Knowledge spillovers in science and technology parks: how can firms benefit most?

Díez‐Vial, Isabel; Olmos, Marta Fernández

doi:10.1007/s10961-013-9329-4

Cited by 113 publications

(70 citation statements)

References 77 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Meanwhile, with respect to the rest of the economies (localization and knowledge-intensive), and unlike what could be expected, it was impossible for us to validate a direct effect on innovation; in other words, our study cannot validate that being located in an agglomeration of firms belonging to the same industrial sector or next to agents that value knowledge has a favorable impact on innovation. This outcome is consistent with the findings of other authors (Alcácer & Chung, 2014;Boschma & Ter Wal, 2007;Díez-Vial & Fernández-Olmos, 2015;Huang, Yu, & Seetoo, 2012;Morrison & Rabelloti, 2009) and may be explained in a variety of ways.…”

Section: Discussion Conclusion and Future Lines Of Researchsupporting

confidence: 93%

Types of agglomeration economies: effects on business innovation

Claver‐Cortés

Marco‐Lajara

Manresa‐Marhuenda

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A review of the literature does not provide conclusive results about the effects caused by firm agglomeration on innovation. In order to shed light on this issue, this paper draws a distinction among three kinds of agglomeration economies and empirically tests their respective impact on business innovation. The advantage that external knowledge generated through concentration can bring to each company depends on its absorptive capacity. Hence, it is posited that this dynamic capability acts as a mediator in the relationship between agglomeration and innovation. Using data from a survey conducted in 2013 by the Technological Innovation Panel (PITEC), an analysis of these ideas was performed using a sample of 2,906 high and medium-high technology companies. The results obtained indicate that several types of agglomeration economies exist and that the net effect each one of them has on innovation is different. More specifically, only urbanization economies favor innovation. Additionally, all of our findings reveal that firms increase their greater absorptive capacity in the context of agglomeration. brough, 2003). Although access to external knowledge may prove difficult, the physical proximity of firms favors their mutual interactions as does the existence of a set of common standards and values that enable the exchange and transfer of (tacit) knowledge. The latter is linked to the agglomeration of firms and institutions in a geographical area, i.e., agglomeration economies (Marshall, 1920). In this sense, a line of research forecasts a positive effect of localization in agglomerations on firm innovation and performance.

show abstract

Section: Discussion Conclusion and Future Lines Of Researchsupporting

confidence: 93%

Types of agglomeration economies: effects on business innovation

Claver‐Cortés

Marco‐Lajara

Manresa‐Marhuenda

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Second, within this study it is also taken into account that SPs may accommodate a heterogeneous group of firms. Past research has argued the importance of acknowledging the heterogeneous composition of SP firms (Ferguson and Olofsson 2004;Chan and Lau 2005;Díez-Vial and Fernández-Olmos 2015;Ubeda et al 2019). The cluster analyses show three different SP tenant types based on (dis)similarities on activities, size and length of stay.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 92%

Perceived benefits of science park attributes among park tenants in the Netherlands

Junker

Appel‐Meulenbroek

et al. 2019

J Technol Transf

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Science parks as area developments have existed for decades and captivated the attention of academia and policy-makers for their potential impact on firms and regions. Only limited attention is given to the needs of science park firms regarding what science parks offer. Therefore, this study focused on science park facilities and services and how firms perceive the benefits associated with these attributes. An online survey distributed among tenants on seven science parks in the Netherlands yielded 103 respondents. An a priori list of science park attributes was presented in order to gain insight in how the respondents associated these facilities and services with potential benefits. The benefits considered were derived from proximity and innovation literature within the science park context. In general, science park attributes were associated with either proximity benefits or benefits related to the SP real estate. Based on a cluster analysis of organisational characteristics three tenant types were identified. The three tenant types sought different benefits through different attributes. Commercially-orientated firms associated science park attributes as ways for being near customers. Mature science-based firms associated attributes with a wider range of benefits, such as image benefits, being near customers and other firms. Young technology-based firms were more cost-driven and focused on image benefits. The associations between various types of facilities and the benefits that tenant types seek, provide insights for practitioners in terms of the design and management of science parks and add to the body of knowledge of science parks within the context of innovation management.

show abstract

“…The effects of the independent variables on LNPatents and LNNewproduct are estimated by using the Tobit model. Given that the independent variables in this study are captured as censored data and are roughly continuously distributed over positive values, a Tobit model is applied to estimate the effects (Díez‐Vial & Fernández‐Olmos, 2015). Specifically, the following model is used to examine the relationships between innovation and the various factors:

Y = α + β Firm's characteristics + γ Park's characteristics + δ Firm_Park + ε

…”

Section: Data Sources and Methodologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Government support and firm innovation performance in Chinese science and technology parks: The perspective of firm and sub‐park heterogeneity

Teng

Zhang

et al. 2020

Growth and Change

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Science and technology parks (STPs) are established to promote the firm innovation performance via agglomeration economy and government support in China. On-site qualified firms obtain government R&D funding as a type of government support, and they are offered differential innovation service caused by the differential capabilities of subparks which scatter throughout a single city. It is debatable whether those government supports at firm and sub-park levels can promote firm innovation capabilities. This study takes Zhangjiang National Innovation Demonstration Zone, Shanghai as an example. It applies a Tobit regression model to analyse the databases of Zhangjiang Annual Sampling Survey of Firms 2015 and Zhangjiang Development Report 2015. We find out at the firm level, government R&D funding has a significant and positive influence on firms' innovation, but government R&D funding generates a crowing-out effect the innovation performance of on-site firms with more R&D investment themselves. At the sub-park level, innovation service agencies of sub-parks do not exert an important role in influencing firms' innovation, and they even have negative moderating effects on the relationship 750 |

show abstract

Knowledge spillovers in science and technology parks: how can firms benefit most?

Cited by 113 publications

References 77 publications

Types of agglomeration economies: effects on business innovation

Types of agglomeration economies: effects on business innovation

Perceived benefits of science park attributes among park tenants in the Netherlands

Government support and firm innovation performance in Chinese science and technology parks: The perspective of firm and sub‐park heterogeneity

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About