IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

Science Park Location and New Technology-Based Firms in Sweden--Implications for Strategy and Performance


  • Lindelof, Peter
  • Lofsten, Hans


One logical way to assess the performance of Science Parks is to compare the performance of their firms to similar firms not located there. A total of 273 new technology-based firms (NTBFs) were surveyed, of which 134 were on a Science Park and 139 were not on a park. There were significant differences in the means of strategy dimensions between the on-Park and off-Park firms. It can be seen that the NTBFs who located in Science Parks showed significantly greater emphasis on firm characteristics as innovation ability, competitor- and market-orientation, sales and employment growth, high profits etc. The differences indicates a slight advantage for the Science Park firms. The off-Park sample reported proximity to other firms to be of higher importance than the on-Park sample in their choice of location. However, these differences do not show any clear pattern, making it difficult to understand if NTBFs who locate on Science Parks are systematically looking for something different in their location. Copyright 2003 by Kluwer Academic Publishers

Suggested Citation

  • Lindelof, Peter & Lofsten, Hans, 2003. "Science Park Location and New Technology-Based Firms in Sweden--Implications for Strategy and Performance," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 20(3), pages 245-258, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:kap:sbusec:v:20:y:2003:i:3:p:245-58

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    File Function: link to full text
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Fariborz Damanpour, 2001. "The Dynamics of the Adoption of Product and Process Innovations in Organizations," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(1), pages 45-65, January.
    2. Carter, Nancy M. & Gartner, William B. & Shaver, Kelly G. & Gatewood, Elizabeth J., 2003. "The career reasons of nascent entrepreneurs," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 13-39, January.
    3. Michael Fritsch & Monika Meschede, 2001. "Product Innovation, Process Innovation, and Size," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 19(3), pages 335-350, November.
    4. Ardichvili, Alexander & Cardozo, Richard & Ray, Sourav, 2003. "A theory of entrepreneurial opportunity identification and development," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 105-123, January.
    5. Israel M. Kirzner, 1997. "Entrepreneurial Discovery and the Competitive Market Process: An Austrian Approach," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 35(1), pages 60-85, March.
    6. Cohen, Wesley M. & Levin, Richard C., 1989. "Empirical studies of innovation and market structure," Handbook of Industrial Organization,in: R. Schmalensee & R. Willig (ed.), Handbook of Industrial Organization, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 18, pages 1059-1107 Elsevier.
    7. Brouwer, Erik & Kleinknecht, Alfred, 1999. "Innovative output, and a firm's propensity to patent.: An exploration of CIS micro data," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 28(6), pages 615-624, August.
    8. Utterback, James M & Abernathy, William J, 1975. "A dynamic model of process and product innovation," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 3(6), pages 639-656, December.
    9. Robinson, Peter B. & Sexton, Edwin A., 1994. "The effect of education and experience on self-employment success," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 9(2), pages 141-156, March.
    10. James Love & Stephen Roper, 1999. "The Determinants of Innovation: R & D, Technology Transfer and Networking Effects," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 15(1), pages 43-64, August.
    11. Eric von Hippel, 1998. "Economics of Product Development by Users: The Impact of "Sticky" Local Information," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 44(5), pages 629-644, May.
    12. Gil Avnimelech & Morris Teubal, 2004. "Venture capital start-up co-evolution and the emergence & development of Israel's new high tech cluster," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(1), pages 33-60.
    13. Dean A. Shepherd, 1999. "Venture Capitalists' Assessment of New Venture Survival," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 45(5), pages 621-632, May.
    14. S.A. Lippman & R.P. Rumelt, 1982. "Uncertain Imitability: An Analysis of Interfirm Differences in Efficiency under Competition," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 13(2), pages 418-438, Autumn.
    15. Richard C. Levin & Alvin K. Klevorick & Richard R. Nelson & Sidney G. Winter, 1987. "Appropriating the Returns from Industrial Research and Development," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, vol. 18(3, Specia), pages 783-832.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


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

    Cited by:

    1. Bai, Xue-Jie & Yan, Wen-Kai & Chiu, Yung-Ho, 2015. "Performance evaluation of China's Hi-tech zones in the post financial crisis era — Analysis based on the dynamic network SBM model," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 34(C), pages 122-134.
    2. Henrekson, Magnus & Stenkula, Mikael, 2009. "Entrepreneurship and Public Policy," Working Paper Series 804, Research Institute of Industrial Economics.
    3. Areti Gkypali & Vasileios Kokkinos & Christos Bouras & Kostas Tsekouras, 2016. "Science parks and regional innovation performance in fiscal austerity era: Less is more?," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 47(2), pages 313-330, August.
    4. 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.

    More about this item


    Access and download statistics


    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:kap:sbusec:v:20:y:2003:i:3:p:245-58. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Sonal Shukla) or (Rebekah McClure). General contact details of provider: .

    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.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.