IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hhs/cesisp/0139.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

What does it Mean Conceptually that Universities Compete?

Author

Listed:
  • Deiaco, Enrico

    (SISTER)

  • Homén, Magnus

    (Chalmers Institute of Technology)

  • McKelvey, Maureen

    (Chalmers Institute of Technology)

Abstract

This article addresses the issue of how and why European universities are learning to compete, in a situation where the national institutional context and sectoral conditions are undergoing transformation. European universities – from top leaders, faculties, research groups and individual employees – are increasingly forced to explain to many stakeholders about how, whether, and why their scientific knowledge and educational programmes are relevant to society or not. For example, if universities are not contributing to public and private goods, why should society continue providing resources? Why should students pay for education, if the individual returns are too low? Why should companies and private foundations pay for research, if the results are not directly relevant to their goals? How can the efficiency and productivity of the university be improved – and which metrics can be used to demonstrate that those goals have been met? What are the dilemmas and trade-offs that this new competitive regime imposes on the functioning of universities and of society? These are the types of questions currently raised within universities in Continental Europe and Nordic countries, and ones that university leaders, faculty and staff will have to answer. Or else, they should raise new types of questions and perspectives about the role of the university in society.universities now face clear demands of producing immediately usefulness knowledge to students, businesses and society (enhanced amongst other by the Bologna process). The pressures on the university to quickly respond to societal and industrial demands have been more forcefully articulated in recent years. If these organizations wish to retain the traditional values of scholarship, they will need to do so, in parallel with understanding – and changing – their selection environment in the future. We focus upon the competition aspect from a Schumpeterian view, in order to draw out the logical conclusions but we do not focus upon whether those outcomes are desirable or negative. We choose this focus because we know that universities play major roles in the knowledge society, and current debates within the EU indicate that we will see additional major changes in the national institutional context and global markets. The article turns to more abstract questions, such as whether competition exists amongst universities and if so, what are the major trends and future outcomes of this shift from a social institution to a knowledge business. Thus, do universities really compete? And if so, how do they compete? And over what?

Suggested Citation

  • Deiaco, Enrico & Homén, Magnus & McKelvey, Maureen, 2008. "What does it Mean Conceptually that Universities Compete?," Working Paper Series in Economics and Institutions of Innovation 139, Royal Institute of Technology, CESIS - Centre of Excellence for Science and Innovation Studies.
  • Handle: RePEc:hhs:cesisp:0139
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://static.sys.kth.se/itm/wp/cesis/cesiswp139.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Romer, Paul M, 1986. "Increasing Returns and Long-run Growth," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 94(5), pages 1002-1037, October.
    2. Salter, Ammon J. & Martin, Ben R., 2001. "The economic benefits of publicly funded basic research: a critical review," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 509-532, March.
    3. Mowery, David C. & Nelson, Richard R. & Sampat, Bhaven N. & Ziedonis, Arvids A., 2001. "The growth of patenting and licensing by U.S. universities: an assessment of the effects of the Bayh-Dole act of 1980," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 99-119, January.
    4. Stephan, Paula E., 2010. "The Economics of Science," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 217-273, Elsevier.
    5. Magnus Holmen & Mats Magnusson & Maureen McKelvey, 2007. "What are Innovative Opportunities?," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(1), pages 27-45.
    6. Henry Chesbrough & Richard S. Rosenbloom, 2002. "The role of the business model in capturing value from innovation: evidence from Xerox Corporation's technology spin-off companies," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 11(3), pages 529-555, June.
    7. Geuna, Aldo & Nesta, Lionel J.J., 2006. "University patenting and its effects on academic research: The emerging European evidence," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(6), pages 790-807, July.
    8. Eliasson, Gunnar, 1988. "The Firm as a Competent Team," Working Paper Series 207, Research Institute of Industrial Economics, revised Feb 1990.
    9. Philippe Aghion & Thibault Fally & Stefano Scarpetta, 2007. "Credit constraints as a barrier to the entry and post-entry growth of firms [‘Dualism and macroeconomic volatility’]," Economic Policy, CEPR, CESifo, Sciences Po;CES;MSH, vol. 22(52), pages 732-779.
    10. Mansfield, Edwin & Lee, Jeong-Yeon, 1996. "The modern university: contributor to industrial innovation and recipient of industrial R&D support," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(7), pages 1047-1058, October.
    11. Faïz Gallouj, 2002. "Innovation in the Service Economy," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2391.
    12. Faïz Gallouj, 2002. "Innovation in the service economy: the new wealth of nations," Post-Print halshs-00198409, HAL.
    13. Horst Hanusch & Andreas Pyka (ed.), 2007. "Elgar Companion to Neo-Schumpeterian Economics," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2973.
    14. Richard R. Nelson, 1959. "The Simple Economics of Basic Scientific Research," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 67(3), pages 297-297.
    15. Ben Martin & Puay Tang, 2007. "The benefits from publicly funded research," SPRU Working Paper Series 161, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    16. Eliasson, Gunnar, 1990. "The firm as a competent team," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 13(3), pages 275-298, June.
    17. Butler, Linda, 2003. "Explaining Australia's increased share of ISI publications--the effects of a funding formula based on publication counts," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 143-155, January.
    18. Donghyun Park, 1998. "The Meaning of Competition: A Graphical Exposition," The Journal of Economic Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 29(4), pages 347-357, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Banal-Estañol, Albert & Jofre-Bonet, Mireia & Lawson, Cornelia, 2015. "The double-edged sword of industry collaboration: Evidence from engineering academics in the UK," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(6), pages 1160-1175.
    2. Nicolas Carayol & Elodie Carpentier, 2022. "The spread of academic invention: a nationwide case study on French data (1995–2012)," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 47(5), pages 1395-1421, October.
    3. Castelnovo, Paolo & Florio, Massimo & Forte, Stefano & Rossi, Lucio & Sirtori, Emanuela, 2018. "The economic impact of technological procurement for large-scale research infrastructures: Evidence from the Large Hadron Collider at CERN," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(9), pages 1853-1867.
    4. Gersbach, Hans & Schneider, Maik & Schetter, Ulrich, 2015. "How Much Science? The 5 Ws (and 1 H) of Investing in Basic Research," CEPR Discussion Papers 10482, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    5. Buenstorf, Guido & Schacht, Alexander, 2013. "We need to talk – or do we? Geographic distance and the commercialization of technologies from public research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(2), pages 465-480.
    6. Julien Pénin, 2009. "On the consequences of university patenting: What can we learn by asking directly to academic inventors?," Working Papers of BETA 2009-04, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
    7. Carayol, Nicolas & Dalle, Jean-Michel, 2007. "Sequential problem choice and the reward system in Open Science," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 167-191, June.
    8. José Miguel Benavente & Gustavo Crespi & Alessandro Maffioli, 2007. "The Impact of National Research Funds: An Evaluation of the Chilean FONDECYT," OVE Working Papers 0307, Inter-American Development Bank, Office of Evaluation and Oversight (OVE).
    9. Becker Wolfgang & Peters Jürgen, 2005. "Innovation Effects of Science-Related Technological Opportunities / Innovationseffekte von technologischen Möglichkeiten aus dem Wissenschaftsbereich: Theoretical Considerations and Empirical Findings," Journal of Economics and Statistics (Jahrbuecher fuer Nationaloekonomie und Statistik), De Gruyter, vol. 225(2), pages 130-150, April.
    10. Buenstorf, Guido, 2009. "Is commercialization good or bad for science? Individual-level evidence from the Max Planck Society," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 281-292, March.
    11. Anna Kochenkova & Rosa Grimaldi & Federico Munari, 2016. "Public policy measures in support of knowledge transfer activities: a review of academic literature," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 41(3), pages 407-429, June.
    12. Margit Osterloh & Bruno S. Frey, 2010. "Academic rankings and research governance," IEW - Working Papers 482, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
    13. Azagra-Caro, Joaquin M. & Archontakis, Fragiskos & Gutierrez-Gracia, Antonio & Fernandez-de-Lucio, Ignacio, 2006. "Faculty support for the objectives of university-industry relations versus degree of R&D cooperation: The importance of regional absorptive capacity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 37-55, February.
    14. Buenstorf Guido & Geissler Matthias, 2014. "Like Doktorvater, like Son? Tracing Role Model Learning in the Evolution of German Laser Research," Journal of Economics and Statistics (Jahrbuecher fuer Nationaloekonomie und Statistik), De Gruyter, vol. 234(2-3), pages 158-184, April.
    15. Simeth, Markus & Raffo, Julio D., 2013. "What makes companies pursue an Open Science strategy?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(9), pages 1531-1543.
    16. Margit Osterloh & Bruno S. Frey, 2009. "Research Governance in Academia: Are there Alternatives to Academic Rankings?," CREMA Working Paper Series 2009-17, Center for Research in Economics, Management and the Arts (CREMA).
    17. Michaël Bikard & Keyvan Vakili & Florenta Teodoridis, 2019. "When Collaboration Bridges Institutions: The Impact of University–Industry Collaboration on Academic Productivity," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(2), pages 426-445, March.
    18. Benjamin Montmartin & Ludovic Dibiaggio & Lionel Nesta, 2018. "Regional Alignment and Productivity Growth," SciencePo Working papers Main halshs-01948337, HAL.
    19. Alfonso Gambardella & Bronwyn H. Hall, 2010. "Proprietary versus Public Domain Licensing of Software and Research Products," Chapters, in: Riccardo Viale & Henry Etzkowitz (ed.), The Capitalization of Knowledge, chapter 6, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    20. William Arant & Dirk Fornahl & Nils Grashof & Kolja Hesse & Cathrin Söllner, 2019. "University-industry collaborations—The key to radical innovations? [Universität-Industrie-Kooperationen – Der Schlüssel zu radikalen Innovationen?]," Review of Regional Research: Jahrbuch für Regionalwissenschaft, Springer;Gesellschaft für Regionalforschung (GfR), vol. 39(2), pages 119-141, October.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    universities; competition;

    JEL classification:

    • I21 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Education - - - Analysis of Education
    • I23 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Education - - - Higher Education; Research Institutions

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:hhs:cesisp:0139. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Vardan Hovsepyan (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cekthse.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.