Publication: Knowledge spillovers in science and technology parks: how can firms benefit most?
Loading...
Official URL
Full text at PDC
Publication Date
2015
Authors
Fernández Olmos, Marta
Advisors (or tutors)
Editors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Kluwer Academic Publishers
Citations
Exportar
Abstract
This research evaluates the role of science and technology parks as locations fostering local knowledge exchange and promoting innovation. We consider that these knowledge externalities depend on firms’ internal efforts and strategies, since their capacity to understand and exploit others’ knowledge depends on their own knowledge base. Empirical evidence has been gathered from 2007 to 2011 in a longitudinal analysis on 11,201 firms in total, using a Spanish database from PITEC (Technological Innovation Panel). Results of a two Tobit models with random effects, confirm our hypotheses. First, firms with previous cooperation agreements with universities and research institutions would benefit most from the park as they can more easily incorporate existing knowledge in the park and improve their product innovation. Secondly, results also seem to indicate that product innovation is higher when firms with internal R&D efforts can share knowledge on a reciprocal basis with other firms that are also investing in R&D.
Description
UCM subjects
Unesco subjects
Keywords
Citation
Acs, Z. J., Anselin, L., & Varga, A. (2002). Patents and innovation counts as measures of regional production of new knowledge. Research Policy, 31(7), 1069–1085.
Ahuja, G. (2000). Collaboration networks, structural holes, and innovation: A longitudinal study. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(3), 425–455.
Almus, M., & Nerlinger, E. A. (1999). Growth of new technology-based firms: Which factors matter? Small Business Economics, 13(2), 141–154.
Anderson, R., & Reeb, D. (2003). Founding family ownership and firm performance: Evidence from the SandP 500. Journal of Finance, 58, 1301–1329.
Anselin, L., Varga, A., & Acs, Z. J. (1997). Local geographic spillovers between university research and high technology innovations. Journal of Urban Economics, 42(3), 422–448.
Aschhoff, B., & Schmidt, T. (2008). Empirical evidence on the success of R&D cooperation—Happy together? Review of Industrial Organization, 33, 41–62.
Asheim, B. T., & Isaksen, A. (2002). Regional innovation systems: The integration of local ‘‘sticky’’ and global ‘‘ubiquitous’’ knowledge. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 27, 77–86.
Ashish, A., & Gambardella, A. (1990). Complementarity and external linkages: The strategies of the large firms in Biotechnology. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 38(4), 361–379.
Bakouros, Y. L., Mardas, D. C., & Varsakelis, N. C. (2002). Science park, a high tech fantasy? An analysis of the science parks of Greece. Technovation, 22(2), 123–128.
Baptista, R., & Swann, P. (1998). Do firms in clusters innovate more? Research Policy, 27(5), 525–540.
Barge-Gil, A. (2010). Open, semi-open and closed innovators: Towards an explanation of degree of openness. Industry and innovation, 17(6), 577–607.
Belderbos, R., Carree, M., Diederen, B., & Lokshin, B. (2004). Cooperative R&D and firm performance. Research Policy, 33(10), 1477–1492.
Bloom, N., & Van Reenen, I. (2002). Patents, real options and firm performance. The Economic Journal, 112, 97–116.
Boschma, R. A. (2005). Proximity and innovation: A critical assessment. Regional Studies, 39(1), 61–74.
Boschma, R. A., & Ter Wal, J. (2007). Knowledge networks and innovative performance in an industrial district: The case of a footwear district in the south of Italy. Industry and Innovation, 14(2), 177–199.
Cassiman, B., & Veugelers, R. (2006). In search of complementarity in innovation strategy: Internal R&D
and external knowledge acquisition. Management Science, 52(1), 68–82.
Chan, K. F., & Lau, T. (2005). Assessing technology incubator programs in the science park: The good, the bad and the ugly. Technovation, 25(10), 1215–1228.
Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128–152.
Cohen, W. M., Nelson, R. R., & Walsh, J. P. (2002). Links and impacts: The influence of public research on industrial R&D. Management Science, 48(1), 1–23.
Colombo, M. G., & Delmastro, M. (2002). How effective are technology incubators? Evidence from Italy. Research Policy, 31, 1103–1122.
Dettwiler, P., Lindelo¨f, P., & Lo¨fsten, H. (2006). Utility of location: A comparative survey between small new technology-based firms located on and off Science Parks—Implications for facilities management. Technovation, 26(4), 506–517.
Ferguson, R., & Olofsson, C. (2004). Science parks and the development of NTBFs—Location, survival and growth. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 29(1), 5–17.
Fukugawa, N. (2006). Science parks in Japan and their value-added contributions to new technology-based firms. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 24(2), 381–400.
Giuliani, E. (2011). Role of technological gatekeepers in the growth of industrial clusters : Evidence from Chile. Regional Studies, 45(10), 1329–1348.
Giuliani, E., & Bell, M. (2005). The micro-determinants of meso-level learning and innovation: Evidence from a Chilean wine cluster. Research Policy, 34(1), 47–68.
Glancey, K. (1998). Determinants of growth and profitability in small entrepreneurial firms. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior and Research, 4(1), 18–27.
Gorman, M. E. (2002). Types of knowledge and their roles in technology transfer. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 27, 219–231.
Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360–1380.
Grant, R. M. (1996). Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17(Winter Special Issue), 109–122.
Greene, W. H. (2000). Econometric analysis. New Jersey: Prentince Hall.
Grimaldi, R., & Grandi, A. (2005). Business incubators and new venture creation: An assessment of incubating models. Technovation, 25(2), 111–121.
Gulati, R. (1995). Does familiarity breed trust? The implications of repeated ties for contractual choice in alliances. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 85–112. doi:10.2307/256729.
Gulati, R., & Gargiulo, M. (1999). Where do interorganizational networks come from? American Journal of Sociology, 104(5), 1439–1493.
Günday, G., Ulusoy, G., Kılıc¸, K., & Alpkan, L. (2011). Effects of innovation types on firm performance. International Journal of Production Economics, 133(2), 662–676.
Hansen, M. T. (1999). The search-transfer problem: The role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across subunits organization. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(1), 82–111.
Hansson, F., Husted, K., & Vestergaard, J. (2005). Second generation science parks: from structural holes jockeys to social capital catalysts of the knowledge society. Technovation, 25, 1039–1049.
Huang, K.-F., Yu, C.-M. J., & Seetoo, D.-H. (2012). Firm innovation in policy-driven parks and spontaneous clusters: The smaller firm the better? The Journal of Technology Transfer, 37(5), 715–731.
Johansson, M., Jacob, M., & Hellstro, T. (2005). The strength of strong ties: University spin-offs and the significance of historical relations. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 30, 271–286.
Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1992). Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organization Science, 3(3), 383–397.
Lambooy, J. G. (2004). The transmission of knowledge, emerging networks, and the role of universities: An evolutionary approach. European Planning Studies, 12(5), 643–657.
Lambooy, J. G. (2010). Knowledge transfers, spillovers and actors: The role of context and social capital. European Planning Studies, 18(6), 873–891.
Lee, C., Lee, K., & Pennings, J. M. (2001). Internal capabilities, external networks, and performance: A study on technology-based ventures. Strategic Management Journal, 22(6–7), 615–640.
Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2007). The economics of university research parks. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 23(4), 661–674.
Löfsten, H., & Lindelo¨f, P. (2001). Science parks in Sweden—industrial renewal and development? R&D Management, 31(3), 309–322.
Löfsten, H., & Lindelo¨f, P. (2002). Science parks and the growth of new technology-based firms—Academic-industry links, innovation and markets. Research Policy, 31(6), 859–876.
Löfsten, H., & Lindelo¨ f, P. (2005). R&D networks and product innovation patterns—Academic and nonacademic new technology-based firms on science parks. Technovation, 25, 1025–1037.
Lööf, H., & Brostro¨m, A. (2008). Does knowledge diffusion between university and industry increase innovativeness? The Journal of Technology Transfer, 33(1), 73–90.
López A (2012) Effect of microaggregation on regression results: An application to Spanish innovation data. The Empirical Economics Letters, 10(12).
Löwegren, M. (2003). New technology-based firms in science parks: A study of resources and absorptive capacity. Sweden: Lund University Press.
Massey, D., Quintas, P., & Wield, D. (1992). High-tech fantasies: Science parks in society, science and space. London: Routledge.
McAdam, M., & McAdam, R. (2008). High tech start-ups in University Science Park incubators: The relationship between the start-up’s lifecycle progression and use of the incubator’s resources. Technovation, 28(5), 277–290.
Mian, S. A. (1997). Assesing and managing the university technology business incubator: An integrative framework. Journal of Business Venturing, 12, 251–285.
Molina-Morales, F. X., & Martínez-Fernández, M. T. (2004). How much difference is there between industrial district firms? A net value creation approach. Research Policy, 33(3), 473–486.
Montoro-Sánchez, A., Ortiz-de-Urbina-Criado, M., & Mora-Valentín, E. M. (2011). Effects of knowledge spillovers on innovation and collaboration in science and technology parks. Journal of Knowledge Management, 15(6), 948–970.
Morosini, P. (2004). Industrial clusters. Knowledge integration and performance. World Development, 32(2), 305–326.
Morrison, A. (2008). All Gatekeepers of knowledge within industrial districts: Who they are, how they interact. Regional Studies, 42(6), 817–835.
Morrison, A., & Rabellotti, R. (2009). Knowledge and information networks in an Italian wine cluster. European Planning Studies, 17(7), 983–1006.
Phillimore, J. (1999). Beyond the linear view of innovation in science park evaluation an analysis of Western Australian Technology Park. Technovation, 19(11), 673–680.
Quintas, P., Wield, D., & Massey, D. (1992). Academic-industry links and innovation: Questioning the science park model. Technovation, 12(3), 161–175.
Robertson, P. L., & Langlois, R. N. (1995). Innovation, networks, and vertical integration. Research Policy, 24(4), 543–562.
Rotemberg, J. J., & Saloner, G. (2000). Competition and human capital accumulation: A theory of interregional specialization and trade. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 30, 373–404.
Rothaermel, F. T., & Thursby, M. (2005). University–incubator firm knowledge flows: Assessing their impact on incubator firm performance. Research Policy, 34(3), 305–320.
Shaver, J. M., & Flyer, F. (2000). Agglomeration economies, firm heterogeneity, and foreign direct investment in the United States. Strategic Management Journal, 21(12), 1175–1193.
Siegel, D. S., Westhead, P., & Wright, M. (2003). Science parks and the performance of new technologybased firms: A review of recent UK evidence and an agenda for future research. Small Business Economics, 20, 177–184.
Simon, H. A. (1991). Bounded rationality and organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 125–134.
Soda, G., Usai, A., & Zaheer, A. (2004). Network memory: The influence of past and current networks on performance. Academy of Management Journal, 47(6), 893–906.
Squicciarini, M. (2007). Science parks’ tenants versus out-of-park firms: Who innovates more? A duration model. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 33(1), 45–71.
Sterlacchini, A. (1999). Do innovative activities matter to small firms in non-R&D intensive industries? An application to export performance. Research Policy, 28(8), 819–832.
Teece, D., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18, 509–533.
Ter Wal, A. L. J., & Boschma, R. A. (2009). Applying social network analysis in economic geography: Framing some key analytic issues. Annals of Regional Science, 43, 739–756.
Tsai, W. (2001). Knowledge transfer in intraorganizational networks: Effects of network position and absorptive capacity on business unit innovation and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44(5), 996–1004.
Vásquez Urriago, A. R., Modrego, A., Barge-Gil, A., & Paraskevopoulou, E. (2010). The impact of science and technology parks on firms’ radical product innovation. Empirical evidence from Spain.
Vedovello, C. (1997). Science parks and university-industry interaction: Geographical proximity between the agents as a driving force. Technovation, 17(9), 491–531.
Villalonga, B. (2004). Intangible resources, Tobin’s q, and the sustainability of performance differences. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 54, 205–230.
Wakelin, K. (1998). Innovation and export behavior at firm level. Research Policy, 26, 829–841.
Westhead, P. (1997). R&D ‘‘inputs’’ and ‘‘outputs’’ of technology-based firms located on and off science parks. R&D Management, 27(1), 45–62.
Westhead, P., & Batstone, S. (1998). Independent technology-based Firms: The perceived benefits of a science park location. Urban Studies, 35(12), 2197–2219.
Wooldridge, J. (2006). Introductory econometrics: A modern approach. Mason, OH: Thomson, Couth-Western.
Yang, C.-H., Motohashi, K., & Chen, J.-R. (2009). Are new tecnology-based firms located on science parks really more innovative? Research Policy, 38, 77–85.
Zahara, A. A., & George, G. (2002). Absorptive capacity: A review, reconceptualization, and extension. Academy of Management Review, 27(2), 185–203.
Zaheer, A., & Bell, G. G. (2005). Benefiting from network position: Firm capabilities, structural holes, and performance. Strategic Management Journal, 26, 809–825.
Zhang, Y. (2005). The science park phenomenon: Development, evolution and typology. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, 5(1/2), 138–154.