This paper examines the dynamic interlinkages between the two pillars of ambidexterity in universities, research and knowledge transfer. We propose a theoretical model linking these two pillars at the organisational level. The model is tested using the longitudinal HE-BCI survey data juxtaposed against two consecutive rounds of research evaluation in the UK higher education sector. Results indicate that a university's past performance along the research pillar strengthens the knowledge transfer pillar over time, through both commercialisation and academic engagement channels. This positive impact is negatively moderated by the university's size and reputation, in the sense that in larger or more reputed universities, the marginal impact of research on knowledge transfer declines significantly. Additionally, we find that knowledge transfer reinforces the research pillar through positive mediation between past and future research, but only through academic engagement channels. The results also indicate that contract research routes provide the maximum benefit for most universities in enhancing their ambidexterity framework, both in the short and the long run. For the relatively more reputed universities, it is the collaboration route which provides the maximum benefit. Interestingly, no such reinforcement could be detected in the case of the research commercialisation channels.

Contrary to conventional wisdom based on the product cycle and technology gap models, this paper argues that the technology factor can prove to be a key determinant of manufactured exports from less-developed countries (LDCs). The technological advantages enjoyed by LDCs rest on a very different foundation, technological capability, rather than on major technological advancements or breakthroughs. This paper attempts to capture and analyse how technological capability augments export competitiveness of LDC enterprises by introducing quantifiable concepts of technological capability and estimating econometric models of firm-level export performance for two R&D-intensive industries in India, pharmaceuticals and electronics/electricals. The results of our econometric analysis provide new insights into the relationship between technological capability and export performance, highlighting significant inter-industry differences. We find that simple production engineering capabilities augment exports of both sectors, while efficiency of reverse engineering proves to be particularly important for pharmaceutical exports only.

This paper addresses the gap in the knowledge transfer literature around how universities choose specific organizational models for their knowledge transfer offices (KTOs). Organization theory points towards strong interlinkages between strategy, structure and processes in organizations. This motivates an exploration of similar links within the organizational setup of KTOs. In doing so, the paper provides a unified theoretical framework around a university's choice of structure, business model and strategic preferences for their KTOs linked to university‐specific contextual factors. A qualitative approach is used wherein four very distinct British universities are examined as individual case studies. The authors find that strategic aims of the university around practitioner engagement, the quantity of applied research and research specialization are key factors in determining the organizational characteristics of the KTO. The theoretical framework derived from the cases makes two key contributions to the university knowledge transfer literature. First, it links the university‐level contextual factors to the local model of knowledge transfer. Second, it allows us to develop a set of generic models of knowledge transfer, which can potentially guide universities to develop their own specific models.

India's post‐independence technology policies relied heavily on public‐funded research for indigenous technological capacity building and technology development. However, public‐funded research has failed to adequately contribute to India's industrial catch‐up. India is now contemplating a new legislation similar to the US Bayh–Dole Act 1980, to energize public‐funded research for effective technology transfer. The Bayh–Dole Act was passed in the United States in 1980 in response to the growing concern over the fact that federally funded inventions in the United States were not reaching the market place. The act allowed universities to retain patent rights over inventions arising out of federally funded research and to license those patents exclusively or non‐exclusively at their discretion. In this paper, we present a critical review of the US experience after the Bayh–Dole Act and argue that the evidence is far from being unambiguous. We discuss the debate surrounding the act—the extent to which it was successful in achieving its objectives, the unintended consequences, if any, and more generally, the effectiveness of intellectual property rights as a vehicle of technology transfer from universities. The paper presents an Indian perspective against the backdrop of the US experience in an attempt to draw concrete lessons for India.

A indústria farmacêutica indiana (IFI) ocupa uma posição importante tanto nacional quanto internacionalmente. A Índia está classificada em 13º entre os países do mundo produtores de medicamentos em termos de valor e em 4º lugar em termos de volume, com uma participação de 8% na produção farmacêutica global. 2 O tamanho da IFI se expandiu fenomenalmente de meros 100 milhões de rúpias (valor da produção) em 1947 para 50 bilhões de rúpias em 1990 e para sólidos 500 bilhões de rúpias atualmente. 3 As origens da indústria