, Volume 48, Issue 1, pp 5–33 | Cite as

University and Business Relations: Connecting the Knowledge Economy

  • J. Stanley Metcalfe


It is commonplace to say that the modern economy is knowledge based but a moment’s reflection points to the vacuity of this notion. For all economies are knowledge based and could not be otherwise. The question is rather how is one kind of knowledge based economy to be distinguished from another? This essay proposes that the answer may lie in three directions: (1) in terms of the variety of knowledge that is engaged; (2) in terms of the processes by which the production of knowledge is organised, and its corollary the resources devoted to knowledge production and dissemination; and, (3) in terms of the purposes to which knowledge is put. In respect of each of these dimensions, the rise of the modern university as a custodian of knowledge in Western economy and society has been of central importance; but universities are not alone in this role, a wide range of other agencies, private firms, public research laboratories for instance play an important role in defining a knowledge economy and have done so increasingly since the turn of the nineteenth century—a first indication of the systemic dimensions of a modern knowledge economy.


Universities, businesses Interactions Knowledge economy 


  1. Abrue, Maria, Vadim Grinevitch, Alan Hughes, Michael Kitson, and Philip Ternouth. 2008. Universities, business and knowledge exchange. London: Council for Higher Education and Centre for Business Research.Google Scholar
  2. Agrawal, Ajay. 2001. University-to-industry knowledge transfer: Literature review and unanswered questions. International Journal of Management Reviews 3(4): 285–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ashby, Eric. 1974. Adapting universities to a technological society. London: Jossey-Bass Publishers.Google Scholar
  4. Audi, Robert. 1998. Epistemology: A contemporary introduction to the theory of knowledge. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Babbage, Charles. 1835. On the economy of machinery and manufactures, 4th ed. London: Charles Knight.Google Scholar
  6. Berlin, Isaiah. 2000. The power of ideas. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Buenstorff, Guido, and Peter Murmann. 2005. Ernst Abbe’s scientific management: Theoretical insights from a nineteenth century capabilities approach. Industrial and Corporate Change 14: 543–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carter, Charles, and Bruce R. Williams. 1957. Industry and technical progress. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Coase, Ronald H. 1937. The nature of the firm. Economica 4(4): 386–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cosh, Andy, and Alan Hughes. 2008. Science-based entrepreneurship: University–industry links and barriers to innovation in the UK and USA. Cambridge: Judge Institute, Centre for Business Research.Google Scholar
  11. Cosh, Andy, Alan Hughes, and Richard K. Lester. 2006. UK plc: Just how innovative are we? Cambridge: Judge Institute, Centre for Business Research.Google Scholar
  12. Cowan, William, Robin Cowan, and Patrick Llerena. 2008. Running the marathon. Working Paper Series 2008-14. Maastricht: UNU-Merit.Google Scholar
  13. Cutler, Terry, et al. 2008. Venturesome Australia: Building strength in innovation. Canberra: Dept., of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research.Google Scholar
  14. D’Este, Pablo, and Pari Patel. 2007. University industry linkages in the UK: What are the factors underlying the variety of interactions with industry. Research Policy 36(9): 1295–1313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dasgupta, Partha, and Paul A. David. 1994. Towards a new economics of science. Research Policy 23: 487–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. David, Paul A., and J.Stanley Metcalfe. 2008. Only connect: Academic business research collaborations and the formation of ecologies of innovation. CEPR: Stanford University.Google Scholar
  17. Flexner, Abraham. 1930. Universities: American, English, German. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Foray, Dominique. 2004. The economics of knowledge. Boston: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  19. Geuna, Aldo, and Lional J.J. Nesta. 2006. University patenting and its effects on academic research: The emerging European evidence. Research Policy 35(6): 790–807.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gibbons, Michael, Camille Limoges, Helga Nowotny, Simon Schwartzman, Peter Scott, and Martin Trow. 1994. The new production of knowledge. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  21. Goldin, Claudia, and Lawrence F. Katz. 1999. The shaping of higher education: The formative years in the United States, 1890 to 1940. The Journal of Economic Perspectives 13: 37–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Guagnini, Anna. 2004. Technology. In A history of the university in Europe, Volume III: Universities in the 19th, early 20th centuries, ed. W. Ruegg. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Harvey, Mark, and Andrew McMeekin. 2004. Public–private collaborations and the race to sequence Agrobacterium tumifaciens. Nature Biotechnology 22(7): 807–810.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Harvey, Mark, and Andrew McMeekin. 2007. Public or private economies of knowledge: Turbulence in the biological sciences. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  25. Hayek, Friedrich A. 1973. Law legislation and liberty: Volume 1, rules and order. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Horrocks, Sally M. 2007. Industrial chemistry and its changing patrons at the University of Liverpool, 1926–1951. Technology and Culture 48: 43–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Howells, Jeremy. 1999. Research and technology outsourcing and innovation systems. Industry and Innovation 6: 111–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Howells, Jeremy. 2006. Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation. Research Policy 35: 715–728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Howells, Jeremy. 2009. The nature, role and types of actors in innovation systems. Manchester: Manchester Institute of Innovation Research.Google Scholar
  30. Hughes, Alan. 2007. Innovation policy as Cargo Cult: Myth and reality in knowledge led productivity growth. Working Paper No 348. Cambridge: Judge Institute, Centre for Business Research, Judge Institute.Google Scholar
  31. Kaufmann, Alexander, and Franz Todtling. 2001. Science–industry interaction in the process of innovation: The importance of boundary-crossing systems. Research Policy 30: 791–804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kerr, Clark. 1967. The uses of the university. Cambridge (Mass): Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Kitson, Michael, Jeremy Howells, Richard Braham, and Sian Westlake. 2009. The connected university: Driving recovery and growth in the UK economy. National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts: London.Google Scholar
  34. Link, Alan N., Donald S. Siegel, and Barry Bozeman. 2007. An empirical analysis of the propensity of academics to engage in informal technology transfer. Industrial and Corporate Change 16(4): 641–656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Marshall, Alfred. 1919. Industry and trade. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  36. Marshall, Alfred. 1920. Principles of economics. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  37. Martin, Ben. 2003. The changing social contract for science and the evolution of the university. In Science, innovation: Rethinking the rationales for funding, governance, eds. Aldo Geuna, Ammon Salter, and Edward Steinmueller. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  38. Metcalfe, J.Stanley. 2006. Entrepreneurship: An evolutionary perspective. In The Oxford handbook of entrepreneurship, eds. Mark Casson, Bernard Yeung, Anuradha Basu, and Nigel Wadeson. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Metcalfe, J.Stanley. 2007. Innovation systems, innovation policy and restless capitalism. In Perspectives on innovation, eds. Franco Malerba, and Stefano Brusoni. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Metcalfe, J.Stanley, and Ronald Ramlogan. 2005. Limits to the economy of knowledge and knowledge of the economy. Futures 37: 655–674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Metcalfe, J.Stanley, and John Pickstone. 2006. Replacing hips and lenses: Industry and innovation in post-war Britain. In New technologies in health care, ed. Andrew Webster. London: MacMillan.Google Scholar
  42. Mina, Andrea, Ronald Ramlogan, Gindo Tampubolon, and J. Stanley Metcalfe. 2007. Mapping evolutionary trajectories: Applications to the growth and transformation of medical knowledge. Research Policy 36: 789–806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Mowery, David C., and Bhavan Sampat. 2001. University patents and patent policy debates in the USA, 1925–1980. Industrial and Corporate Change 10: 781–814.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Mowery, David C., and Bhavan Sampat. 2005. The Bayh–Dole Act of 1980 and university–industry technology transfer: A model for other OECD governments? Journal of Technology Transfer 30: 102–115.Google Scholar
  45. Mowery, David C., Richard R. Nelson, Bhavan Sampat, and Arvids A. Ziedonis. 2001. The growth of patenting and licensing by U.S. universities: An assessment of the Bayh–Dole Act of 1980. Research Policy 30: 99–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Murmann, Peter. 2003. Knowledge and competitive advantage: The co-evolution of firms, technology and national institutions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Nelson, Richard R. 2004. The market economy and the scientific commons. Research Policy 33: 455–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Nelson, Richard R. 2005. Technology, institutions and economic growth. Cambridge (Mass): Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Nelson, Richard R., and Bhavan Sampat. 2001. Making sense of institutions as a factor shaping economic performance. Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organisation 44: 31–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Perkmann, Markus, and Kathryn Walsh. 2007. University–industry relationships and open innovation: Towards a research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews 9(4): 259–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Polanyi, Michael. 1962. The republic of science: Its political and economic theory. Minerva 1: 54–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Porter, Robert. 1996. The scientific revolution and universities. In A history of the universities in Europe, Vol. II: Universities in early modern Europe (1500–1800), ed. Hilde de Ridder-Symoens. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Price, Derek, and J. de Solla. 1963. Little science big science. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Rosenberg, Charles E. 1961. No other gods: On science and American social thought. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Rosenberg, Nathan. 1990. Why firms do basic scientific research (with their own money). Research Policy 19: 165–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Rosenberg, Nathan, and Richard R. Nelson. 1993. American universities and technical advance in industry. Research Policy 23: 323–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Rothaermel, Frank T., Shanti D. Agung, and Lin Jiang. 2007. University entrepreneurship: A taxonomy of the literature. Industrial and Corporate Change 16(4): 691–791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Ruegg, Walter. 2004. A history of the university in Europe, Volume III: Universities in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  59. Shils, Edward, and Roberts John. 2004. The diffusion of European models outside Europe. In A history of the university in Europe, Volume III: Universities in the 19th, early 20th centuries, ed. Walter Ruegg. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Siegel, Donald S., Mike Wright, and Andy Lockett. 2007. The rise of entrepreneurial activity at universities: Organisational and societal implications. Industrial and Corporate Change 16(4): 489–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Smith, Adam. 1776. 1994. The wealth of nations. London: The Modern Library.Google Scholar
  62. Stokes, Donald. 1997. Pasteur’s quadrant: Basic science and technological innovation. Washington D.C: The Brookings Institute.Google Scholar
  63. Tether, Bruce, and Abdouahid Tajar. 2008. Beyond university–industry links: Sourcing knowledge for innovation from consultants, private research organisations and the public science-base. Research Policy 37(6–7): 1079–1095.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Verspagen, Bart. 2006. University research, intellectual property rights and European innovation systems. Journal of Economic Surveys 20(4): 607–632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. White, Lynn. 1962. Medieval technology and social change. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  66. Young, Allyn A. 1928. Increasing returns and economic progress. Economic Journal 38: 527–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Manchester Institute of Innovation ResearchThe University of ManchesterManchesterUK
  2. 2.Centre for Business ResearchUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK
  3. 3.Curtin University of TechnologyBentleyAustralia
  4. 4.Queensland UniversityBrisbaneAustralia

Personalised recommendations