| 宋建,邵蔚,王静.产教融合能否激励校企联合创新——来自产教融合型企业试点的证据[J].数量经济技术经济研究,2026,(5):105-130 | | 产教融合能否激励校企联合创新——来自产教融合型企业试点的证据 | | Can Industry-education Integration Foster University-industry Joint Innovation: Evidence from the Industry-education Integration Enterprise Pilot Program | | | | DOI： | | 中文关键词: 产教融合 技术替代 技术互补 校企联合创新 | | 英文关键词: Industry-education Integration Technological Substitution Technological Complementarity University-industry Joint Innovation | | 基金项目: | | | 中文摘要: | | 本文旨在识别产教融合型企业试点政策能否以及如何重塑校企联合创新的专利产出结构，重点检验替代型与互补型联合创新模式的差异化政策效应这一科学问题。本文构建高校—企业研发两部门模型并将人才匹配效率、税收减免率与信号传递强度嵌入政策冲击，以产教融合型企业试点为准自然实验，基于 2008~2023 年上市公司数据以联合专利技术空间划分替代型和互补型模式进行检验。研究发现，产教融合政策显著促进校企联合创新，替代型模式下政策效应显著强于互补型，且通过人才引进、财税激励、信号传递三大机制实现，政策对渐进式创新的促进作用更突出，同时在高技术行业、创新型城市、大规模企业、国有企业中的政策效应更大。基于此，建议立足技术匹配特征与异质性差异制定分层分类的产教融合支持政策，强化微观机制保障，兼顾创新数量扩张与质量提升，助力校企联合创新高质量发展。 | | 英文摘要: | | This article defines the joint innovation between enterprises and universities as a process of knowledge reorganization between the research and development (R&D) departments of enterprises and universities. It attributes the differences in cooperation performance to the heterogeneity of the technical relationships between the two parties. One type of cooperation is manifested as the joint enterprise-university technology replacing the existing technological paths of an enterprise, that is, the substitution-type joint innovation model. The other type of cooperation is manifested as the complementarity of the joint enterprise-university technology and an enterprise’s capabilities, that is, the complementary-type joint innovation model. This study aims to identify whether the pilot policies of industrial-education integration enterprises can reshape the patent output structure of joint innovation between enterprises and universities and through which technical relationships and micro-mechanisms. It also focuses on testing the differential policy effects of substitution- and complementary-type joint innovation as a scientific issue.Regarding theory, this study constructs a theoretical system of two departments of university and enterprise R&D, and it is a novel study to embed the efficiency of talent matching, tax reduction rate, and signal transmission intensity under the impact of industrial-education integration policies into the model, demonstrating the innovation effects under different joint innovation models. This not only compensates for the deficiency of the traditional triple helix model in explaining the micro-level technological interaction but also, through mode comparison, it clearly demonstrates that the policy effect of the substitution-type model is significantly greater than that of the complementary-type or reveals differences in short- and long-term effects.This study takes the pilot of industrial-education integration enterprises as a natural experiment. Based on the cosine similarity of patent technology space, it divides the joint innovation between enterprises and universities into two types-substitution- and complementary-type models. It verifies the impact of industrial-education integration on joint innovation and its boundary conditions using the data system of listed companies from 2008 to 2023. The study finds that the industrial-education integration policy significantly promotes joint innovation between enterprises and universities. The policy effect under the substitution-type model is significantly stronger than that under the complementary-type model, and it is achieved through three mechanisms-talent introduction, tax and finance incentives, and signal transmission. The policy’s promoting effect on incremental innovation is more prominent, and its effect is greater in high-tech industries, innovative cities, large-scale enterprises, and state-owned enterprises.The contributions of this study are mainly reflected in four aspects: First, regarding research perspective and model division, this study breaks through the existing research on the innovative effect of industry-academia integration. Based on the technical correlation characteristics and the technical similarity of joint patents, it constructs measurable technical relationship indicators to identify alternative and complementary university-enterprise joint innovation models to effectively reveal the differentiated innovative responses of the same policy under different knowledge matching structures and compensate for the insufficient detail in the description of cooperation models in the existing literature. Second, regarding causal identification and policy net effect assessment, it makes up for the lack of causal identification of the pilot project of industry-academia integration. Existing research mostly focuses on the overall effect of industry-academia integration or the innovative achievements of industry-university cooperation, lacking a precise assessment of the net effect of this pilot policy. By combining the exogenous instrumental variable strategy to alleviate potential selection bias and omitted variable bias problems, it achieves a more robust and reliable estimation of the net effect of the pilot policy and can identify the differentiated impacts of the policy on different innovation types and different joint innovation models. Third, it deeply dissects the micro-mechanism of the impact of industry-academia integration on university-enterprise joint innovation. This study goes beyond general explanations such as resource integration and knowledge spillover and systematically constructs and tests three specific micro-mechanism paths-talent introduction, government fiscal and tax incentives, and signal transmission. Fourth, regarding innovation type classification and innovation quality identification, it further distinguishes breakthrough and incremental innovation, expanding from the quantity effect to the quality effect, revealing that the pilot policy of industry-academia integration not only affects the scale of joint innovation but also may change the innovation structure and quality, thereby enriching the multi-dimensional cognition of the policy effect of industry-academia integration and providing more targeted empirical evidence and theoretical basis for the government to formulate stratified, classified, and precise policy support for industry-academia integration. | | 查看全文 |
| | |
