| Riassunto |
Innovation, technology and entrepreneurship are recognised as drivers of economic growth and competitiveness in developed economies, but emerging economies often face challenges in introducing the regulations, policies and good practices that consolidate these areas (Lall & Pietrobelli, 2002; Muchie et al., 2003; Astrid et al., 2009). Universities, as important sources of knowledge, technology and skilled human capital, can provide valuable ideas and support to new industries and are engaged in innovation and entrepreneurship dynamics through ‘third mission’ activities. In the last decades, developed countries promoted a plethora of policies, programmes and institutional structures aimed at maximising the benefits from university-industry cooperation and technology transfer (Rogers et al., 2000; Mowery & Sampat, 2005). Examples include the 1980 Bayh-Dole Act in the US, the amended German Employed Inventor Act (Harhoff & Hoisl, 2007), Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) policies, or institutional structures such as science parks, incubation centres, and technology transfer offices. This trend was encouraged by the research commercialisation revenues, the benefits for the university educational offer and prestige, as well as the entrepreneurial success of many academics in various technology fields (Siegel, Westhead & Wright, 2003; Laursen & Salter, 2004). At the same time, the growing need for better innovation and technology skills brought about changes in academic education policies and practice. Universities now provide such skills through a variety of courses and programmes on innovation, technology and entrepreneurship at all academic levels, e.g. the many undergraduate and Master’s courses in these areas or the Industrial Doctorates that take different formats in European countries and have a significant labour market value (Ori, 2013; Labiad, 2013; Gallagher, 2014). In emerging economies, the adoption of similar policies and institutions, although acknowledged as a priority (Muchie et al., 2003), not only started much later, but was also much slower, due to different socio-economic infrastructures, weaker institutional frameworks, little university-industry interaction and underdeveloped interfaces, weaker institutional development and less reliable enforcement of rules and laws (Arocena & Sutz, 2000; Tybout, 2000; Cassiolato et al., 2003; Astrid et al., 2009; Albuquerque et al., 2015). To that are added other impediments, such as insufficient financing available to universities, little experience in industry collaborations and focus on more informal links, and limited managerial capacity in research (Guimon, 2013). Links between education, research and ‘third mission’ are much less developed and often raise challenges to the university in terms of funding, quality, and relevance. In the context of an emerging economy’s pursuit of innovation-driven economic development, this article analyses university technology transfer capacity in Turkey, a fast-growing economy that has made significant efforts in recent years to improve national innovation and entrepreneurship performance. University-Industry collaboration has been on the national agenda for more than three decades and has received government support through several initiatives, but its success remains relatively limited. Most universities lack a specialised unit to facilitate universityindustry collaboration, technology transfer and provision of entrepreneurial services to academics. Technology transfer has gained recognition as an element of national policies since 2012, later than in many EU countries. Since then, specific government programmes have been introduced to create links between universities and industry, introduce academic entrepreneurship and develop technology transfer infrastructure and services. Results of this significant investment in universities are now expected by the Turkish government and society, not only in terms of better teaching and research, but also of new jobs, new products and services, enhanced regional development and higher economic growth. A clear expression of this expectation is the Entrepreneurial and Innovative University Index of Turkey, launched by the government in November 2012, which provides an annual ranking of 126 universities on the basis of 23 indicators in five dimensions, one of them being economic contribution and commercialisation1. Whilst some encouraging results have already emerged, deeper transformations require more time and continued policy effort. Turkish universities are only at the beginning of the innovation and entrepreneurship journey, and more time is needed for accumulation of knowledge, skills, experience, assets, innovation culture, relationships and networks to take effect. More time is also needed to consolidate the institutional channels, structures and policies whereby university knowledge and research can be transformed into innovation and economic benefits. This transformation is a tremendous challenge for both developed and emerging economies alike and possible solutions inspired by international best practice need also to take into account specific country realities. In order to explore these dynamics, this article addresses two main questions: What are the main features of the technology transfer capacity of Turkish universities?, and how could this capacity be strengthened? Our analysis uses the dataset collected for a recent (2012) project funded by the European Patent Office and managed by Ege University Science and Technology Centre (EU.EBILTEMTTO) in collaboration with the Turkish Patent Institute (TPE). It assessed the intellectual property rights (IPR) activities of Turkish universities, including patenting, licensing, spin-off creation, IPR events, policy, courses, etc. It was the first large-scale national assessment of IPR activities in Turkish universities and provided valuable insights for evidence-based policy-making in this area. Our findings reveal an early-stage university technology transfer capacity that faces many challenges caused by the low technology- and market-orientation of research, institutional obstacles to patenting, licensing and spin-offs, low IPR awareness and spread of IPR policies, and the current IPR regime. To improve the situation, one must continue and scale up the top-down government intervention that has so far catalysed the development of technology transfer capacity and expand it to the broader innovation ecosystem of the country in order to improve the technology absorption capacity and interest in technology-driven innovation. Furthermore, top-down government policy intervention must be met by bottom-up efforts of universities themselves at several levels: academics, students, technology transfer office (TTO) managers and staff, and university managers. Several policy recommendations are provided on possible ways to accelerate the change in deeply-rooted perceptions and practice. |
