|
on Small Business Management |
|
Issue of 2012‒11‒11
five papers chosen by Joao Carlos Correia Leitao University of Beira Interior and Technical University of Lisbon |
| By: | Eleonora Lorenzini (Department of Economics and Management, University of Pavia) |
| Abstract: | This paper draws on the literature on innovation in clusters and e-commerce to investigate how a particular kind of innovation project, the establishment of a regional e-marketplace (REM), may contribute to regional development. Using a firm-centred perspective, the role of geographical and cognitive proximity, absorptive capacity and other firm characteristics in the adoption and development of this particular type of innovation project is assessed. Hypotheses are tested with reference to the case of an REM recently established in the Italian area of Valtellina. The policy implications of the study are that REMs deserve support as an instrument of territorial development both in the establishment and in the implementation phase, more with “soft policies” than with “hard policies”. |
| Keywords: | clusters, innovation policy, e-commerce, proximity, Italy |
| Date: | 2012–10 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:pav:demwpp:demwp0003&r=sbm |
| By: | Paola Cardamone; Valeria Pupo; Fernanda Ricotta (Dipartimento di Economia e Statistica, Università della Calabria) |
| Abstract: | This paper analyses the influence of universities on Italian firm TFP at the provincial level separating the effects of main university functions, such as the creation of knowledge through research, the creation of human capital through teaching and the technology transfer. Overall, results show that the presence of the universities does not seem to affect firm productivity. If, instead, we focus only on the most developed and productive area of the country, the North of Italy, the results change: we find that university activities significantly improve firm performance. |
| Keywords: | University, R&D activities, Total Factor Productivity |
| JEL: | O30 D24 C21 |
| Date: | 2012–10 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:clb:wpaper:201207&r=sbm |
| By: | Hermans J.; Vanderstraeten J.; Dejardin M.; Ramdani D.; Stam E.; Van Witteloostuijn A. |
| Abstract: | In the recent literature on entrepreneurship there is a growing body of knowledge that recognizes that some entrepreneurs have higher ambitions than others and that these entrepreneurial ambitions are an important antecedent of actual firm success. Consequently, it is not surprising that ambitious entrepreneurship gradually becomes a topic of high interest for policy makers and scholars (e.g., Gundry and Welsch, 2001; Van Gelderen, 2006). Nevertheless, there does not yet exist a clearly defined overview of what is known (and not known) about this topic. Moreover, although authors advocate that the difference between high and low entrepreneurial ambitions should be recognized (Cassar 2007), few studies actually distinguish between ambitious entrepreneurs and their less-ambitious counterparts. In this paper, we address this gap and provide a structured overview of existing literature on ambitious entrepreneurship. Our analysis confirms that ambitious entrepreneurs are an interesting population for the research community as well as for policy makers and other practitioners. Indeed, it suggests that ambitious entrepreneurs have a specific impact upon the economy and contribute to the quality of entrepreneurial activity. From a conceptual point of view, the review reveals that there is no consensus with regard to the operationalization of ambitious entrepreneurship and growth ambitions in general. As outcomes of this review, we indentify promising paths for future research and we propose the concept of a projecting process to clarify the link between growth attitude, growth intention and growth expectation. |
| Date: | 2012–10 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:ant:wpaper:2012023&r=sbm |
| By: | Richard Jensen (Department of Economics, University of Notre Dame) |
| Abstract: | This paper empirically examines commercialization of university faculty inventions through startup firms from 1994 through 2008. Using data from the Association of University Technology Managers and the 2010 NRC doctoral rankings, our research reveals several findings. We find that university entrepreneurship is more common in bad economic times and that engineering department quality and biological sciences department size are more important after the NASDAQ stock market crash in 2000. We also find that the quality of a biological sciences department is positively associated with startup company activity. Conditional on creating one startup, each additional TTO employee significantly increases university startups. |
| Keywords: | Startups, Entrepreneurship, Innovation |
| JEL: | I23 M13 O31 |
| Date: | 2012–07 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:nod:wpaper:009&r=sbm |
| By: | Francesco LISSONI (GREThA, CNRS, UMR 5113); Fabio MONTOBBIO (KITeS, Université BOCCONI - Milan) |
| Abstract: | This paper compares the value and impact of academic patents in five European countries with different institutional frameworks: Denmark, France, Italy, the Netherlands, and Sweden. Ownership patterns of academic patents are found to: (i) differ greatly across country, due to a combination of legal norms on IP and institutional features of the university system; (ii) be strongly associated to academic patents\' value, as measured by patent citations. Company-owned academic patents tend to be as cited as non-academic ones, while university-owned tend to be less cited. Academic patents in the Netherlands are more cited than non-academic ones, irrespective to their ownership, while university-owned patents get fewer citations in both France and Italy. We propose an explanation of these results based on the different autonomy and experience in dealing with IP and technology transfer enjoyed by universities in the countries considered. We also find that company-owned academic patents in Sweden get many fewer citations than non-academic. Individually-owned academic patents are more cited than non-academic patents similarly owned by their inventors. |
| Keywords: | Academic patents, Academic entrepreneurship, Patent citations, University system, Technology Transfer, Professor privilege |
| JEL: | O31 O32 O33 O34 |
| Date: | 2012 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:grt:wpegrt:2012-24&r=sbm |