci. Engrg. Indicators. (2002) (NSF, Arlington, VA) Google Scholar
• Nelson R. The link between science and invention: The case of transistor. The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors (1962) (NBER, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ) Google Scholar
• Nelson R. The market economy and the scientific commons. Res. Policy (2004) 33:455–471Crossref, Google Scholar
• Odlyzko A. M. The decline of unfettered research. (1995) . MimeoGoogle Scholar
• Powell W. W., Owen-Smith J. Universities and the market for intellectual property in the life science. J. Policy Anal. Management (1998) 17(2):253–277Crossref, Google Scholar
• Press E., Washburn J. The kept university. The Atlantic Monthly (2000) MarchGoogle Scholar
• Robinson D., Stuart T. Financial contracting in biotech strategic alliances. J. Law Econom. (2007) 50(3):559–596Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rosenberg N. Why do firms do basic research (with their own money)? Res. Policy (1990) 19(2):165–174Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rosenberg N., Nelson R. R. American universities and technical advance in industry. Res. Policy (1994) 23(3):323–348Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rosenbloom R. S., Spencer W. J.Engines of Innovation: US Industrial Research at the End of an Era (1996) (Harvard Business School Press, Cambridge, MA) Google Scholar
• Rotemberg J., Saloner G. The benefits of narrow business strategies. Amer. Econom. Rev. (1994) 84:1330–1349Google Scholar
• Saloner G., Rotemberg J. Visionaries, managers, and strategic direction. RAND J. Econom. (2000) 31(4):693–716Crossref, Google Scholar
• Saltus R. Drug not as potent as many hoped. The Boston Globe (2000) November 7):A17Google Scholar
• Scherer F.The Weapons Acquisition Process: Economic Incentives (1964) (Harvard Business School Press, Cambridge, MA) Google Scholar
• Sharma A., Norton S. Funding for basic science has little traction in Congress. Congressional Quart. (2004) July 3Google Scholar
• Simon H. A. A formal theory of the employment relationship. Econometrica (1951) 19(3):293–305Crossref, Google Scholar
• Stephan P. The economics of science. J. Econom. Literature (1996) 34(3):1199–1235Google Scholar
• Stern S. Do scientists pay to be scientists? Management Sci. (2004) 50(6):835–853Link, Google Scholar
• University of California The University of California's relationships with industry in research and technology transfer. Proceedings of the President's Retreat (1997) (University of California)Google Scholar
• Veugelers R., Cassiman B. R&D cooperation between firms and universities. Some empirical evidence from Belgian manufacturing. Internat. J. Indust. Organ. (2005) 23:355–379Crossref, Google Scholar
• Von Nordenflycht A. Is public ownership bad for professional service firms? Ad agency ownership, performance and creativity. Acad. Management J. (2007) 50(2):429–445Crossref, Google Scholar