IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ris/uncgec/2018_004.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Geographic Proximity and Science Parks

Author

Listed:
  • Link, Albert

    (University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Department of Economics)

  • Scott, John

    (Dartmouth College)

Abstract

Science parks, also called research parks, technology parks, or technopolis infrastructures, have increased rapidly in numbers as many countries adopted the approach of bringing together in a park research-based organizations. A science park’s cluster of research and technology-based organizations is often located on or near a university campus. The juxtaposition of ongoing research of both the university and of the park tenants creates a two-way flow of knowledge; knowledge is transferred between the university and firms, and all parties develop knowledge more effectively because of their symbiotic relationship. Theory and evidence support the belief that the geographic proximity that a science park provides for the participating organizations creates a dynamic cluster that accelerates economic growth and international competitiveness through the innovation-enabling exchanges of knowledge and the transfer of technologies. The process of creating innovations is more efficient because of the agglomeration of research and technology-based firms on or near a university campus. The proximity of a park to multiple sources of knowledge provides greater opportunities for the creation and acquisition of knowledge, especially tacit knowledge, and the geographic proximity therefore reduces the search and acquisition costs for that knowledge. Understanding the mechanisms by which the innovative performance of research and technology-based organizations is increased by their geographic proximity in a science park is important for formulating public and private sector policies toward park formations because successful national innovation systems require the two-way knowledge flow, among firms in a park and between firms and universities, that is fostered by the science park infrastructure.

Suggested Citation

  • Link, Albert & Scott, John, 2018. "Geographic Proximity and Science Parks," UNCG Economics Working Papers 18-4, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Department of Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:ris:uncgec:2018_004
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://bryan.uncg.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/18-04-Geographic-Proximity-and-Science-Parks.pdf
    File Function: Full text
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Link, Albert N. & Scott, John T., 2003. "U.S. science parks: the diffusion of an innovation and its effects on the academic missions of universities," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 21(9), pages 1323-1356, November.
    2. Feldman, Maryann P. & Audretsch, David B., 1999. "Innovation in cities:: Science-based diversity, specialization and localized competition," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 409-429, February.
    3. Elisa Salvador, 2011. "Are science parks and incubators good “brand names” for spin-offs? The case study of Turin," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 36(2), pages 203-232, April.
    4. Kelsi G. Hobbs & Albert N. Link & John T. Scott, 2017. "Science and technology parks: an annotated and analytical literature review," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 42(4), pages 957-976, August.
    5. Richard Ferguson & Christer Olofsson, 2004. "Science Parks and the Development of NTBFs-- Location, Survival and Growth," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 29(1), pages 5-17, January.
    6. Zvi Griliches, 1998. "Productivity, R&D, and Basic Research at the Firm Level in the 1970s," NBER Chapters, in: R&D and Productivity: The Econometric Evidence, pages 82-99, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. Adam B. Jaffe & Manuel Trajtenberg & Rebecca Henderson, 1993. "Geographic Localization of Knowledge Spillovers as Evidenced by Patent Citations," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 108(3), pages 577-598.
    8. Link, Albert N. & Scott, John T., 2011. "Public Goods, Public Gains: Calculating the Social Benefits of Public R&D," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199729685.
    9. John Scott, 2009. "Competition in Research and Development: A Theory for Contradictory Predictions," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 34(2), pages 153-171, March.
    10. Arthur, W Brian, 1989. "Competing Technologies, Increasing Returns, and Lock-In by Historical Events," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 99(394), pages 116-131, March.
    11. Hall, Bronwyn H & Link, Albert N & Scott, John T, 2001. "Barriers Inhibiting Industry from Partnering with Universities: Evidence from the Advanced Technology Program," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 26(1-2), pages 87-98, January.
    12. Rothaermel, Frank T. & Thursby, Marie, 2005. "University-incubator firm knowledge flows: assessing their impact on incubator firm performance," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 305-320, April.
    13. Yang, Chih-Hai & Motohashi, Kazuyuki & Chen, Jong-Rong, 2009. "Are new technology-based firms located on science parks really more innovative?: Evidence from Taiwan," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 77-85, February.
    14. Breschi, Stefano & Lissoni, Francesco, 2001. "Knowledge Spillovers and Local Innovation Systems: A Critical Survey," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 10(4), pages 975-1005, December.
    15. Siegel, Donald S. & Westhead, Paul & Wright, Mike, 2003. "Assessing the impact of university science parks on research productivity: exploratory firm-level evidence from the United Kingdom," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 21(9), pages 1357-1369, November.
    16. Link, Albert N. & Scott, John T., 2011. "Research, Science, and Technology Parks: Vehicles for Technology Transfer," UNCG Economics Working Papers 11-22, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Department of Economics.
    17. David, Paul A, 1985. "Clio and the Economics of QWERTY," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 75(2), pages 332-337, May.
    18. John T. Scott, 2016. "Creativity for invention insights: corporate strategies and opportunities for public entrepreneurship," Economia e Politica Industriale: Journal of Industrial and Business Economics, Springer;Associazione Amici di Economia e Politica Industriale, vol. 43(4), pages 409-448, December.
    19. Link, Albert N. & Scott, John T., 2005. "Opening the ivory tower's door: An analysis of the determinants of the formation of U.S. university spin-off companies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(7), pages 1106-1112, September.
    20. Kenneth Arrow, 2000. "Increasing returns: historiographic issues and path dependence," The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 7(2), pages 171-180.
    21. Mariagrazia Squicciarini, 2008. "Science Parks’ tenants versus out-of-Park firms: who innovates more? A duration model," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 33(1), pages 45-71, February.
    22. Fukugawa, Nobuya, 2006. "Science parks in Japan and their value-added contributions to new technology-based firms," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 381-400, March.
    23. Martin, Stephen & Scott, John T., 2000. "The nature of innovation market failure and the design of public support for private innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(4-5), pages 437-447, April.
    24. James D. Adams & Adam B. Jaffe, 1996. "Bounding the Effects of R&D: An Investigation Using Matched Establishment-Firm Data," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 27(4), pages 700-721, Winter.
    25. Kelsi G. Hobbs & Albert N. Link & John T. Scott, 2017. "The growth of US science and technology parks: does proximity to a university matter?," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 59(2), pages 495-511, September.
    26. Henderson, J. Vernon, 1986. "Efficiency of resource usage and city size," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(1), pages 47-70, January.
    27. Jhon T. Scott & Troy J. Scott, 2014. "Innovation rivalry: theory and empirics," ECONOMIA E POLITICA INDUSTRIALE, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2014(1), pages 25-53.
    28. Phillip Phan & Donald S. Siegel & Mike Wright, 2016. "Science Parks and Incubators: Observations, Synthesis and Future Research," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Phillip H Phan & Sarfraz A Mian & Wadid Lamine (ed.), TECHNOLOGY ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND BUSINESS INCUBATION Theory • Practice • Lessons Learned, chapter 9, pages 249-272, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    29. Evangelia Sofouli & Nicholas Vonortas, 2007. "S&T Parks and business incubators in middle-sized countries: the case of greece," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 32(5), pages 525-544, October.
    30. Rothaermel, Frank T. & Thursby, Marie, 2005. "Incubator firm failure or graduation?: The role of university linkages," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(7), pages 1076-1090, September.
    31. Link, Albert N, 1981. "Basic Research and Productivity Increase in Manufacturing: Additional Evidence," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 71(5), pages 1111-1112, December.
    32. Stephen Layson & Dennis Leyden & John Neufeld, 2008. "To Admit Or Not To Admit: The Question Of Research Park Size," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(7-8), pages 689-697.
    33. Appold, Stephen J., 2004. "Research parks and the location of industrial research laboratories: an analysis of the effectiveness of a policy intervention," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 225-243, March.
    34. Richard Shearmur & David Doloreux, 2000. "Science Parks: Actors or Reactors? Canadian Science Parks in Their Urban Context," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 32(6), pages 1065-1082, June.
    35. Lichtenberg, Frank R & Siegel, Donald, 1991. "The Impact of R&D Investment on Productivity--New Evidence Using Linked R&D-LRD Data," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 29(2), pages 203-229, April.
    36. Link, Albert N. & Siegel, Donald S. & Wright, Mike (ed.), 2015. "The Chicago Handbook of University Technology Transfer and Academic Entrepreneurship," University of Chicago Press Economics Books, University of Chicago Press, number 9780226178349, September.
    37. Florencia Garcia-Vicente & Daniel Garcia-Swartz & Martin Campbell-Kelly, 2017. "Information technology clusters and regional growth in America, 1970–1980," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 48(4), pages 1021-1046, April.
    38. Paul Westhead & Stephen Batstone, 1998. "Independent Technology-based Firms: The Perceived Benefits of a Science Park Location," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 35(12), pages 2197-2219, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Laura Lecluyse & Mirjam Knockaert & André Spithoven, 2019. "The contribution of science parks: a literature review and future research agenda," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 44(2), pages 559-595, April.
    2. Prescott, Craig & Pilato, Manuela & Bellia, Claudio, 2020. "Geographical indications in the UK after Brexit: An uncertain future?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    3. Hülya Ünlü & Serdal Temel & Kristel Miller, 2023. "Understanding the drivers of patent performance of University Science Parks in Turkey," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 48(3), pages 842-872, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Link, Albert N. & Scott, John T., 2011. "Research, Science, and Technology Parks: Vehicles for Technology Transfer," UNCG Economics Working Papers 11-22, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Department of Economics.
    2. Laura Lecluyse & Mirjam Knockaert & André Spithoven, 2019. "The contribution of science parks: a literature review and future research agenda," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 44(2), pages 559-595, April.
    3. T. Theeranattapong & D. Pickernell & C. Simms, 2021. "Systematic literature review paper: the regional innovation system-university-science park nexus," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 46(6), pages 2017-2050, December.
    4. Alberto Albahari & Andrés Barge-Gil & Salvador Pérez-Canto & Paolo Landoni, 2023. "The effect of science and technology parks on tenant firms: a literature review," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 48(4), pages 1489-1531, August.
    5. Kelsi G. Hobbs & Albert N. Link & John T. Scott, 2017. "Science and technology parks: an annotated and analytical literature review," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 42(4), pages 957-976, August.
    6. Fernando Ubeda & Marta Ortiz-de-Urbina-Criado & Eva-María Mora-Valentín, 2019. "Do firms located in science and technology parks enhance innovation performance? The effect of absorptive capacity," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 44(1), pages 21-48, February.
    7. Marisa Ramírez-Alesón & Marta Fernández-Olmos, 2018. "Unravelling the effects of Science Parks on the innovation performance of NTBFs," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 43(2), pages 482-505, April.
    8. Alberto Albahari & Magnus Klofsten & Juan Carlos Rubio-Romero, 2019. "Science and Technology Parks: a study of value creation for park tenants," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 44(4), pages 1256-1272, August.
    9. Albahari, Alberto & Pérez-Canto, Salvador & Barge-Gil, Andrés & Modrego, Aurelia, 2017. "Technology Parks versus Science Parks: Does the university make the difference?," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 13-28.
    10. Elisa Salvador & Secondo Rolfo, 2011. "Are incubators and science parks effective for research spin-offs? Evidence from Italy," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 38(3), pages 170-184, April.
    11. Good, Matthew & Knockaert, Mirjam & Soppe, Birthe & Wright, Mike, 2019. "The technology transfer ecosystem in academia. An organizational design perspective," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 82, pages 35-50.
    12. Laspia, Alessandro & Sansone, Giuliano & Landoni, Paolo & Racanelli, Domenico & Bartezzaghi, Emilio, 2021. "The organization of innovation services in science and technology parks: Evidence from a multi-case study analysis in Europe," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    13. Elisa Salvador, 2012. "Italian Science Parks And Incubators: Some Considerations Arising From A Questionnaire Investigation On Research Spin-Off Firms," Post-Print hal-02093934, HAL.
    14. Eva-María Mora-Valentín & Marta Ortiz-de-Urbina-Criado & Juan-José Nájera-Sánchez, 2018. "Mapping the conceptual structure of science and technology parks," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 43(5), pages 1410-1435, October.
    15. Ng, Wei Keat Benny & Appel-Meulenbroek, Rianne & Cloodt, Myriam & Arentze, Theo, 2021. "Perceptual measures of science parks: Tenant firms’ associations between science park attributes and benefits," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 163(C).
    16. Albahari, Alberto & Pérez-Canto, Salvador & Landoni, Paolo, 2010. "Science and Technology Parks impacts on tenant organisations: a review of literature," MPRA Paper 41914, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    17. Kholekile L. Gwebu & Jeffrey Sohl & Jing Wang, 2019. "Differential performance of science park firms: an integrative model," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 52(1), pages 193-211, January.
    18. Ilaria Mariotti & Elisa Salvador, 2015. "On-park and off-park research spin-offs: some insights from an empirical investigation on Italy," International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 19(5/6), pages 405-422.
    19. Ángela Vásquez-Urriago & Andrés Barge-Gil & Aurelia Rico & Evita Paraskevopoulou, 2014. "The impact of science and technology parks on firms’ product innovation: empirical evidence from Spain," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 24(4), pages 835-873, September.
    20. Squicciarini, Mariagrazia, 2009. "Science parks, knowledge spillovers, and firms' innovative performance: evidence from Finland," Economics Discussion Papers 2009-32, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    science park; research park; technology park; geographic proximity; technology transfer; clusters; location; innovation; knowledge spillovers; patents; regional growth and development;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • O31 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives
    • O32 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Management of Technological Innovation and R&D
    • O34 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Intellectual Property and Intellectual Capital
    • R11 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General Regional Economics - - - Regional Economic Activity: Growth, Development, Environmental Issues, and Changes
    • R12 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General Regional Economics - - - Size and Spatial Distributions of Regional Economic Activity; Interregional Trade (economic geography)

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ris:uncgec:2018_004. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Albert Link (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/edncgus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.