IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/presci/v97y2018i2p253-279.html

The influence of science and technology park characteristics on firms' innovation results

Author

Listed:
  • Alberto Albahari
  • Andrés Barge‐Gil
  • Salvador Pérez‐Canto
  • Aurelia Modrego

Abstract

The effectiveness of Science and Technology Parks (STPs) as instruments of innovation policy has generated thriving debate among academics, practitioners and policy makers. A gap in the existing literature on STPs is that research mostly does not consider STPs' heterogeneity. The present paper aims at filling this gap, analysing the influence of different STP characteristics on their tenants' performance. Using data on 849 firms and 25 STPs from the 2009 Community Innovation Survey for Spain and a survey of STP managers respectively and after controlling for a wide set of firms characteristics, we find that: (i) firms located in very new or longer established STPs show better innovative performance; (ii) the size of the STP and its management company positively affects the innovative performance of tenants while services provision has no effect on firms' achieving better results; and (iii) firms in less technologically developed regions benefit more from location in an STP. Theoretical, policy and managerial contributions of our research are discussed in the paper. La eficacia de los Parques Científicos y Tecnológicos (PCyT) como instrumentos políticos de innovación ha generado un debate floreciente entre académicos, profesionales y responsables políticos. Un vacío en la literatura existente sobre los PCyT es que la mayoría de las investigaciones no consideran la heterogeneidad de los PCyT. El objetivo del presente artículo es llenar este vacío, mediante el análisis de la influencia de las diferentes características de los PCyT en el rendimiento de sus inquilinos. Mediante el uso de datos de 849 empresas y 25 PCyT de la Encuesta de la Comunidad sobre la Innovación de 2009 para España y una encuesta a los gerentes de PCyT, respectivamente, y después de controlar un amplio conjunto de características de las empresas, se encontró que: (i) las empresas ubicadas en PCyT muy nuevos o bastante establecidos muestran un mejor rendimiento en innovación; (ii) el tamaño del PCyT y la compañía que lo gestiona afecta positivamente al rendimiento en innovación de los inquilinos, mientras que la provisión de servicios no tiene ningún efecto en que las empresas logren mejores resultados; y (iii) las empresas en regiones menos desarrolladas tecnológicamente se benefician más de la ubicación en un PCyT. En el documento se discuten las contribuciones teóricas, políticas y de gestión de nuestra investigación. イノベーション政策の実行手段としてのサイエンス&テクノロジーパーク(Science and Technology Park:STP)の有効性については、研究者、政策実行者、政策立案者の間で盛んに議論がなされてきた。STPに関する既存研究の欠点は、STPの異質性がほとんど考慮されていないことである。本稿では、STPの様々な特性がテナント企業の実績に及ぼす影響を分析して、この欠点を補うことを目指す。2009年のスペインのコミュニティ・イノベーション調査(Community Innovation Survey)から得られた849社の企業データとSTPの経営者の調査から得られた25のSTPに関するデータを使用して分析を行い、広範な企業の特性で補正すると以下のことが分かる。1)設立から間もないSPT、または長く成功しているSPT内に立地する企業は、イノベーション・パフォーマンスがより優れている。2)SPTの規模とそのSPTの経営会社はテナント企業のイノベーション・パフォーマンスに正の影響を及ぼすが、サービスの提供は企業がより優れた実績を収めることには何の影響も与えていない。3)技術的発展が遅れている地域の企業は、STP内に立地することからより多くの恩恵を受ける。理論的、政策的、経営的な面での本研究の貢献について考察する。

Suggested Citation

  • Alberto Albahari & Andrés Barge‐Gil & Salvador Pérez‐Canto & Aurelia Modrego, 2018. "The influence of science and technology park characteristics on firms' innovation results," Papers in Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 97(2), pages 253-279, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:presci:v:97:y:2018:i:2:p:253-279
    DOI: 10.1111/pirs.12253
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/pirs.12253
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/pirs.12253?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Jose-Luis Hervas-Oliver & Francisca Sempere-Ripoll & Carles Boronat-Moll, 2014. "Process innovation strategy in SMEs, organizational innovation and performance: a misleading debate?," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 43(4), pages 873-886, December.
    4. Westhead, P. & Storey, D. J., 1995. "Links between higher education institutions and high technology firms," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 23(4), pages 345-360, August.
    5. Storey, D. J. & Tether, B. S., 1998. "New technology-based firms in the European union: an introduction," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(9), pages 933-946, April.
    6. Catherine Beaudry & Stefano Breschi, 2003. "Are firms in clusters really more innovative?," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(4), pages 325-342.
    7. 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.
    8. Angela Rocio Vasquez-Urriago & Andrés Barge-Gil & Aurelia Modrego Rico, 2016. "Which firms benefit more from being located in a Science and Technology Park? Empirical evidence for Spain," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 25(1), pages 107-117.
    9. Andræs Barge-Gil, 2013. "Open Strategies and Innovation Performance," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(7), pages 585-610, October.
    10. Wladimir Raymond & Pierre Mohnen & Franz Palm & Sybrand Loeff, 2006. "A Classification of Dutch Manufacturing based on a Model of Innovation," De Economist, Springer, vol. 154(1), pages 85-105, March.
    11. Pierre Mohnen & Jacques Mairesse & Marcel Dagenais, 2006. "Innovativity: A comparison across seven European countries," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(4-5), pages 391-413.
    12. Brian Mccann & Timothy Folta, 2011. "Performance differentials within geographic clusters," Post-Print hal-02312592, HAL.
    13. Borje Johansson & Hans Loof, 2008. "Innovation Activities Explained By Firm Attributes And Location," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(6), pages 533-552.
    14. 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.
    15. Arthur, W. Brian, 1990. "'Silicon Valley' locational clusters: when do increasing returns imply monopoly?," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 235-251, June.
    16. Zvi Griliches, 1998. "Patent Statistics as Economic Indicators: A Survey," NBER Chapters, in: R&D and Productivity: The Econometric Evidence, pages 287-343, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    17. Roberto Camagni & Roberta Capello, 2013. "Regional Competitiveness and Territorial Capital: A Conceptual Approach and Empirical Evidence from the European Union," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 47(9), pages 1383-1402, October.
    18. 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..
    19. Dahl, Michael S. & Pedersen, Christian O.R., 2004. "Knowledge flows through informal contacts in industrial clusters: myth or reality?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(10), pages 1673-1686, December.
    20. Kuo-Feng Huang & Chwo-Ming Yu & Dah-Hsian Seetoo, 2012. "Firm innovation in policy-driven parks and spontaneous clusters: the smaller firm the better?," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 37(5), pages 715-731, October.
    21. Feldman, Maryann P. & Kogler, Dieter F., 2010. "Stylized Facts in the Geography of Innovation," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 381-410, Elsevier.
    22. Evans, David S, 1987. "The Relationship between Firm Growth, Size, and Age: Estimates for 100 Manufacturing Industries," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(4), pages 567-581, June.
    23. Dong-Ho Shin, 2001. "research notes and comments: An alternative approach to developing science parks: A case study from Korea," Papers in Regional Science, Springer;Regional Science Association International, vol. 80(1), pages 103-111.
    24. Donna Marie DeCarolis & David L. Deeds, 1999. "The impact of stocks and flows of organizational knowledge on firm performance: an empirical investigation of the biotechnology industry," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(10), pages 953-968, October.
    25. Lofsten, Hans & Lindelof, Peter, 2002. "Science Parks and the growth of new technology-based firms--academic-industry links, innovation and markets," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(6), pages 859-876, August.
    26. Siegel, Donald S & Westhead, Paul & Wright, Mike, 2003. "Science Parks and the Performance of New Technology-Based Firms: A Review of Recent U.K. Evidence and an Agenda for Future Research," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 20(2), pages 177-184, March.
    27. Martina Kauffeld-Monz & Michael Fritsch, 2013. "Who Are the Knowledge Brokers in Regional Systems of Innovation? A Multi-Actor Network Analysis," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 47(5), pages 669-685, May.
    28. G. M.P. Swann, 2009. "The Economics of Innovation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 13211.
    29. Dirk Czarnitzki & Hanna Hottenrott, 2009. "Are Local Milieus The Key To Innovation Performance?," Journal of Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(1), pages 81-112, February.
    30. Colombo, Massimo G. & Delmastro, Marco, 2002. "How effective are technology incubators?: Evidence from Italy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(7), pages 1103-1122, September.
    31. 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.
    32. Lois Peters & Mark Rice & Malavika Sundararajan, 2004. "The Role of Incubators in the Entrepreneurial Process," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 29(1), pages 83-91, January.
    33. Catherine Beaudry & G. Swann, 2009. "Firm growth in industrial clusters of the United Kingdom," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 32(4), pages 409-424, April.
    34. Zvi Griliches, 1998. "R&D and Productivity: The Econometric Evidence," NBER Books, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, number gril98-1, January.
    35. Folta, Timothy B. & Cooper, Arnold C. & Baik, Yoon-suk, 2006. "Geographic cluster size and firm performance," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 217-242, March.
    36. Birgit Aschhoff & Tobias Schmidt, 2008. "Empirical Evidence on the Success of R&D Cooperation—Happy Together?," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 33(1), pages 41-62, August.
    37. 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.
    38. repec:hal:journl:hal-00481163 is not listed on IDEAS
    39. Michaela Trippl, 2013. "Islands of Innovation as Magnetic Centres of Star Scientists? Empirical Evidence on Spatial Concentration and Mobility Patterns," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 47(2), pages 229-244, February.
    40. Elena Huergo & Jordi Jaumandreu, 2004. "How Does Probability of Innovation Change with Firm Age?," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 22(3_4), pages 193-207, April.
    41. Andrés Rodríguez-Pose & Daniel Hardy, 2014. "Technology and Industrial Parks in Emerging Countries," SpringerBriefs in Regional Science, Springer, edition 127, number 978-3-319-07992-9, April.
    42. Paul Westhead & Stephen Batstone, 1999. "Perceived benefits of a managed science park location," Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(2), pages 129-154, April.
    43. Mariagrazia Squicciarini, 2009. "Science parks: seedbeds of innovation? A duration analysis of firms’ patenting activity," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 32(2), pages 169-190, February.
    44. McCann, Brian T. & Folta, Timothy B., 2011. "Performance differentials within geographic clusters," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 104-123, January.
    45. Bresnahan, Timothy F & Gambardella, Alfonso & Saxenian, AnnaLee, 2001. "'Old Economy' Inputs for 'New Economy' Outcomes: Cluster Formation in the New Silicon Valleys," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 10(4), pages 835-860, December.
    46. 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.
    47. David L. Rigby & W. Mark Brown, 2015. "Who Benefits from Agglomeration?," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 49(1), pages 28-43, January.
    48. Marshall, Alfred, 1920. "Industry and Trade," History of Economic Thought Books, McMaster University Archive for the History of Economic Thought, edition 3, number marshall1920.
    49. Albert Link & John Scott, 2006. "U.S. University Research Parks," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 25(1), pages 43-55, April.
    50. Edward J. Malecki, 2012. "Regional Social Capital: Why it Matters," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 46(8), pages 1023-1039, June.
    51. 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.
    52. Steven Bass, 1998. "Japanese Research Parks: National Policy and Local Development," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(5), pages 391-403.
    53. Alfred Kleinknecht & Kees Van Montfort & Erik Brouwer, 2002. "The Non-Trivial Choice between Innovation Indicators," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(2), pages 109-121.
    54. Ron Boschma, 2005. "Proximity and Innovation: A Critical Assessment," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(1), pages 61-74.
    55. Hu, Albert Guangzhou, 2007. "Technology parks and regional economic growth in China," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 76-87, February.
    56. Frenz, Marion & Ietto-Gillies, Grazia, 2009. "The impact on innovation performance of different sources of knowledge: Evidence from the UK Community Innovation Survey," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(7), pages 1125-1135, September.
    57. 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.
    58. Fagerberg, Jan & Mowery, David C. & Nelson, Richard R. (ed.), 2006. "The Oxford Handbook of Innovation," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199286805.
    59. Durand, Rodolphe & Coeurderoy, Regis, 2001. "Age, order of entry, strategic orientation, and organizational performance," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 16(5), pages 471-494, September.
    60. Hervas-Oliver, Jose-Luis & Sempere-Ripoll, Francisca, 2015. "Disentangling the influence of technological process and product innovations," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 68(1), pages 109-118.
    61. Jose-Luis Hervas-Oliver & Jose Albors-Garrigos, 2009. "The role of the firm's internal and relational capabilities in clusters: when distance and embeddedness are not enough to explain innovation," Journal of Economic Geography, Oxford University Press, vol. 9(2), pages 263-283, March.
    62. Andrés Barge-Gil & Aurelia Modrego, 2011. "The impact of research and technology organizations on firm competitiveness. Measurement and determinants," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 36(1), pages 61-83, February.
    63. Jose-Luis Hervas-Oliver & Jose Albors-Garrigos, 2014. "Are technology gatekeepers renewing clusters? Understanding gatekeepers and their dynamics across cluster life cycles," Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(5-6), pages 431-452, August.
    64. Luuk Klomp & George Van Leeuwen, 2001. "Linking Innovation and Firm Performance: A New Approach," International Journal of the Economics of Business, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(3), pages 343-364.
    65. Jose-Luis Hervas-Oliver & Jose Albors-Garrigos & Blanca de-Miguel & Antonio Hidalgo, 2012. "The role of a firm's absorptive capacity and the technology transfer process in clusters: How effective are technology centres in low-tech clusters?," Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(7-8), pages 523-559, September.
    66. Tsai, Kuen-Hung, 2009. "Collaborative networks and product innovation performance: Toward a contingency perspective," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(5), pages 765-778, June.
    67. Griliches, Zvi, 1998. "R&D and Productivity," National Bureau of Economic Research Books, University of Chicago Press, edition 1, number 9780226308869, August.
    68. Storey, D. J. & Tether, B. S., 1998. "Public policy measures to support new technology-based firms in the European Union," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(9), pages 1037-1057, April.
    69. Juan Alcácer & Wilbur Chung, 2014. "Location strategies for agglomeration economies," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(12), pages 1749-1761, December.
    70. Izushi, Hiro, 2003. "Impact of the length of relationships upon the use of research institutes by SMEs," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(5), pages 771-788, May.
    71. Zucker, Lynne G & Darby, Michael R & Brewer, Marilynn B, 1998. "Intellectual Human Capital and the Birth of U.S. Biotechnology Enterprises," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 88(1), pages 290-306, March.
    72. Johan Lambrecht & Fabrice Pirnay, 2005. "An evaluation of public support measures for private external consultancies to SMEs in the Walloon Region of Belgium," Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(2), pages 89-108, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. 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.
    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. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    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. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. Nobuya FUKUGAWA & Kuo-I CHANG, 2025. "Science Parks in Taiwan and Their Value-adding Contributions," Discussion papers 25005, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).
    12. 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.
    13. Angela Rocio Vasquez-Urriago & Andrés Barge-Gil & Aurelia Modrego Rico, 2016. "Which firms benefit more from being located in a Science and Technology Park? Empirical evidence for Spain," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 25(1), pages 107-117.
    14. Nils Grashof, 2020. "Sinking or swimming in the cluster labour pool? A firm-specific analysis of the effect of specialized labour," Jena Economics Research Papers 2020-006, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    15. 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.
    16. Eduardo Cadorin & Magnus Klofsten & Hans Löfsten, 2021. "Science Parks, talent attraction and stakeholder involvement: an international study," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 46(1), pages 1-28, February.
    17. 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).
    18. Enrique Claver-Cortés & Bartolome Marco-Lajara & Encarnación Manresa-Marhuenda & F. García-Lillo & Pedro Seva-Larrosa, 2017. "Location Decisions and Agglomeration Economies: Domestic and Foreign Companies," INVESTIGACIONES REGIONALES - Journal of REGIONAL RESEARCH, Asociación Española de Ciencia Regional, issue 39, pages 99-135.
    19. David Minguillo & Mike Thelwall, 2015. "Which are the best innovation support infrastructures for universities? Evidence from R&D output and commercial activities," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(1), pages 1057-1081, January.
    20. Andræs Barge-Gil, 2013. "Open Strategies and Innovation Performance," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(7), pages 585-610, October.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • L0 - Industrial Organization - - General
    • L2 - Industrial Organization - - Firm Objectives, Organization, and Behavior
    • L38 - Industrial Organization - - Nonprofit Organizations and Public Enterprise - - - Public Policy
    • O30 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - General
    • O33 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Technological Change: Choices and Consequences; Diffusion Processes
    • O38 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Government Policy
    • O39 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Other

    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:bla:presci:v:97:y:2018:i:2:p:253-279. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=1056-8190 .

    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.