A Synthetic View
Rémi Barré
University-industry links (UILs) generate a range of complementary ex-ternalities between university and industry systems and are thus a major determinant of the effi ciency of national innovation systems. The pro-duction of such externalities and their internalization by industry can be viewed as one of the raisons d’être of academic research, hence the importance of having proper policies regarding such links.
The chapters in this volume address national policies from two per-spectives: a microanalytical view and a macrosystemic view.
Starting from the Microanalytical View:
UILs in a Local but Complex Dynamic
Hughes (chapter 4) and Jiang, Harayama, and Abe (chapter 8) propose a thorough review of the variety of mechanisms and processes linking universities and fi rms. Both chapters emphasize aspects such as spinoffs C H A P T E R 6
111
112 How Universities Promote Economic Growth
and start-ups, intellectual property management, links with the local “in-dustrial ecosystem,” and the support of small and medium enterprises (SMEs). This approach leads to the notion of an entrepreneurial uni-versity, a notion that expresses the fact that the identity of universities, as well as their governance, is in question when UILs are placed at the center of attention. The inherent tension between this so-called third mission component and the two research and teaching components is further addressed by Foray (chapter 3).
In the chapters by Hughes and by Jiang, Harayama, and Abe, national policy is given due notice with the place of UILs in the successive basic plans for research in Japan and the high-level reports and policy initiatives in the United Kingdom. But interestingly, in both chapters, an emphasis is on the responsibilities of local initiatives, considered implicitly to be hardly amenable to national policy instruments. We are thus informed that Tohoku University has developed intensive UILs for decades already and that, in the United Kingdom, surveys show that UILs are heavily de-pendent on behavioral components, informal public space, and conven-tional university outputs. In other words, there is nothing mechanistic in such relations, and direct incentives are likely to have little attraction, in particular regarding relationships with SMEs. From this information, the authors of both chapters get to the point that UILs must be considered in the context of national innovation systems.
This conclusion is the starting point for the chapters by Foray (chapter 3) and Soete (chapter 2).
Starting from the Macrosystemic View: UILs as a Paradoxical Component of the National Innovation System
In the views of Foray and Soete, academic research and private research have a symbiotic relationship: fi rms do not innovate alone, and UILs contribute to maintaining the profi tability of research and development (R&D) investment by fi rms. This relationship leads to a dynamic coevo-lution of knowledge, innovation, and institutions. Soete considers the links in the context of a national innovation system characterized by four dimensions: social and human capital, research capacity, regional cluster-ing, and absorptive capacity. UILs are viewed ex post as a characteristic of the national system. Foray points out the importance of the indirect aspects of UILs, the objective being to optimize the complementarities between academic and industrial research through human mobility or transfer of scientifi c knowledge.
UIL-Related Policies of National Governments: A Synthetic Review 113
Both Soete and Foray argue that one must recognize the diffi culties of institutionalizing direct transfer; these diffi culties arise from differences in cultural norms and differences in mission (generic versus proprietary knowledge). There are reasons to believe such diffi culties will increase as selectivity in academic investments leads to more academic orienta-tion and as globalizaorienta-tion increasingly crowds out private R&D, leading to a more even and broad geographic distribution (as in the Netherlands, for example). Here, a discrepancy appears between the national focus of academic spending, without national-level specialization, and the inter-national focus of fi rms’ strategies—leading to strongly differentiated and specialized territories. The missions of universities and the geographic localization of fi rms are strategic objectives that do not necessarily pro-duce UILs easily.
Finally, UILs appear to be both a central part of the national innovation system and problematic, for different reasons, for each partner, hence the notion of UILs as a paradoxical component of the national system. UILs are the carriers of internal tensions within the system; these tensions make them drivers of change and, therefore, a focal point of policy.
UILs as a Driver of National Innovation Systems:
The Importance of UIL Policy
In agreement with the views of Hughes and Jiang, Harayama, and Abe, Foray and Soete believe that UIL policy should be handled with care, be-cause UILs are rooted in the local dynamics of actors. Foray raises explic-itly the issue of the neutrality of UIL policy, in the sense that the policy should not discriminate among sectors or technologies. In other words, UIL policy should be strictly systemic, not thematic, so that the forces of demand and technological opportunities can play their role fully in shaping the links.
Again in agreement with Hughes and Jiang, Harayama, and Abe, Foray and Soete make a fi rst exception, regarding relationships with SMEs, to this plea for the thematic neutrality of UIL policies. All the authors agree that the social benefi t of UILs for SMEs should be considered, as should the fact that such links do not occur automatically.
A second exception, highlighted in particular by Foray, deals with coordination failures, which can prevent the emergence of new areas for UILs, in new fi elds or in interdisciplinary types. In such cases, the-matically targeted, nonneutral UIL policies can be legitimate—and, in-deed, needed—to facilitate the evolution of the national system toward
114 How Universities Promote Economic Growth
adequate specialization, which natural forces would not have allowed.
Such is the case of the technological top institutes in the Netherlands.
In this sense, UILs act as mechanisms by which the specialization of the national innovation system evolves: the fostering of links would have policy makers focus on targeting specifi c (emerging) themes. Doing so would lead to an evolution in science and technology specialization, which is the rationale for the development of UILs. The assumption is that such specialization is in the best interest of both the public and the private sector.
In such a macrosystemic view, UILs are viewed as drivers of change in the national innovation system. This perspective provides proper clues about where to orient efforts to maximize both the social value of public knowledge and the production of joint knowledge that is valuable for both sides.
Observations and Questions
Foray and Soete propose a dual—micro and macro—perspective on UIL policy, stressing the central character of the issue but also the diffi cul-ties—and even the risks—of an assertive national UIL policy, which can, at best, be irrelevant and, at worst, send the wrong signals. Balancing these risks calls for particularly careful assessment of UIL policies.
Jiang, Harayama, and Abe raise the question of the smaller universities, which may have specifi c diffi culties. Foray points out the case of universi-ties of applied sciences. The point here is to consider the large differences between universities and the need to take those differences into account in designing policy. From the same perspective, industry links with the public research institutes should be raised as an issue. What do we know of the discrepancies between public research institutions, including uni-versities, with regard to UILs?
To view UIL policy as an instrument for macrostrategic, thematic ori-entation of the national innovation system is indeed a challenging idea.
Its value is to provide a backbone and reference for elaborating a mac-rothematic strategy. To what extent does this view represent a workable perspective? Is there not a risk of overdependence by the academic re-search structure on possibly transient industrial specialization and op-portunities?
Finally, the main message advocated for makers of UIL policies is to be concerned primarily with framework conditions and structural
UIL-Related Policies of National Governments: A Synthetic Review 115
characteristics and to build an enabling and facilitating environment for public and private actors to develop their strategies in a decentralized way. This approach sounds quite reasonable, but, as Soete points out, the observed increased competition in public research leads to strongly academic-oriented, fragmented research groups, all directed toward the same promising research areas. In other words, the decentralized strate-gies of the actors appear to lead to increasingly problematic UILs.
Soete suggests that the private sector take the lead in strengthening the links in its areas of specialization (“demand-led links”) and that the public sector bring on board its own research interests, enabling the joint production of knowledge to fulfi ll the objectives of both sides. This ap-proach seems promising, but can we make the policy instruments for bringing it about more explicit?
PART II