创新系统中的大学.ppt

UNIVERSITIESINNATIONALINNOVATIONSYSTEMS,byDAVIDC.MOWERYBHAVENN.SAMPATSchoolofpublicpolicy&management,Outline,IntroductionWhatfunctionsdouniversitiesperformwithinnationalinnovationsystems?Theroleofuniversitiesinnationalinnovationsystems:cross-nationaldataHowdoesuniversityresearchaffectindustrialinnovation?From“sciencepush”to“technologycommercialization”conclusion,1.Introduction,Theresearchuniversityplaysanimportantroleasasourceoffundamentalknowledgeand,occasionally,industriallyrelevanttechnologyinmodernknowledge-basedeconomies.Governmentsthroughouttheindustrializedworldhavelaunchednumerousinitiativessincethe1970stolinkuniversitiestoindustrialinnovationmoreclosely.Manyoftheseinitiativesseektospurlocaleconomicdevelopmentbasedonuniversityresearch.Scienceparks,businessincubators,seedcapital,etc.,Ratherthanivorytowersdevotedtothepursuitofknowledgeforitsownsake,agrowingnumberofindustrial-economyanddeveloping-economygovernmentsseektouseuniversitiesasinstrumentsforknowledge-basedeconomicdevelopmentandchange.Intheknowledge-basedeconomy,nationalsystemsofhighereducationcanbeastrategicasset,iflinkswithindustryarestrengthenedandthetransferoftechnologyenhancedandaccelerated.,UniversitiesthroughouttheOECDalsohavebeenaffectedbytighterconstraintsonpublicfundingsince1970.GrowthinpublicfundingforhighereducationhasslowedinanumberofOECDmemberstates.Facedwithincreasedcompetitionforresearchfunding,andcontinuingcostpressureswithinoperatingbudgetsduringthepasttwodecades,someuniversitieshavebecomemoreaggressiveandentrepreneurialinseekingnewsourcesoffunding.Bothinternalandexternalfactorsthushaveledmanynationsuniversitiestopromotestrongerlinkageswithindustryasameansofstrengtheningtheircontributionstoinnovationandeconomicgrowth.,2.Whatfunctionsdouniversitiesperformwithinnationalinnovationsystems?,thedefinitionof“nationalinnovationsystems”:theinstitutionsandactorsthataffectthecreation,development,anddiffusionofinnovations.Universitiesarewidelycitedascriticalinstitutionalactorsinnationalinnovationsystems.,UniversitiesthroughouttheOECDnowcombinethefunctionsofeducationandresearch.Thisjointproductionoftrainedpersonnelandadvancedresearchmaybemoreeffectivethanspecializationinoneortheotheractivity.Theeconomicallyimportantoutputsofuniversityresearchhavecomeindifferentforms:scientificandtechnologicalinformation,equipmentandinstrumentation,skillsorhumancapital,networksofscientificandtechnologicalcapabilities,prototypesfornewproductsandprocesses.,Oneinfluentialconceptualizationoftheroleofacademicresearchwithinnationalinnovationsystemsandeconomieswastheso-calledlinearmodelofinnovationwidelyassociatedwithVannevarBushandhisfamousblueprintfortheUSpost-1945R&Dsystem,Science:TheEndlessFrontier.BusharguedforexpandedpublicfundingforbasicresearchwithinUSuniversitiesasacriticalcontributortoeconomicgrowth,andarguedthatuniversitieswerethemostappropriateinstitutionallocusforbasicresearch.,Thislinearmodeloftheinnovationprocessassertedthatfundingofbasicresearchwasbothnecessaryandsufficienttopromoteinnovation.Yetanotherviewoftheroleofuniversityresearchfocusesonthecontrastingnormsofacademicandindustrialresearch.,Foracademicresearchers,professionalrecognitionandadvancementdependcruciallyonbeingfirsttodiscloseandpublishtheirresult.Industrialinnovation,bycontrast,reliesmoreheavilyonsecrecyandlimitationstothedisclosureofresearchresults.Thesignificanceoftheseculturaldifferencesfortheconductofresearchmayassumegreatersignificanceinthefaceofcloserlinksbetweenuniversityandindustrialresearchers.,Anotherconceptualframeworkthathasbeenappliedrecentlytodescriptionsoftheroleofacademicresearchinpost-modernindustrialsocietiesistheMode2conceptofresearch.Mode2researchisassociatedwithamoreinterdisciplinary,networkedinnovationsystem,incontrasttotheprevioussysteminwhichmajorcorporateoracademicresearchinstitutionswerelesscloselylinkedwithotherinstitutions.,StillanotherconceptualframeworkforanalyzingthechangingpositionofuniversitieswithinnationalinnovationsystemsistheTripleHelix.thetriplehelixemphasizestheincreasedinteractionamongtheseinstitutionalactorsinindustrialeconomiesinnovationsystems.,Thenationalsystems,Mode2,andtriplehelixframeworksforconceptualizingtheroleoftheresearchuniversitywithintheinnovationprocessesofknowledge-basedeconomiesemphasizetheimportanceofstronglinksbetweenuniversitiesandotherinstitutionalactorsintheseeconomies.Whatislackinginalloftheseframeworks,however,isaclearsetofcriteriabywhichtoassessthestrengthofsuchlinkagesandasetofindicatorstoguidethecollectionofdata.,3.Theroleofuniversitiesinnationalinnovationsystems:cross-nationaldata,3.1ComparativeDataontheStructureofNationalSystemsThroughoutthetwentiethcentury,USuniversitiesretainedgreatautonomyintheiradministrativepolicies.Rosenberg(1999)andBen-David(1968)arguethatthislackofcentralcontrolforcedAmericanuniversitiestobemoreentrepreneurialandtheirresearchandcurriculatobemoreresponsivetochangingsocio-economicdemandsthantheirEuropeancounterparts.,EnrollmentdataindicatethattheUSsystemenrolledalargerfractionofthe18-22-year-oldpopulationthanthoseofanyEuropeannationsthroughoutthe1900-1945period.ThesecontrastsinenrollmentratesarereflectedinenduringdifferencesbetweentheUnitedStatesandEuropeannationsinthesharesoftheirpopulationswithuniversityeducation.However,thelargeoutputofuniversitydegreeholdersintheUnitedStatesincludesasignificantlysmallershareofnaturalscienceandengineeringdegreeholders.,ThelimiteddataontheroleofnationalhighereducationsystemsasR&Dperformershighlightothercross-nationalcontrasts,includingdifferencesintheirsignificancewithintheoverallnationalR&Denterprise,theirscale,theirrolesasemployersofresearchers,andtheirrelationshipswithindustry.,Cross-nationaldatahighlightingdifferencesinthedivisionoflaborbetweenuniversitiesandgovernmentlaboratoriesinbasicresearchindicatethatthehighereducationsectorsshareofbasicresearchperformanceissimilarinmostWesternEuropeaneconomiesandtheUnitedStates.ButakeydifferencebetweentheUnitedStatesandmostEuropeancountriesforwhichdataareavailableisthatarelativelylowshareofbasicresearchoutsidetheacademicsectorintheUnitedStatesisperformedbythegovernment,andarelativelyhighsharebyindustry.,AlthoughtheUShighereducationsystemislargerinabsolutetermsthanthoseofotherOECDmemberstates,USuniversitiesperformanceofR&DinfactaccountsforasmallershareofGDPthanistrueofSweden,France,Canada,theNetherlands,andNorway.,ComparisonoftheshareofemployedresearchersinvariousnationsR&DsystemsthatworkinuniversitiesrevealsthattheUnitedStatesandJapanrankverylow,reflectingthefactthatamuchhighershareofresearchersinbothnationsareemployedbyindustryratherthanhighereducation.In1997,thelastyearforwhichreasonablycompletedataareavailable,82.5percentofresearcherswereemployedbyindustryintheUnitedStates.,OtherqualitativedatafromtheOECD2002studyofscience-industryrelationships“comparethelabormobilityandothernetworkrelationships“linkinguniversitiesandindustry.Theannualflowofuniversityresearcherstoindustrialemployment,anotherpotentiallyimportantchannelforknowledgeexchange,issignificantlyhigherthantheEUaverageinBelgium,Finland,Germany,Sweden,theUK,andtheUnitedStates.,Althoughuniversitiesservesimilarfunctionsinmostindustrialeconomies,itsuggestthattheirimportanceintrainingscientistsandengineersandinresearchperformancediffersconsiderablyamongOECDmembernations.Thesedifferencesreflectcross-nationaldifferencesinindustrystructure,especiallythehigh-technologyindustriesaselectronicsorinformationtechnologythatarehighlyresearch-intensiveandrelyheavilyonprivate-sectorsourcesforR&Dfinance.,3.2RecentTrendsinUniversity-IndustryLinkagesLongitudinaldatarevealanincreaseinco-authorshipbetweenuniversityandindustryresearchersinmanyofthesenations.thisevidenceonincreasedco-authorshipmayindicatesomegrowth,ratherthandecline,intheroleofuniversitiesascentersforknowledgeproductionwithinnationalinnovationsystems,the1980swerecharacterizedbycutsinUKcentralgovernmentspendingonhighereducation,andthe1990swereaperiodofmoreaggressivegovernmentalpromotionofuniversity-industrycollaborationandtechnologytransfer.Inotherwords,thegrowthinco-authorshipmeasuredbythesescholarsappearstohaveoccurredwithoutanyspecificencouragement(beyondfundingcuts)fromgovernmentpolicy.Overall,thesestudiespresentarichdescriptiveandarelativelyweakexplanatoryanalysisofanimportanttypeofuniversity-industrycollaboration,inasmuchastheyprovidelittleexplanationfortrendsorcross-nationaldifferences.,4.Howdoesuniversityresearchaffectindustrialinnovation?,ThequantitativeindicatorsdiscussedintheprevioussectionprovidesomeinformationonthestructureofuniversitieswithintheOECDandtheirlinkswithnationalinnovationsystems.Butthesedatashedverylittlelightonthecharacteristicsoftheknowledgeflowsbetweenuniversityresearchandtheindustrialinnovationprocess.Allofthesestudiesemphasizethesignificanceofinterindustrydifferencesintherelationshipbetweenuniversityandindustrialinnovation.,Universityresearchcontributedtotechnologicaladvancesbyenhancingknowledgeofthefundamentalphysicsandchemistryunderlyingmanufacturingprocessesandproductinnovation,anareainwhichtrainingofscientistsandengineersfiguredprominently,andexperimentaltechniques.Virtuallyallofthefieldsofuniversityresearchthatwereratedasimportantorveryimportantfortheirinnovativeactivitiesbysurveyrespondentsinbothstudieswererelatedtoengineeringorappliedsciences,Virtuallyallofthefieldsofuniversityresearchthatwereratedasimportantorveryimportantfortheirinnovativeactivitiesbysurveyrespondentsinbothstudieswererelatedtoengineeringorappliedsciences.Instead,theseresultsreflectthefactthattheeffectsonindustrialinnovationofbasicresearchfindingsinsuchareasasphysics,mathematics,andthephysicalsciencesarerealizedonlyafteraconsiderablelag.,theresultsofpublicresearchperformedingovernmentlabsoruniversitieswereusedmorefrequentlybyUSindustrialfirms(onaverage,in29.3percentofindustrialR&Dprojects)thanprototypesemergingfromtheseexternalsourcesofresearchFormostindustries,patentsandlicensesinvolvinginventionsfromuniversityorpubliclaboratorieswerereportedtobeofverylittleimportance,comparedwithpublications,conferences,informalinteractionwithuniversityresearchers,andconsulting.,5.From“sciencepush”to“technologycommercialization”,since1980anumberofindustrializedcountrieshaveimplementedorconsideredpoliciestostrengthenlinkagesbetweenuniversitiesandindustry,inordertoenhancethecontributionsofuniversity-basedresearchtoinnovationandeconomicperformance.,5.1UniversitiesandRegionalEconomicDevelopmentInmanyOECDcountries,effortstoincreasethenationaleconomicreturnsfrompublicinvestmentsinuniversityresearchhaveattemptedtostimulatethecreationofregionalclustersofinnovativefirmsarounduniversities.Theseundertakingsseektostimulateregionaleconomicdevelopmentandagglomerationviafacilitatingthecreationof“spin-off”firmstocommercializeuniversitytechnologies.,Thesepolicyinitiativesaremotivatedbythehigh-technologyregionalclustersintheUnitedStates,notablySiliconValleyinCaliforniaandRoute128intheBostonarea.Bothofthesehigh-technologyclustershaveaspawnedalargenumberofnewfirmsandhavemajorresearchuniversitiesintheirmidst.,Butlittleevidencesupportstheargumentthatthepresenceofuniversitiessomehowcausesthedevelopmentofregionalhigh-technologyagglomerations.EffortstoreplicatetheSiliconValleymodelinothereconomieshaveprovendifficultandtheresultsoftheseeffortshavebeenmixed.,NationalandlocalgovernmentsinmanyOECDcountrieshaveattemptedtostimulatetheformationoftheseclustersviafundingforscienceparksDespitethewidespreadinterestinscienceparks,thereislittleevidencethattheypositivelyaffectuniversitiescontributionstoinnovationorspurregionaleconomicdevelopment.,SiliconValleyshistoryasacenterfornew-firmformationandinnovationdatesbacktotheearlydecadesofthetwentiethcentury,suggestingthatmuchoftheregionsinnovativeculturedevelopedoveramuchlongerperiodoftimeandpredatestheascenttoglobalresearcheminenceofStanfordUniversity.,themassiveincreaseinfederaldefensespendingafter1945asacatalystfortheformationofnewhigh-technologyfirmsintheregion.Inthisview,thepresenceofleadingresearchuniversitiesmayhavebeennecessary,butwasbynomeanssufficient,tocreateSiliconValleyduringthe1950sand1960s.,TheUSexperiencesuggeststhattheemergenceofsuchagglomerationsisamatterofcontingency,path-dependence,and(mostimportantly)thepresenceofothersupportingpoliciesthatmayhavelittletodowithuniversityresearchortheencouragementofuniversity-industrylinkages.ThepolicyinitiativesintheUnitedStatesandotherOECDeconomiesthatseektouseuniversityresearchandscienceparkstostimulateregionaleconomicdevelopmentsufferfromadeficiencythatiscommontomanyoftheotherrecenteffortstostimulateuniversity-industrylinkagesinOECDcountries.,5.2PatentingtheResultsofPubliclyFundedAcademicResearch5.2.1OriginsoftheBayh-DoleActPublicuniversitiesweremoreheavilyrepresentedinpatentingthanprivateuniversitiesduringthe1925-45period.Thesecharacteristicsofuniversitypatentingbegantochangeafter1970,asprivateuniversitiesexpandedtheirshareofUSuniversitypatenting.LobbyingbyUSresearchuniversitiesactiveinpatentingwasoneofseveralfactorsbehindthepassageoftheBayh-DoleActin1980.,TheBayh-DolePatentandTrademarkAmendmentsActof1980providedblanketpermissionforperformersoffederallyfundedresearchtofileforpatentsontheresultsofsuchresearchandtograntlicensesforthesepatents,includingexclusivelicenses,tootherparties.ThepassageoftheBayh-DoleActwasonepartofabroadershiftinUSpolicytowardstrongerintellectualpropertyrights.,theBayh-DoleActassumesthatrestrictionsondisseminationoftheresultsofmanyR&Dprojectswillenhanceeconomicefficiencybysupportingtheircommercialization.Inmanyrespects,theBayh-DoleActistheultimateexpressionoffaithinthelinearmodelofinnovation-ifbasicresearchresultscanbepurchasedbywould-bedevelopers,commercialinnovationwillbeaccelerated.,5.2.2TheEflectsofBayh-DoleUniversitiesincreasedtheirshareofpatentingfromlessthan0.3percentin1963tonearly4percentby1999.,Duringthelate1990sandearlytwenty-firstcentury,manycommentatorsandpolicymakersportrayedtheBayh-DoleActasacriticalcatalysttogrowthinUSuniversitiesinnovativeandeconomiccontributions.Indeed,theOECDwentsofarastoarguethattheBayh-DoleActwasanimportantfactorintheremarkablegrowthofincomes,employment,andproductivityintheUSeconomyofthelate1990s.,TheseassessmentsoftheeffectsoftheBayh-DoleActalsofailtoconsideranypotentiallynegativeeffectsoftheActonUSuniversityresearchorinnovationinthebroadereconomy.SomescholarshavesuggestedthatthecommercializationmotivescreatedbyBayh-Dolecouldshifttheorientationofuniversityresearchawayfrombasicandtowardsappliedresearch.Asecondpotentiallynegativeeffectofincreaseduniversitypatentingandlicensingisthepotentialweakeningofacademicresearcherscommitmentstoopenscience,leadingtopublicationdelays,secrecy,andwithholdingofdataandmaterials.,5.2.3InternationalEmulationoftheBayh-DoleActAnumberofotherOECDgovernmentspursuepoliciesthatcloselyresemblet