Geographic Proximity and Science Parks
Summary and Keywords
Science parks, also called research parks, technology parks, or technopolis infrastructures, have increased rapidly in number as many countries have adopted the approach of bringing research-based organizations together in a park. 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 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 provided to the participating organizations by a science park 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.
The clustering of multiple research and technology-based organizations within a park enables knowledge spillovers, and with greater productivity from research resources and lower costs, prices for new technologies can be lower, stimulating their use and regional development and growth. In addition to the clustering of the organizations within a park, the geographic proximity of universities affiliated with a park matters too. Evidence shows that a park’s employment growth is greater, other things being the same, when its affiliated university is geographically closer, although evidence suggests that effect has lessened in the 21st century because of the information and communications technology revolution. Further stimulating regional growth, university spin-off companies are more prevalent in a park when it is geographically closer to the affiliated university. The two-way flow of knowledge enabled by clusters of research and technology-based firms in science parks benefits firms located on the park and the affiliated universities.
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.
Science parks, also called research parks, technology parks, or technopolis infrastructures (hereafter, science parks), provide benefits from gathering in close geographic proximity to a group of research, science, and technology-based organizations. The cluster of such organizations is often located on or near a university campus. The juxtaposition of ongoing research of both the university and the park tenants creates a two-way flow of knowledge. Knowledge is transferred between the university and firms in the park; moreover, there can be knowledge spillovers among the park tenants themselves, and they and universities associated with the park develop knowledge more effectively because of their symbiotic relationship.
Science parks have increased rapidly in number as many countries have adopted the approach of bringing research-based organizations together in a park. Park formations took off in in the United States in the late 1970s and early 1980s (Link & Scott, 2007, p. 663) as the infrastructural innovations of science parks was adopted over time, creating the typical S-shaped diffusion curves, just as when product and process innovations diffuse throughout a market (Link & Scott, 2003a, 2003b). The literature about science parks has followed. Smoothing the data by aggregating publications into three-year periods, Hobbs et al. (2017a) find that academic publications about global science parks grew at 17% per three-year period over the three decades starting in the mid-1980s. Time series data for research park formations in the United States is provided in Link and Scott (2003b, 2006) and Hobbs et al. (2017b). From an organizational perspective, the UK Science Park Association (UKSPA, 2018) reports on the science parks in the United Kingdom; from an academic perspective, Lindelöf and Löfsten (2003) document science parks in Sweden, and Phan et al. (2005) identify science parks throughout Asia. The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO, 2017) identifies, but offers no details about, the many science parks around the world.
The article first provides additional sources of descriptions of the populations of parks in specific countries, and it describes some important aspects of the variability in the science parks across countries. It then describes the benefits expected because of agglomerations of research-oriented organizations in science parks. Next, it provides an overview of the evidence about the extent to which those expected benefits, from the geographic proximity of the organizations, have been realized. Finally, it concludes with outstanding questions and challenges for future research.
Variability in Science Parks
There is important diversity in science parks, both within and across various regions, and as a result, professional associations (see AURRP, 1998; IASP, 2018; UKSPA, 2018; UNESCO, 2006, 2017) and individual parks have promulgated a variety of definitions for science parks (Hobbs et al., 2017a; Link & Scott, 2006). In general, a park is a cluster of research-oriented organizations, often near an affiliated university, stimulating regional economic development by creating innovation-enhancing knowledge flows among the firms and between the firms and affiliated universities.
The rich variety of parks is well illustrated in the many institutional histories of parks. Case studies of the parks in Europe, Asia, and the United States—parks that are respectively in each of these areas, typically termed science, technology, and research parks—show that the clusters of research-oriented firms have characteristics that vary importantly across the broad regions of the world and from one cluster to another within a country. For example, in the United States, public sector involvement with research parks is often indirect, with the goal of leveraging publicly funded research performed at universities and also leveraging the private sector’s research and development (R&D) investments. Link and Link (2009) provide a conceptual framework and a description of such public–private partnerships. In contrast, the institutional histories of parks in these case studies show that in the parks in many Asian countries, government involvement is quite direct. For another example of diversity across regions, the science parks in the United Kingdom are located on or near university campuses, while the distances between U.S. research parks and their affiliated universities are quite variable because suitable land near university campuses has not always been available (Link & Scott, 2006).
Case studies have documented the institutional history of a number of science parks, university affiliated or not, and as a whole, these studies provide a rich description of the important differences in parks across and within regions. Castells and Hall (1994) and Wonglimpiyarat (2010), for example, describe the clusters of high-technology firms in California’s Silicon Valley and on Route 128 around Boston, Massachusetts. Luger and Goldstein (1991), Link (1995, 2002), and Link and Scott (2003a) provide the history of Research Triangle Park in North Carolina. Link and Link (2003) describe the types of U.S. research parks and provide a taxonomy for the variety of parks. Gibb (1985), Grayson (1993), Guy (1996a, 1996b), and Vedovello (1997) describe the United Kingdom’s science parks. Gibb (1985) describes science parks in Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and selected Asian countries. Descriptions of a country’s science, research, and technology parks are also provided by other scholars such as Chordà (1996) for France; Phillimore (1999) for Australia; Sternberg (2004) for Germany; Bakouros et al. (2002) and Sofouli and Vonortas (2007) for Greece; Hu (2007) for China; Vaidyanathan (2008) for India; Salvador (2011) for Italy; and Alshumaimri et al. (2010) for Saudi Arabia. Hobbs et al. (2017a) provide a very complete list of published case studies of science, technology, and research parks throughout the world.
Agglomeration Benefits in Theory
The economic benefits of clustering have long been known to economists. This concept traces at least to Alfred Marshall. Whereas Marshall (1919, p. 599) wrote in Industry and Trade about the competitive benefits of cooperation among industrial firms geographically close to each other, the park concept of sharing knowledge, often specialized knowledge, among research-based firms and with universities through proximity brings about the competitive benefits associated with ideas and even research directions. Marshall (1919, p. 599) wrote:
The broadest and in some respects most efficient forms of cooperation are seen in a great industrial district where numerous specialized branches of industry have been welded almost automatically into an organic whole.
Economic theory also more specifically supports 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. Theoretically, the process of creating innovations is more efficient because of knowledge spillovers, enhanced benefits, and lower costs that result from the agglomeration of research and technology-based firms near a university. The proximity in a park of multiple sources of knowledge, tacit as well as codified, provides greater opportunities for the creation and acquisition of knowledge, especially tacit knowledge, by those benefiting from the knowledge spillovers (externalities) among the park’s organizations, and the geographic proximity therefore reduces the search and acquisition costs for that knowledge. Swann (1998) explains the gains expected with the clustering of high-technology firms, and Henderson (1986) and Krugman (1991) emphasize the importance of location, conceptually and empirically, for knowledge spillovers.
Cluster and location theory, as reviewed by Goldstein and Luger (1992) and Westhead and Batstone (1998), reveal both demand and supply influences that explain the clustering of research firms near universities (Baptista, 1998). Not only are the search and acquisition costs for knowledge reduced, but also the search costs for finding users of developed technologies can be reduced given the cluster of potential industrial users; universities are more likely to find opportunities for licensing inventions originated by university faculty. This benefit from clustering harkens back to Marshall’s perception of industrial districts discussed previously. The costs of research inputs are less, the graduate students and consulting faculty at universities involved with park tenants constitute a source of specialized labor, and laboratory facilities and equipment are more readily available and less costly.
The economics theory of technology lock-in and, more generally, path dependency provides an additional possible reason for the success of science parks in promoting innovation and growth. Arrow (2000) discusses the early origins of the concept of path dependency. Hébert and Link (2006) observe that the concept can also be traced to the evolutionary economics of Nelson and Winter (1982). Arthur (1989) analyzes circumstances when the particular path of evolving historical events can result in the adoption of a technology in preference to others, with the use of the chosen technology persisting even as new technologies become available. Such lock-in for a technology is especially likely when network externalities propel preferences for dealing with firms having large scale and thereby serving many customers. David (1985) also explains that historical events can, quite generally, lock a technology into a specific path of development. His argument might apply especially well to the development of technologies by organizations in university research parks. For technologies spawned by ideas generated in a university, creating a park, from the university’s perspective, and locating in the park, from a firm’s perspective, give positive, reinforcing feedback to continue the particular development paths for the particular technologies. The university research park then reinforces path dependences that lock in the success for the technologies developed in the park. Hall et al. (2001, 2003) describe the nature of the research partnerships between firms and universities and the challenging barriers to be overcome by the industry–university partnerships for research.
In addition to the knowledge spillovers and economic gains for the research process, the clustering of research-oriented organizations in a park will increase competition for resources among the park’s tenants. There will be competition for university resources, such as faculty, graduate students, laboratory facilities, and even the good ideas that may, when developed, spawn innovations. There may be competition to be the first to develop such innovations. Possibly the sharing of knowledge spillovers among competing firms will stimulate both invention and innovation. Indeed, the history of invention and innovation supports that expectation; the situation of competing firms sharing knowledge facilitates the discovery of invention insight and development of innovations (Scott, 2016). Yet, theoretically, although the increased competition could increase innovative activity, it is also possible that more competition would reduce innovative activity in the special circumstances identified in Scott (2009) and Scott and Scott (2014). However, with science parks, more competition among the park’s tenants would be expected on net to increase invention and innovation. The reason for this result is that greater competition would be expected to stimulate R&D investment except in only two cases. One case would be where overcrowding of competitors in the park made innovative investment unprofitable. The other case would be when the R&D investments of the park’s competitors were strategically substitutable to such an extent that additional competition would reduce the optimal R&D investment for the park’s firms (Scott & Scott, 2014). Neither of these special cases is expected to obtain because, as Leyden et al. (2008) have explained, we expect that a science park would act like a club, with membership granted to a new firm being the result of a mutually beneficial situation for the existing tenants as well as the new firm. The park’s tenants would not invite another firm, knowing that its presence would reduce the profitability of their own R&D investments. The Leyden et al. (2008) result obtains whether or not a university is affiliated with the science park (Layson et al., 2008).
The two-way flow of knowledge is at the heart of the theoretical story about why geographic proximity of research organizations in a science park will stimulate innovation and growth. Why should the geographic proximity be so important? Audretsch (1998, p. 21, italics in original) explains:
Knowledge is vague, difficult to codify, and often only serendipitously recognized. . . . The marginal cost of transmitting knowledge, and especially tacit knowledge, rises with distance. . . . Knowledge . . . is best transmitted via face-to-face interaction and through frequent and repeated contact. Geographic proximity matters in transmitting knowledge, because . . . such tacit knowledge is inherently non-rival in nature, and knowledge developed for any particular application can easily spill over and have economic value in very different applications. As Glaeser et al. (1992, p. 1126) have observed, “intellectual breakthroughs must cross hallways and streets more easily than oceans and continents”.
Evidence of Benefits From Geographic Proximity
The history of invention and innovation provides an early, albeit accidental, example of the benefits of geographical proximity for successful technological development efforts. Johnson (2014, pp. 17–19), for example, recounts how, in the late 13th century, the glassmakers of Venice were, for the public’s safety, exiled with their hot furnaces to a small island. The concentration of glassmakers in close geographic proximity triggered creative advances in the art of glassmaking because knowledge spillovers allowed new ideas to be shared among the competing artisans. Jacobs (1969) explains and illustrates more generally how throughout history the agglomeration of diverse economic activities in cities has caused innovation and economic growth and development, and Glaeser et al. (1992) report evidence supporting her views. Empirical studies have documented the importance of geographic proximity for knowledge spillovers, technology transfers, and innovation; agglomeration effects are documented by Audretsch (1998), Audretsch and Feldman (1996, 1999), Breschi and Lissoin (2001), Jaffe (1989), Jaffe et al. (1993), and Rothaermel and Thursby (2005a, 2005b). The literature about economic development has also examined the impact of research clusters on regional economic growth (Garcia-Vicente et al., 2017; Porter, 2001a, 2001b; Swann et al., 1998).
The two-way flow of knowledge enabled by clusters of research and technology-based firms in science parks benefits firms located on the park and the affiliated universities. Link and Scott (2003b) find that the universities report more publications and patents, greater success getting extramural funding, improved placement of doctoral graduates, and enhanced ability to hire preeminent scholars including the star scientists whose scientific knowledge, as found by Zucker and Darby (1996), has great monetary value that requires close, working collaborations with the scientists of firms—such as those in a science park—to be realized. Although studies have not always found that on-park firms have performance differences with off-park firms (Ferguson & Olofsson, 2004), most studies have found differences. The firms located in parks place greater emphasis on innovative ability and growth (Lindelöf & Löfsten, 2003, 2004) and have been found to be more likely than otherwise similar firms that are not located in parks to gain access to research facilities and scholars at universities (Felsenstein, 1994; Fukugawa, 2006; Goldstein & Luger, 1992; Westhead & Batstone, 1998), to have greater social capital for entrepreneurial growth (Hansson et al., 2005), to have greater research productivity and higher survival rates (Siegel et al., 2003; Westhead, 1995; Westhead & Cowling, 1995; Westhead & Storey, 1994, 1997; Westhead et al., 1995), to have greater patenting activity (Squicciarini, 2008), and to have more patenting per dollar of research and development expenditures (Yang et al., 2009). University research parks are more likely to attract new industrial laboratories (Appold, 2004) to a local region. The advantages of geographic proximity for the clusters of firms in science parks have leveraged business start-ups and employment growth (Goldstein & Luger, 1992; Shearmur & Doloreux, 2000). Phan and Siegel (2006) review the literature about university start-ups and spin-offs.
The clustering of multiple research and technology-based organizations within a park enables knowledge spillovers, and with greater productivity from research resources and lower costs, prices for new technologies can be lower, stimulating their use and regional development and growth. In addition to the clustering of the organizations within a park, the geographic proximity of universities affiliated with a park matters too. Evidence from the academic literature shows that a park’s employment growth is greater, other things being the same, when its affiliated university is geographically closer (Hobbs et al., 2017b; Link & Scott, 2003b, 2006), although perhaps that effect has lessened in the 21st century given the rapid, post-2000 advances in information and communications technology (Hobbs et al., 2017b). Also stimulating regional growth, university spin-off companies are more prevalent in a park when it is geographically closer to the affiliated university (Link & Scott, 2005). The findings of the importance of geographic proximity in science parks are consistent with the work of Adams and Jaffe (1996), who find that communication costs related to collaborative R&D activity increase with distance, and Wallsten (2001), who shows that geographic proximity to other successful innovating firms is associated with the firm’s own success.
Understanding the mechanisms through 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 parks. The understanding is important 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 science parks. Challenges for future research include several outstanding questions about geographic proximity in science parks.
The academic literature about the economics of innovation finds that investments in basic research increase productivity growth for firms, sectors, and economies (Adams, 1990; Griliches, 1986; Lichtenberg & Siegel, 1991; Link, 1981a, 1981b; Link & Siegel, 2003; Mansfield, 1980). How much of the relationship between productivity growth and the interaction of industry’s R&D and innovations with research in universities is because of the flows of knowledge enabled by organizations clustered in the geographic proximity provided by science parks?
As discussed by Link and Scott (2015, p. 179), the public sector has funded or otherwise supported science parks. Examples of central governments actively fostering the creation of science parks or academic innovation centers are provided at the national level by Westhead (1997), Hilpert and Ruffieux (1991), Sternberg (1990), and Goldstein and Luger (1990) at the state level. Is the public sector funding necessary? Is it effective? Answering these questions about the public funding of science parks requires the application of the evaluation methods discussed in Link and Scott (2015, pp. 179–180) and developed in the research described in Link and Scott (2011).
As Audretsch (1998) emphasizes, explains, and documents, at the end of the 20th century, despite the advances to that point in time in information and communications technology (ICT), distance did matter for two-way knowledge flows, even though information was more readily shared over great distances. Geographic proximity was critical for the two-way flows of knowledge, often tacit, that enable technology transfer, innovation, and growth. As discussed in Link and Scott (2015, p. 178), the importance of geographic proximity—close formal and informal interactions between and among industry and university researchers with some firm research physically close to the university—for the success of science parks was explicitly stated in the policy analysis of Martin and Scott (2000, pp. 444–446) who, writing at about the same time as Audretsch (1998), explained that when the technology base for an innovation has high science content, science parks provide bridging institutions that facilitate the transfer, to industrial applications, of technologies originating in the knowledge generated by university research. A critical, open question is whether—given the continuing, rapid advances in ICT during the 21st century—geographic proximity will continue to be important for the successful flows of knowledge among the organizations clustered in science parks. Hobbs et al. (2017b) provide some exploratory evidence that supports the hypothesis that the advances in the 21st century’s ICT may reduce the importance of geographic proximity for creating effective knowledge spillovers and conveying tacit knowledge.
Science parks are a component of the national innovation systems, although not explicitly described by Nelson (1993) and Cohen (2002). Wessner (1999, 2001, 2009) provides perspectives on the roles of the parks, including those associated with national laboratories as well as universities. The answer to the open question about the continued importance of geographic proximity is needed to inform our understanding of how the form of science parks may evolve throughout the 21st century and how public policy should support science parks.
Adams, J. D. (1990). Fundamental stocks of knowledge and productivity growth. Journal of Political Economy, 98(4), 673–702.Find this resource:
Adams, J. D., & Jaffe, A. B. (1996). Bounding the effects of R&D: An investigation using matched establishment-firm data. Rand Journal of Economics, 27(3), 700–721.Find this resource:
Alshumaimri, A., Aldridge, T., & Audretsch, D. B. (2010). The university technology transfer revolution in Saudi Arabia. Journal of Technology Transfer, 35(6), 585–596.Find this resource:
Appold, S. J. (2004). Research parks and the location of industrial research laboratories: An analysis of the effectiveness of a policy intervention. Research Policy, 33(2), 225–243.Find this resource:
Arrow, K. J. (2000). Increasing returns: Historiographic issues and path dependence. European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 7(2), 171–180.Find this resource:
Arthur, W. B. (1989). Competing technologies, increasing returns, and lock-in by historical small events. Economic Journal, 99(394), 116–131.Find this resource:
Audretsch, D. B. (1998). Agglomeration and the location of innovative activity. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 14(2), 18–29.Find this resource:
Audretsch, D. B., & Feldman, M. P. (1996). R&D spillovers and the geography of innovation and production. American Economic Review, 86(3), 630–640.Find this resource:
Audretsch, D. B., & Feldman, M. P. (1999). Innovation in cities: Science-based diversity, specialization, and localized competition. European Economic Review, 43(2), 409–429.Find this resource:
AURRP. (1998). Worldwide Research & Science Park Directory 1998. BPI Communications report. Washington, DC: Association of University Related Research Parks.Find this resource:
Bakouros, Y. L., Mardas, D. C., & Varsakelis, N. C. (2002). Science parks, a high tech fantasy? An analysis of the science parks of Greece. Technovation, 22(2), 123–128.Find this resource:
Baptista, R. (1998). Clusters, innovation, and growth: A survey of the literature. In G. M. P. Swann, M. Prevezer, & D. Stout (Eds.), The Dynamics of Industrial Clustering (pp. 13–51). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:
Breschi, S., & Lissoin, F. (2001). Knowledge spillovers and local innovation systems: A critical survey. Industrial and Corporate Change, 10(4), 975–1005.Find this resource:
Castells, M., & Hall, P. (1994). Technopoles of the World. London: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:
Chordà, I. M. (1996). Towards the maturity state: An insight into the performance of French technopoles. Technovation, 16(3), 143–152.Find this resource:
Cohen, W. M. (2002). Thoughts and questions on science parks. Presentation at the National Science Foundation Science Parks Indicators Workshop. University of North Carolina at Greensboro.Find this resource:
David, P. A. (1985). Clio and the economics of QWERTY. American Economic Review, 75(2), 332–337.Find this resource:
Felsenstein, D. (1994). University-related science parks—“seedbeds” or “enclaves” of innovation? Technovation, 14(2), 93–110.Find this resource:
Ferguson, R., & Olofsson, C. (2004). Science parks and the development of NTBFs: Location, survival and growth. Journal of Technology Transfer, 29(1), 5–17.Find this resource:
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.Find this resource:
Garcia-Vicente, F., Garcia-Swartz, D., & Campbell-Kelly, M. (2017). Information technology clusters and regional growth in America, 1970–1980. Small Business Economics, 48(4), 1021–1046.Find this resource:
Gibb, M. J. (1985). Science Parks and Innovation Centres: Their Economic and Social Impact. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Find this resource:
Glaeser, E. L., Kallal, H. D., Scheinkman, J. A., & Shleifer, A. (1992). Growth in cities. Journal of Political Economy, 100(6), 1126–1152.Find this resource:
Goldstein, H. A., & Luger, M. I. (1990). Science/technology parks and regional development theory. Economic Development Quarterly, 4(1), 64–78.Find this resource:
Goldstein, H. A., & Luger, M. I. (1992). University-based research parks as a rural development strategy. Policy Studies Journal, 20(2), 249–263.Find this resource:
Grayson, L. (1993). Science Parks: An Experiment in High Technology Transfer. London: The British Library Board.Find this resource:
Griliches, Z. (1986). Productivity growth, R&D, and basic research at the firm level in the 1970s. American Economic Review, 76(1), 141–154.Find this resource:
Guy, I. (1996a). A look at Aston Science Park. Technovation, 16(5), 217–218.Find this resource:
Guy, I. (1996b). New ventures on an ancient campus. Technovation, 16(6), 269–270.Find this resource:
Hall, B. H., Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2001). Barriers inhibiting industry from partnering with universities: Evidence from the Advanced Technology Program. Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(1–2), 87–98.Find this resource:
Hall, B. H., Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2003). Universities as research partners. Review of Economics and Statistics, 85(2), 485–491.Find this resource:
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(9), 1039–1049.Find this resource:
Hébert, R. F., & Link, A. N. (2006). Historical perspectives on the entrepreneur. Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship, 2(4), 261–408.Find this resource:
Henderson, J. V. (1986). The efficiency of resource usage and city size. Journal of Urban Economics, 19(1), 47–70.Find this resource:
Hilpert, U., & Ruffieux, B. (1991). Innovation, politics and regional development: Technology parks and regional participation in high-technology in France & West Germany. In U. Hilpert (Ed.), Regional Innovation and Decentralization: High Technology Industry and Government Policy (pp. 61–88). London: Routledge.Find this resource:
Hobbs, K. G., Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2017a). Science and technology parks: An annotated and analytical literature review. Journal of Technology Transfer, 42(4), 957–976.Find this resource:
Hobbs, K. G., Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2017b). The growth of U.S. science and technology parks: Does proximity to a university matter? The Annals of Regional Science, 59(2), 495–511.Find this resource:
Hu, A. G. (2007). Technology parks and regional economic growth in China. Research Policy, 36(1), 76–87.Find this resource:
International Association of Science Parks (IASP). (2018). https://www.iasp.ws/our-industry/definitions.
Jacobs, J. (1969). The Economy of Cities. New York, NY: Random House.Find this resource:
Jaffe, A. B. (1989). Real effects of academic research. American Economic Review, 79(5), 957–970.Find this resource:
Jaffe, A. B., Trajtenberg, M., & Henderson, R. (1993). Geographic localization of knowledge spillovers as evidenced by patent citations. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 108(3), 577–598.Find this resource:
Johnson, S. (2014). How We Got to Now: Six Innovations That Made the Modern World. New York, NY: Penguin Group.Find this resource:
Krugman, P. (1991). Geography and Trade. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Find this resource:
Layson, S. K., Leyden, D. P., & Neufeld, J. (2008). To admit or not to admit: The question of research park size. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 17(7–8), 689–697.Find this resource:
Leyden, D. P., Link, A. N., & Siegel, D. S. (2008). A theoretical and empirical analysis of the decision to locate on a university research park. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 55(1), 23–28.Find this resource:
Lichtenberg, F. R., & Siegel, D. (1991). The impact of R&D investment on productivity: New evidence using linked R&D-LRD data. Economic Inquiry, 29(2), 203–228.Find this resource:
Lindelöf, P., & Löfsten, H. (2003). Science park location and new technology-based firms in Sweden: Implications for strategy and performance. Small Business Economics, 20(3), 245–258.Find this resource:
Lindelöf, P., & Löfsten, H. (2004). Proximity as a resource base for competitive advantage: University–industry links for technology transfer. Journal of Technology Transfer, 29(3–4), 311–326.Find this resource:
Link, A. N. (1981a). Basic research and productivity increase in manufacturing: Some additional evidence. American Economic Review, 71(5), 1111–1112.Find this resource:
Link, A. N. (1981b). Research and Development Activity in U.S. Manufacturing. New York, NY: Praeger.Find this resource:
Link, A. N. (1995). A Generosity of Spirit: The Early History of the Research Triangle Park. Research Triangle Park: University of North Carolina Press for the Research Triangle Park Foundation.Find this resource:
Link, A. N. (2002). From Seed to Harvest: The History of the Growth of the Research Triangle Park. Research Triangle Park: University of North Carolina Press for the Research Triangle Park Foundation.Find this resource:
Link, A. N., & Link, K. R. (2003). On the growth of U.S. science parks. Journal of Technology Transfer, 28(1), 81–85.Find this resource:
Link, A. N., & Link, J. R. (2009). Government as Entrepreneur. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:
Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2003a). The growth of Research Triangle Park. Small Business Economics, 20(2), 167–175.Find this resource:
Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2003b). U.S. science parks: The diffusion of an innovation and its effects on the academic mission of universities. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 21(9), 1323–1356.Find this resource:
Link, A. N., & Scott, J. 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, 34(7), 1106–1112.Find this resource:
Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2006). U.S. university research parks. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 25(1), 43–55.Find this resource:
Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2007). The economics of university research parks. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 23(4), 661–674.Find this resource:
Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2011). Public Goods, Public Gains: Calculating the Social Benefits of Public R&D. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:
Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2015). Research, science, and technology parks: Vehicles for technology transfer. In A. N. Link, D. S. Siegel, & M. Wright (Eds.), The Chicago Handbook of University Technology Transfer and Academic Entrepreneurship (pp. 168–187). Chicago University of Chicago Press.Find this resource:
Link, A. N., & Siegel, D. S. (2003). Technological Change and Economic Performance. London: Routledge.Find this resource:
Luger, M. I., & Goldstein, H. A. (1991). Technology in the Garden. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.Find this resource:
Mansfield, E. (1980). Basic research and the productivity increase in manufacturing. American Economic Review, 70(5), 863–873.Find this resource:
Marshall, A. (1919). Industry and Trade. London: Macmillan.Find this resource:
Martin, S., & Scott, J. T. (2000). The nature of innovation market failure and the design of public support for private innovation. Research Policy, 29(4–5), 437–447.Find this resource:
Nelson, R. R. (1993). National Innovation Systems: A Comparative Analysis. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:
Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (1982). An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Find this resource:
Phan, P., & Siegel, D. S. (2006). The effectiveness of university technology transfer. Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship, 2(2), 77–177.Find this resource:
Phan, P., Siegel, D. S., & Wright, M. (2005). Science parks and incubators: Observations, synthesis and future research. Journal of Business Venturing, 20(2), 165–182.Find this resource:
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.Find this resource:
Porter, M. E. (2001a). Clusters and Competitiveness: Findings from the Cluster Mapping Project. Presentation at the Sloan Industry Centers’ conference “Corporate Strategies for the Digital Economy,” Cambridge, MA.Find this resource:
Porter, M. E. (2001b). Clusters of Innovation: Regional Foundations of US Competitiveness. Washington, DC: Council on Competitiveness.Find this resource:
Rothaermel, F. T., & Thursby, M. C. (2005a). Incubator firm failure or graduation? The role of university linkages. Research Policy, 34(7), 1076–1090.Find this resource:
Rothaermel, F. T., & Thursby, M. C. (2005b). University–incubator firm knowledge flows: Assessing their impact on incubator firm performance. Research Policy, 34(3), 302–320.Find this resource:
Salvador, E. (2011). Are science parks and incubators good “brand names” for spin-offs? The case of Turin. Journal of Technology Transfer, 36(2), 203–232.Find this resource:
Scott, J. T. (2009). Competition in research and development: A theory for contradictory predictions. Review of Industrial Organization, 34(2), 153–171.Find this resource:
Scott, J. T. (2016). Creativity for invention insights: Corporate strategies and opportunities for public entrepreneurship. Economia e Politica Industriale–Journal of Industrial and Business Economics, 43(4), 409–448.Find this resource:
Scott, J. T., & Scott, T. J. (2014). Innovation rivalry: Theory and empirics. Economia e Politica Industriale–Journal of Industrial and Business Economics, 41(1), 25–53.Find this resource:
Shearmur, R., & Doloreux, D. (2000). Science parks: Actors or reactors? Canadian science parks in their urban context. Environment and Planning, 32(6), 1065–1082.Find this resource:
Siegel, D. S., Westhead, P., & Wright, M. (2003). Assessing the impact of science parks on research productivity: Exploratory firm-level evidence from the United Kingdom. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 21(9), 1357–1369.Find this resource:
Sofouli, E., & Vonortas, N. S. (2007). S&T parks and business incubators in middle-sized countries: The case of Greece. Journal of Technology Transfer, 32(5), 525–544.Find this resource:
Squicciarini, M. (2008). Science parks’ tenants versus out-of-park firms: Who innovates more? A duration model. Journal of Technology Transfer, 33(1), 45–71.Find this resource:
Sternberg, R. (1990). The impact of innovation centres on small technology-based firms: The example of the Federal Republic of Germany. Small Business Economics, 2(2), 105–118.Find this resource:
Sternberg, R. (2004). Technology centers in Germany: Economic justification, effectiveness and impact on high-tech regions. International Journal of Technology Management, 28(7), 444–469.Find this resource:
Swann, G. M. P. (1998). Towards a model of clustering in high-technology industries. In G. M. P. Swann, M. Prevezer, & D. Stout (Eds.), The Dynamics of Industrial Clustering (pp. 52–76). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:
Swann, G. M. P., Prevezer, M., & Stout, D. (Eds.). (1998). The Dynamics of Industrial Clustering. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:
United Kingdom Science Park Association’s (UKSPA). (2018). http://www.ukspa.org.uk/our-association/about-us.
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). (2006). http://www.unesco.org/science/psd/thm_innov/unispar/sc_parks/concept shtml/.
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). (2017). http://www.unesco.org/new/en/natural-sciences/science-technology/university-industry-partnerships/science-parks-around-the-world/.
Vaidyanathan, G. (2008). Technology parks in a developing country: The case of India. Journal of Technology Transfer, 33(3), 285–299.Find this resource:
Vedovello, C. (1997). Science parks and university–industry interaction: Geographical proximity between the agents as a driving force. Technovation, 17(9), 491–502.Find this resource:
Wallsten, S. J. (2001). An empirical test of geographic knowledge spillovers using geographic information systems and firm-level data. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 31(5), 571–599.Find this resource:
Wessner, C. (1999). A Review of the Sandia Science and Technology Park Initiative. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Find this resource:
Wessner, C. (2001). A Review of the New Initiatives at the NASA Ames Research Center: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Find this resource:
Wessner, C. (2009). Understanding Research, Science, and Technology Parks: Global Best Practices. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Find this resource:
Westhead, P. (1995). New owner-managed businesses in rural and urban areas in Great Britain: A matched pairs comparison. Regional Studies, 29(4), 367–380.Find this resource:
Westhead, P. (1997). R&D “inputs” and “outputs” of technology-based firms located on and off science parks. R&D Management, 27(1), 45–61.Find this resource:
Westhead, P., & Batstone, S. (1998). Independent technology-based firms: The perceived benefits of a science park location. Urban Studies, 35(12), 2197–2219.Find this resource:
Westhead, P., & Cowling, M. (1995). Employment change in independent owner-managed high-technology firms in Great Britain. Small Business Economics, 7(2), 111–140.Find this resource:
Westhead, P., & Storey, D. (1994). An Assessment of Firms Located On and Off Science Parks in the United Kingdom. London: HMSO.Find this resource:
Westhead, P., & Storey, D. (1997). Financial constraints on the growth of high-technology small firms in the U.K. Applied Financial Economics, 7(2), 197–201.Find this resource:
Westhead, P., Storey, D. J., & Cowling, M. (1995). An exploratory analysis of the factors associated with the survival of independent high-technology firms in Great Britain. In F. Chittenden, M. Robertson, & I. Marshall (Eds.), Small Firms: Partnerships for Growth (pp. 63–99). London: Paul Chapman.Find this resource:
Wonglimpiyarat, J. (2010). Commercialization strategies of technology: Lessons from Silicon Valley. Journal of Technology Transfer, 35(2), 225–236.Find this resource:
Yang, C. H., Motohashi, K., & Chen, J. R. (2009). Are new technology-based firms located on science parks really more innovative? Evidence from Taiwan. Research Policy, 38(1), 77–85.Find this resource:
Zucker, L. G., & Darby, M. R. (1996). Star scientists and institutional transformation: Patterns of invention and innovation in the formation of the biotechnology industry. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 93, 12709–12716.Find this resource: