Search

Analysing a comprehensive panel dataset of economists working at Austrian, German, and Swiss universities, we investigate how the local environment influences a scientist’s research productivity. The research environment varies if a scientist joins another department or if the characteristics of his colleagues change. We find no influence of the research environment on the average researcher’s productivity, if we control for individual characteristics. This result indicates that with today’s communication technologies spillovers are not bounded locally., KOF Working Papers, 342

This paper analyzes the labor productivity of Swiss university departments between 1995 and 2007. Using a parametric input distance function we estimate and decompose the Malmquist productivity indexes in line with Fuentes et al. (2001) and Atkinson et al. (2003). By contrast to those studies, this paper proposes a panel data specification to account for unobserved heterogeneity across production units. The adopted model is a mixed-effects model with department fixed effects as well as random coefficients for time variables. We also use an autoregressive stochastic term to model inefficiency shocks while allowing for gradual improvement of persistent inefficiencies. The results indicate a negative trend in overall productivity measured by Malmquist index, particularly after 2002, with an average productivity decline of about one percent per year. A major part of this productivity decline coincides with the recent developments in Switzerland’s higher education system following the adoption of the Bologna agreement. However, the results do not provide any evidence of statistically significant relationship between productivity and reforms. Our decomposition analysis suggests that the observed productivity decline could be contributed to technical regress but also to a rising inefficiency with a relatively high level of persistence. The results also point to various patterns across different fields. In particular, economics and business departments and law schools show the lowest performance, whereas science departments stand out as an exception with productivity improvement., KOF Working Papers, 278

This paper provides first micro-level evidence of the global university production frontier, allowing to estimate technical efficiencies of 273 top research universities across 29 countries between 2007 and 2009. Exploiting comparable international data improves the estimation of the production technology, allows to assess the distance of individual countries to the global frontier and enables comparison of university efficiencies between and across countries. The estimated input distance function uses undergraduate students, graduate students and citations to capture university outputs and staff to measure inputs. Contrasting two alternative econometric strategies to identify technical efficiency yields relatively stable results. Furthermore, the paper addresses the problem of unobserved heterogeneity by relating the obtained efficiency rankings to quality rankings and by exploiting the panel structure of the data to account for unobserved heterogeneity explicitly. The results suggest that technical efficiency rankings can be obtained in a relatively simple econometric setting., KOF Working Papers, 272

Russian Analytical Digest (RAD), 97, ISSN:1863-0421

This paper analyzes the relationship between competition and R&D cooperation with universities and competitors. Our simple model predicts that more competitors reduce the incentives for horizontal cooperation as it diminishes the gains from “collusion”. Assuming that the value of synergies and spillovers created by cooperation depends on competition intensity reveals two distinct and opposing incentives for cooperation. While synergies foster R&D cooperation, spillovers may hinder cooperation. We mainly hypothesize that university cooperation corresponds to product innovation and hence quality competition, while horizontal cooperation lead to process innovations and therefore relates to price competition. We test these hypotheses based on Swiss firm-level panel data controlling for simultaneity of cooperation decisions and endogeneity of competition. Our empirical analysis supports the relevance of distinguishing between competition dimensions and cooperation partners, respectively. We find that price competition matters for both university and horizontal cooperation and it takes the form of an inverted U-shape. On the contrary, quality competition only matters for university cooperation and the relationship shows a U-form. Moreover we see that the number of principal competitors is significantly related only to cooperation between competitors and the relationship shows an inverted U-form. Hence, markets with a medium number of competitors are more receptive for horizontal cooperation. In sum these findings advance our understanding of the relationship between innovation and competition policy., KOF Working Papers, 275

Interferenzen, 17, ISSN:1661-8890, ISBN:978-3-0340-1070-2

This paper investigates the technological orientation of firms and universities and their propensity to have knowledge and technology transfer (KTT) activities. This study looks at the technological potential for KTT and how it is used, emphasizing differences between smaller and larger firms. To this end we collected information about the technology activities of firms (patent statistics) and the technology activities of universities. Furthermore we used survey data on technology transfer activities. We combined the three datasets and found – especially for smaller firms – that great technology proximity fosters transfer activities with different universities (case 1). The same is true, if proximity is low and expertise is considerable at universities in the respective technology field (case 2). In both cases additional transfer potential exists. In the second case firms engage in transfer activities in order to update and modifying their knowledge base and as a consequence improve “competitiveness” in certain technology fields. Furthermore firms show a tendency to diversify their contacts with universities in order to avoid knowledge lock-in., KOF Working Papers, 222

Mitteilungen der Vereinigung Österreichischer Bibliothekarinnen & Bibliothekare, 62

This study explores the factors determining the propensity of Swiss science institutions at the level of a single institute or department to interact with private enterprises in Switzerland (universities and other research institution), i.e. to get involved in knowledge and technology transfer (KTT) activities in order to provide firms with scientific knowledge in research fields which are relevant for their own innovation activities, collect practical experience for students and university staff as well as test the applicability of new research results. We are especially interested in the different forms of this interaction, not only through joint research projects but also through training, mobility of academic personnel, jointly supervised master theses and PhDs, consulting and so on. Moreover, we also study the determinants of commercialization of university research output that takes the form of patenting, licensing or spin-offs. The data used in this study were collected in the course of a survey among institutes of all three types of science institutions in Switzerland (federal institutions, cantonalal universities and regional universities of applied sciences) using a questionnaire., KOF Working Papers, 132

This study is part of a large project aiming at the investigation of a) extent and b) economic relevance of knowledge and technology transfer (KTT) between science institutions (universities, universities of a pplied science and other public re search institutions) and private corporations. Under knowledge and technology transfer we understand very broadly any activities targeted at transferring knowledge an d technology that may help a company or a research institution – depending on the direction of the transfer – to further promote its activities. In this paper we report on the results of a large postal survey of Swiss enterprises based on a questionnaire on the exchange of knowledge and technology with Swiss universities and other research institutions. The survey was addressed to about 6000 firms from all sectors of the economy (with exception of hotels/catering, retail trade, transportation and personal services) and from different size classes. We received answers from 2582 firms, i.e. 45.4% of the firms in the underlying sample. In this paper we undertake a characterisation of KTT activities from a firm’s point of view: - Which are the main characteristics of firms conducting KTT (e.g. size, industry, R&D activities, R&D budget, research areas etc.) - Which forms does KTT take (e.g. joint research projects, joint teaching courses, allocation of thesis or doctoral projects in collaboration with firms etc.), what is the relative importance of such forms? - Which are the most important transfer channels (publications, patents, licenses, spin- offs) and intermediating organisations (technology transfer offices, KTI, SNF etc.)? - Which are the most relevant transfer partners among the universities and other research institutions? - Which are the most important motives for KTT activities (e.g. financial motives, access to academic knowledge, institutional motives etc.) - Which are the most important impediments of KTT activities (lack of information, lack of conditions necessary for know-how transfer, costs and risks etc.), KOF Working Papers, 115

This descriptive paper is part of a large project aiming at exploring the factors determining the propensity of Swiss science institutions to interact with private enterprises in Switzerland (universities and other research institution), i.e. to get involved in knowledge and technology transfer (KTT) activities. On the other hand, a second part of this project investigates the factors determining the propensity of Swiss private enterprises for KTT activities. We are especially interested in the different forms of this interaction, not only through joint research projects but also through training, mobility of academic personnel, jointly supervised master theses and PhDs, consulting and so on. Further, our study investigates the channels of KTT such as e.g. scientific publications, patents, spin-offs as well as the mediating institutions (e.g. Technology Transfer Offices, Commission for Technology and Innovation (KTI), Swiss Research Foundation (SNF)). We also discuss the relative importance of a series of motives for and impediments of KTT activities. Finally, we take also a look at the impact of KTT activities on the research orientation, on teaching and least but not last, the financial position of institutes co-orating with private enterprises., KOF Working Papers, 119

Proceedings of the Workshop Introduction of the Digital Product and its Benefit to Industry

Working Paper / UNS, 21