Elsevier

Technovation

Volume 103, May 2021, 102224
Technovation

A dynamic capabilities perspective on pro-market reforms and university technology transfer in a transition economy

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2021.102224Get rights and content

Highlights

  • A greater scope of pro-market reforms has a positive impact on UTT.

  • A greater speed of pro-market reforms has a negative impact on UTT.

  • University staff size moderates the impact of the scope/speed of reforms on UTT.

  • UI linkages moderates the impact of the scope/speed of reforms on UTT.

Abstract

Pro-market reforms are a form of institutional change from a socialist economy to a market economy. As the institutional environment in a transition economy changes, pro-market reforms exert a significant influence on university technology transfer (UTT). By leveraging dynamic capabilities in the context of universities, this study develops a theoretical framework for analyzing how the scope (degree) and speed (rate) of pro-market reforms in a transition economy are related to UTT. Additionally, this study analyzes whether or not the relationship between the scope/speed of pro-market reforms and UTT differs across universities depending on staff size and university-industry (UI) linkages. To test our hypotheses, we use 1061 universities in 31 Chinese sub-national regions (provinces) from 2005 to 2013. The results show that a greater scope of pro-market reforms has a positive impact on UTT, while a greater speed of pro-market reforms has a negative impact on UTT. We also find that the positive relationship between the scope of pro-market reforms and UTT is more pronounced for universities with fewer staff members or more UI linkages, and the negative relationship between the speed of pro-market reforms and UTT is less pronounced for universities with more staff members or more UI linkages. Overall, this study opens avenues for understanding the relationship between pro-market reforms and UTT in a transition economy.

Introduction

University technology transfer (UTT), involving the transfer of scientific breakthroughs and technological innovations to the marketplace, is considered by growing numbers of scholars as a fundamental mechanism for enhancing economic growth and regional development (González-Pernía et al., 2013; Mendoza and Sanchez, 2018). UTT occurs as a highly contextual phenomenon (Švarc and Dabić, 2019) and depends on contextual factors related to external institutional characteristics, socioeconomic conditions, and university-specific traits (Sandström et al., 2018). Since transition economies, such as China, are experiencing pro-market reforms from socialist economies to market economies, while non-transition economies are not, the institutional and socioeconomic contexts in which UTT is embedded differ between the two types of economies. Thus, UTT in transition economies will not develop as in non-transition economies (Sandström et al., 2018; Švarc and Dabić, 2019). In practical terms, non-transition economies often implement specific innovation and entrepreneurship policies that are designed to enhance UTT, such as the Bayh-Dole Act and the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program in the US, the German Excellence Initiative, and the Professor Privilege in Europe (Cunningham et al., 2019; Korosteleva and Belitski, 2017; Martínez and Sterzi; 2020; Siegel and Wessner, 2012). However, in addition to emulating these UTT-specific policies, transition economies also adopt a series of pro-market reforms policies to stimulate UTT with the goal of creating a UTT-friendly institutional environment, policies such as the Reform and Opening-up in China,1 and European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF) in Croatia2 (Hong et al., 2016; Švarc and Dabić, 2019). Thus, unlike in non-transition economies, in transition economies, UTT is supposed to be influenced profoundly by the implementation of pro-market reforms.

In transition economies, compared with privatization of state enterprises and the development of new small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), UTT may be an more effective form of innovation and entrepreneurship activity (Švarc, 2014; Švarc and Dabić, 2019; Kshetri, 2009); UTT not only generates more funding for university research and education missions but also creates wealth for societies (Sandström et al., 2018; Yuan et al., 2018). As a result, in transition economies, both university administrators and government policy makers have a particular interest in UTT. Considering that transition economies are enacting pro-market reforms, an investigation into the relationship between pro-market reforms and UTT will help university administrators evaluate and adjust their UTT strategies to respond and adapt to reforms and help policy makers design and implement effective policies for pro-market reforms.

Although scholars show a strong academic interest in pro-market reforms and UTT, unfortunately, the relationship between these two concepts has received limited attention. In the pro-market reforms literature, scholars argue that pro-market reforms are an essential institutional change in transition economies and exhibit various scopes (degrees) and speeds (rates) within a country and across countries (Shi et al., 2017). They also find mixed effects of pro-market reforms on firm performance and innovation and entrepreneurship activities. For example, some scholars confirm a positive or U-shaped relationship between the scope of reforms and both firm profitability and technology transfer (Chari and Banalieva, 2015; Cuervo-Cazurra and Dau, 2009; Yi et al., 2015). Other scholars find a negative or inverted U-shaped relationship between the speed of reforms and both firm performance and innovation activities (Banalieva et al., 2015; Lin et al., 2018; Putzhammer et al., 2020). In addition, in the UTT literature, scholars find that university-specific traits, external institutional characteristics and socioeconomic conditions all influence UTT (Sandström et al., 2018). By combining these two streams of the literature, we posit that pro-market reforms are a salient institutional characteristic in transition economies and should exert an impact on UTT, for which some scholars have been calling (Švarc and Dabić, 2019; Yuan et al., 2018). However, to date, scarce research attention has been paid to the impact of pro-market reforms on UTT.

Leveraging the dynamic capabilities perspective (Leih and Teece, 2016; Teece, 2007, 2016), we develop a framework to theorize how changes in pro-market reforms (which are reflected in the scope and speed of reforms) in a transition economy bring about opportunities and challenges for the intellectual property (IP) outputs of UTT, including patenting, licensing, and licensing revenue. Additionally, researchers have suggested that because university-specific traits, such as staff size and university-industry (UI) linkages, determine the university's dynamic capabilities, different universities will respond differently to a changing environment (Leih and Teece, 2016). Accordingly, we further investigate whether or not the relationship between the scope/speed of pro-market reforms and UTT differs across universities depending on their dynamic capabilities. We test our hypothesized relationships with a sample of 1061 universities in 31 Chinese provinces from 2005 to 2013.

Our study contributes to theory and empirical evidence and provides important implications for university administrators and policy makers. First, theoretically, we integrate the dynamic capabilities perspective to advance the research on the impact of pro-market reforms on UTT. By theorizing about the opportunities/challenges in terms of UTT brought about by the scope/speed of pro-market reforms, we broaden our knowledge of pro-market reforms and extend the application of dynamic capabilities in the context of universities. Second, empirically, we provide the first set of empirical evidence on the relationship between pro-market reforms and UTT and on how this relationship differs in different sub-national regions in a transition economy. Finally, practically, our research further confirms that both university administrators and policy makers need to be aware that the opportunities and challenges of pro-market reforms coexist for UTT and should prepare well to adjust their UTT strategy and reforms policy, respectively.

Section snippets

Research background and literature review

In this section, to introduce our research question, we provide research ground and literature review on pro-market reforms and UTT, respectively. We first briefly review the pro-market reforms literature and explain that the scope and speed of pro-market reforms are crucial in understanding the effects of reforms on UTT in a transition economy. Then, we review the UTT literature and specify that it is necessary to investigate the effect of pro-market reforms on UTT in a transition economy.

A dynamic capabilities perspective of UTT

Dynamic capabilities refer to “an organization's (or institution's) ability to integrate, build, and reconfigure internal and external competencies to address rapidly changing environments” (Leih and Teece, 2016, p. 187). Although the dynamic capabilities literature focuses on for-profit organizations, scholars have argued that a dynamic capabilities perspective can be extended to not-for-profit organizations (e.g., universities and public institutions) to probe more in-depth into the

Data and sample

We test these hypotheses on the longitudinal data of universities present in China from 2005 to 2013. University samples are obtained from the Science and Technology Statistical Data of Higher Education Institutions (STSDHEI) between 2005 and 2013 (inclusive). The STSDHEI is a statistical yearbook provided by the Ministry of Education of China. We first identify 1170 universities and 8144 university-year observations. Considering the panel data estimation requirements, we exclude universities

Results

Table 1 presents the descriptive statistics and correlation matrix. To check for possible multicollinearity, we also examine the variance inflation factors (VIFs). In our models, all VIF values are well below the threshold value of 10, and the mean VIF value is 1.40. This result suggests that multicollinearity is not significant.

Table 2 reports the results from the multilevel negative binomial regression analysis. Models 1–3 are the base models and include all control variables and moderators.

Robustness tests

We conduct further analyses to check the robustness of our findings.

First, to enhance the robustness of the independent variable, we use Fan et al.’s (2011) index of marketization for each sub-national region in the period 2008–2013, instead of Banalieva et al.’s (2015) index, which we adopted previously, to measure the scope and speed of pro-market reforms. The effects of a greater scope of pro-market reforms on the three aspects of UTT remain positive and significant, and those of a greater

Discussion

For both transition and non-transition economies, UTT is considered an effective vehicle for innovation and entrepreneurial activity (Siegel et al., 2007; Švarc, 2014). Extant studies have explored the contextual factors of UTT and maintained that UTT occurs as a highly contextual phenomenon (e.g., Belitski et al., 2019; Cunningham et al., 2019; Fischer et al., 2018; Sternberg, 2014). However, these studies have concentrated on North America and Europe (Sandström et al., 2018), and studies on

Limitations and future research

There are a few limitations to our research that suggest a series of promising future directions. First, despite highlighting the dynamic capabilities in the context of universities, we do not directly measure them. To the best of our knowledge, this is a common limitation in research on dynamic capabilities. Previous reviews of the dynamic capabilities literature have not found direct measures for dynamic capabilities either in the context of firms (Barreto, 2010; Easterby-Smith et al., 2009;

Conclusions

In conclusion, this study investigates the relationship between pro-market reforms and UTT in the case of China and examines the moderating effect of university staff size and UI linkages on this relationship. Leveraging the dynamic capabilities perspective in the context of universities, we develop a conceptual framework to explain how changes in pro-market reforms in terms of the scope and speed dimensions over time influence UTT in a transition economy. A greater scope of sub-national

Funding

This study was jointly funded by Humanities and Social Science Fund of The Education Department of Henan Province (2021-ZZJH-077), National Office for Philosophy and Social Sciences (20CGL017), High-level Talent Fund of Henan University of Technology (32400325), and Philosophy and Social Science Fund of Henan Province (2019CJJ093).

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the editor and the anonymous reviewers for their comments on earlier versions of the paper. We also would like to thank Humanities and Social Science Fund of The Education Department of Henan Province (2021-ZZJH-077), National Office for Philosophy and Social Sciences (20CGL017), High-level Talent Fund of Henan University of Technology (32400325), and Philosophy and Social Science Fund of Henan Province (2019CJJ093) for providing funding for this research.

References (101)

  • R. Fini et al.

    Complements or substitutes? The role of universities and local context in supporting the creation of academic spin-offs

    Res. Pol.

    (2011)
  • J. Galende et al.

    Internal factors determining a firm's innovative behaviour

    Res. Pol.

    (2003)
  • A. Geuna

    Determinants of university participation in EU-funded R&D cooperative projects

    Res. Pol.

    (1998)
  • R. Grimaldi et al.

    30 years after Bayh-Dole: reassessing academic entrepreneurship

    Res. Pol.

    (2011)
  • M. Guerrero et al.

    Economic impact of entrepreneurial universities' activities: an exploratory study of the United Kingdom

    Res. Pol.

    (2015)
  • J. Hagedoorn et al.

    Partnerships in transition economies: international strategic technology alliances in Russia

    Res. Pol.

    (1998)
  • J. Hong et al.

    Do government grants promote innovation efficiency in China's high-tech industries?

    Technovation

    (2016)
  • P. Intarakumnerd et al.

    National innovation system in less successful developing countries: the case of Thailand

    Res. Pol.

    (2002)
  • W.H.A. Johnson et al.

    Patenting and the role of technology markets in regional innovation in China: an empirical analysis

    J. High Technol. Manag. Res.

    (2011)
  • J.A. Keizer et al.

    Explaining innovative efforts of SMEs.: an exploratory survey among SMEs in the mechanical and electrical engineering sector in The Netherlands

    Technovation

    (2002)
  • T.H. Malik

    National institutional differences and cross-border university-industry knowledge transfer

    Res. Pol.

    (2013)
  • R. McAdam et al.

    The development of university technology transfer stakeholder relationships at a regional level: lessons for the future

    Technovation

    (2012)
  • J. Owen-Smith et al.

    The expanding role of university patenting in the life sciences: assessing the importance of experience and connectivity

    Res. Pol.

    (2003)
  • M. Putzhammer et al.

    Multinational firms' pace of expansion within host countries: how high rates of pro-market reform hamper the local exploitation of foreign expansion knowledge

    J. Int. Manag.

    (2020)
  • D.S. Siegel et al.

    Assessing the impact of organizational practices on the relative productivity of university technology transfer offices: an exploratory study

    Res. Pol.

    (2003)
  • R. Sternberg

    Success factors of university-spin-offs: regional government support programs versus regional environment

    Technovation

    (2014)
  • D.J. Teece

    Dynamic capabilities and entrepreneurial management in large organizations: toward a theory of the (entrepreneurial) firm

    Eur. Econ. Rev.

    (2016)
  • D. Wang et al.

    Exploring the influence of political connections and managerial overconfidence on R&D intensity in China's large-scale private sector firms

    Technovation

    (2018)
  • J. Arregle et al.

    Mode of international entry: the advantages of multilevel methods

    Mir. Manag. Int. Rev.

    (2006)
  • D.B. Audretsch et al.

    Entrepreneurial ecosystems in cities: establishing the framework conditions

    J. Technol. Tran.

    (2017)
  • D. Audretsch et al.

    Technology transfer and entrepreneurship: cross-national analysis

    J. Technol. Tran.

    (2016)
  • E.R. Banalieva et al.

    When do family firms have an advantage in transitioning economies? Toward a dynamic institution-based view

    Strat. Manag. J.

    (2015)
  • I. Barreto

    Dynamic capabilities: a review of past research and an agenda for the future

    J. Manag.

    (2010)
  • R. Belderbos et al.

    Direct and mediated ties to universities: "scientific" absorptive capacity and innovation performance of pharmaceutical firms

    Strat. Organ.

    (2016)
  • S. Belenzon et al.

    University knowledge transfer: private ownership, incentives, and local development objectives

    J. Law Econ.

    (2009)
  • P.C. Boardman et al.

    University researchers working with private companies

    Technovation

    (2009)
  • S.M. Breznitz et al.

    University commercialization strategies in the development of regional bioclusters

    J. Prod. Innovat. Manag.

    (2008)
  • C.M. Chan et al.

    Does subnational region matter? Foreign affiliate performance in the United States and China

    Strat. Manag. J.

    (2010)
  • A. Chen et al.

    University technology transfer in China: a literature review and taxonomy

    J. Technol. Tran.

    (2016)
  • G.W. Cheung et al.

    Testing mediation and suppression effects of latent variables

    Organ. Res. Methods

    (2008)
  • A. Cuervo-Cazurra et al.

    Promarket reforms and firm profitability in developing countries

    Acad. Manag. J.

    (2009)
  • J.A. Cunningham et al.

    The impact of university focused technology transfer policies on regional innovation and entrepreneurship

    J. Technol. Tran.

    (2019)
  • R.M. Cyert et al.

    Creating effective university-industry alliances: an organizational learning perspective

    Organ. Dynam.

    (1997)
  • M. Easterby-Smith et al.

    Dynamic capabilities: current debates and future directions

    Br. J. Manag.

    (2009)
  • G. Fan et al.

    NERI Index of Marketization of China's Provinces 2011 Report

    (2011)
  • B.B. Fischer et al.

    Quality comes first: university-industry collaboration as a source of academic entrepreneurship in a developing country

    J. Technol. Tran.

    (2018)
  • V. Franičević et al.

    EU accession and Croatia's two economic goals: modern economic growth and modern regulated capitalism

    Southeast Eur. Black Sea Stud.

    (2007)
  • J. Friedman et al.

    University technology transfer: do incentives, management, and location matter?

    J. Technol. Tran.

    (2003)
  • J.L. González-Pernía et al.

    An assessment of the determinants of university technology transfer

    Econ. Dev. Q.

    (2013)
  • H.M. Grimm et al.

    Testing the causal relationship between academic patenting and scientific publishing in Germany: crowding-out or reinforcement?

    J. Technol. Tran.

    (2015)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text