Abstract
This study integrates perspectives from the literature on science parks, environment dynamism, and on the resources-based view of the firm, to develop an integrative model of the park location value to resident firms. Consistent with our theorizing, the externalities generated by the science park, the firm’s idiosyncratic endowment in a wide range of resources, and its heterogeneous competitive environment jointly influence the differential performance of science park firms. The results suggest that firms residing in science parks with more co-located complementary firms demonstrate better sales and sales growth performance. A firm’s certain internal and external resource endowment and the munificent environments within which a firm operates serve as enabling conditions for better sales and sales growth performance.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Sales growth from 2008 to 2010 represents the most recent 3-year period in the NETS data and includes the Great Recession in the USA. An alternative measure would be to calculate sales growth across different 3-year periods, but such a measure would distort the results since some of the 3-year periods would be during robust economic growth, some during market adjustments (post 2000), some during recovery from mild recessions, some during the great recession, and some during the recovery from the great recession. As such, the comparisons would likely be confounded by the 3-year period during which growth is measured, the time since firm creation and the general economic conditions in the 3-year period. Thus, the period 2008–2010, albeit during the great recession and recovery, allows for the firms to be measured during the same economic cycle. Since the great recession was experienced broadly, it did affect most firms in the economy.
References
Albahari, A., Pérez-Canto, S., Barge-Gil, A., & Modrego, A. (2017). Technology parks versus science parks: Does the university make the difference? Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 116, 13–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.11.012.
Almeida, P., Dokko, G., & Rosenkopf, L. (2003). Startup size and the mechanisms of external learning: Increasing opportunity and decreasing ability? Research Policy, 32(2), 301–315. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00101-4.
Anderson, P., & Tushman, M. L. (2001). Organizational environments and industry exit: the effects of uncertainty, munificence and complexity. Industrial and Corporate Change, 10(3), 675–711. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/10.3.675.
Arthur, W. B. (1990). ‘Silicon Valley’ locational clusters: when do increasing returns imply monopoly? Mathematical Social Sciences, 19(3), 235–251. https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-4896(90)90064-E.
Avenel, E., Favier, A. V., Ma, S., Mangematin, V., & Rieu, C. (2007). Diversification and hybridization in firm knowledge bases in nanotechnologies. Research Policy, 36(6), 864–870. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2007.02.002.
Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700108.
Bierly, P. E., & Daly, P. S. (2007). Alternative knowledge strategies, competitive environment, and organizational performance in small manufacturing firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31(4), 493–516. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2007.00185.x.
Boyd, B. (1990). Corporate linkages and organizational environment: a test of the resource dependence model. Strategic Management Journal, 11(6), 419–430. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250110602.
Castrogiovanni, G. J. (1991). Environmental munihcence; a theoretical assessment. Academy of Management Review, 16(3), 542–565. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1991.4279475.
Chan, K. Y. A., Oerlemans, L. A., & Pretorius, M. W. (2009). Knowledge exchange behaviors of science park firms: the innovation hub case. In: Management of Engineering & Technology, 2009. PICMET 2009. Portland International Conference on (pp. 964–1006). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/PICMET.2009.5262027.
Chrisman, J. J., McMullan, E., & Hall, J. (2005). The influence of guided preparation on the long-term performance of new ventures. Journal of Business Venturing, 20(6), 769–791. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2004.10.001.
Christensen, C. (2013). The innovator's dilemma: when new technologies cause great firms to fail. Boston: Harvard Business Review Press.
Coad, A., Frankish, J., Roberts, R. G., & Storey, D. J. (2013). Growth paths and survival chances: an application of Gambler's ruin theory. Journal of Business Venturing, 28(5), 615–632. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2012.06.002.
Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128–152. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393553.
Colombo, M. G., & Delmastro, M. (2002). How effective are technology incubators? Evidence from Italy. Research Policy, 31(7), 1103–1122. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(01)00178-0.
Cooper, A. C., & Dunkelberg, W. C. (1986). Entrepreneurship and paths to business ownership. Strategic Management Journal, 7(1), 53–68. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250070106.
Cooper, A. C., Woo, C. Y., & Dunkelberg, W. C. (1989). Entrepreneurship and the initial size of firms. Journal of Business Venturing, 4(5), 317–332. https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-9026(89)90004-9.
Covin, J. G., Slevin, D. P., & Heeley, M. B. (2000). Pioneers and followers: competitive tactics, environment, and firm growth. Journal of Business Venturing, 15(2), 175–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-9026(98)00015-9.
Delmar, F., Davidsson, P., & Gartner, W. B. (2003). Arriving at the high-growth firm. Journal of Business Venturing, 18, 189–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-9026(02)00080-0.
Dess, G. G., & Beard, D. W. (1984). Dimensions of organizational task environments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29(1), 52–73. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393080.
Dess, G. G., & Robinson, R. B. (1984). Measuring organizational performance in the absence of objective measures: the case of the privately-held firm and conglomerate business unit. Strategic Management Journal, 5(3), 265–273. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250050306.
Díez-Vial, I., & Fernández-Olmos, M. (2015). Knowledge spillovers in science and technology parks: how can firms benefit most? The Journal of Technology Transfer, 40(1), 70–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-013-9329-4.
Díez-Vial, I., & Montoro-Sánchez, Á. (2016). How knowledge links with universities may foster innovation: the case of a science park. Technovation, 50, 41–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2015.09.001.
Doutriaux, J. (1992). Emerging high-tech firms: how durable are their comparative start-up advantages? Journal of Business Venturing, 7(4), 303–322. https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-9026(92)90004-B.
Fairlie, R. W., & Robb, A. M. (2007). Why are black-owned businesses less successful than white-owned businesses? The role of families, inheritances, and business human capital. Journal of Labor Economics, 25(2), 289–323. https://doi.org/10.1086/510763.
Ferguson, R., & Olofsson, C. (2004). Science parks and the development of NTBFs—location, survival and growth. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 29(1), 5–17. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JOTT.0000011178.44095.cd.
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijindorg.2005.07.005.
George, G. (2005). Slack resources and the performance of privately held firms. Academy of Management Journal, 48(4), 661–676. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2005.17843944.
Ginsberg, A., & Venkatraman, N. (1985). Contingency perspectives of organizational strategy: a critical review of the empirical research. Academy of Management Review, 10(3), 421–434. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1985.4278950.
Heeley, M. B., King, D. R., & Covin, J. G. (2006). Effects of firm R&D investment and environment on acquisition likelihood*. Journal of Management Studies, 43(7), 1513–1535. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2006.00636.x.
Henderson, A. D. (1999). Firm strategy and age dependence: a contingent view of the liabilities of newness, adolescence, and obsolescence. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 281–314. https://doi.org/10.2307/2666997.
Hobbs, K. G., Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2017). Science and technology parks: an annotated and analytical literature review. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 42(4), 957–976. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-016-9522-3.
Hu, A. G. (2007). Technology parks and regional economic growth in China. Research Policy, 36(1), 76–87.
Jackson, S. E., & Dutton, J. E. (1988). Discerning threats and opportunities. Administrative Science Quarterly, 33(3), 370–387. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392714.
Jenkins, M., & Arce, R. (2016). Do backward linkages in export processing zones increase dynamically? Firm-level evidence from Costa Rica. Journal of Business Research, 69(2), 4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.06.045.
Jiménez-Jiménez, D., & Sanz-Valle, R. (2011). Innovation, organizational learning, and performance. Journal of Business Research, 64(4), 408–417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2010.09.010.
Kotha, S., & Nair, A. (1995). Strategy and environment as determinants of performance: Evidence from the Japanese machine tool industry. Strategic Management Journal, 16(7), 497–518. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250160702.
Lamperti, F., Mavilia, R., & Castellini, S. (2017). The role of science parks: a puzzle of growth, innovation and R&D investments. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 42(1), 158–183. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-015-9455-2.
Liberati, D., Marinucci, M., & Tanzi, G. M. (2016). Science and technology parks in Italy: main features and analysis of their effects on the firms hosted. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 41(4), 694–729. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-015-9397-8.
Lindelöf, P., & Löfsten, H. (2003). Science park location and new technology-based firms in Sweden—implications for strategy and performance. Small Business Economics, 20(30), 245–258. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022861823493.
Lindelöf, P., & Löfsten, H. (2004). Proximity as a resource base for competitive advantage: university–industry links for technology transfer. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 29(3), 311–326. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JOTT.0000034125.29979.ae.
Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2007). The economics of university research parks. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 23(4), 661–674. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxrep/grm030.
Löfsten, H., & Lindelöf, P. (2001). Science parks in Sweden—industrial renewal and development? R&D Management, 31(3), 309–322. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9310.00219.
Löfsten, H., & Lindelöf, P. (2005). R&D networks and product innovation patterns—academic and non-academic new technology-based firms on science parks. Technovation, 25(9), 1025–1037. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2004.02.007.
Lumpkin, G., & Dess, G. G. (1995). Simplicity as a strategy-making process: the effects of stage of organizational development and environment on performance. The Academy of Management Journal, 38(5), 1386–1407. https://doi.org/10.2307/256862.
Luo, Y. (2003). Market-seeking MNEs in an emerging market: how parent–subsidiary links shape overseas success. Journal of International Business Studies, 34(3), 290–309. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400027.
MacMillan, I. C., & Day, D. L. (1987). Corporate ventures into industrial markets: dynamics of aggressive entry. Journal of Business Venturing, 2(1), 29–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-9026(87)90017-6.
Maine, E. M., Shapiro, D. M., & Vining, A. R. (2010). The role of clustering in the growth of new technology-based firms. Small Business Economics, 34(2), 127–146. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-008-9104-3.
Markman, G. D., Siegel, D. S., & Wright, M. (2008). Research and technology commercialization. Journal of Management Studies, 45(8), 1401–1423. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2008.00803.x.
McCann, B. T., & Folta, T. B. (2011). Performance differentials within geographic clusters. Journal of Business Venturing, 26(1), 104–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2009.04.004.
Miller, D. (1988). Relating Porter's business strategies to environment and structure: analysis and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 31(2), 280–308. https://doi.org/10.2307/256549.
Miller, D., & Shamsie, J. (1996). The resource-based view of the firm in two environments: the Hollywood film studios from 1936 to 1965. Academy of Management Journal, 39(3), 519–543. https://doi.org/10.2307/256654.
Monck, C. S., & Peat, M. (1988). Science parks and the growth of high technology firms. London: Croom Helm.
Nell, P. C., & Ambos, B. (2013). Parenting advantage in the MNC: an embeddedness perspective on the value added by headquarters. Strategic Management Journal, 34(9), 1086–1103. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2058.
Nerkar, A., & Shane, S. (2003). When do start-ups that exploit patented academic knowledge survive? International Journal of Industrial Organization, 21(9), 1391–1410. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-7187(03)00088-2.
Nowak, M. J., & Grantham, C. E. (2000). The virtual incubator: managing human capital in the software industry. Research Policy, 29(2), 125–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00054-2.
Pagano, M., Panetta, F., & Zingales, L. (1998). Why do companies go public? An empirical analysis. The Journal of Finance, 53(1), 27–64. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-1082.25448.
Peteraf, M. A. (1993). The cornerstones of competitive advantage: a resource-based view. Strategic Management Journal, 14(3), 179–191. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250140303.
Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (2003). The external control of organizations: a resource dependence perspective. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Phan, P. H., Siegel, D. S., & Wright, M. (2005). Science parks and incubators: observations, synthesis and future research. Journal of Business Venturing, 20(2), 165–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2003.12.001.
Porter, M. E. (2000). Location, competition, and economic development: local clusters in a global economy. Economic Development Quarterly, 14(1), 15–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/089124240001400105.
Quintas, P., Wield, D., & Massey, D. (1992). Academic-industry links and innovation: questioning the science park model. Technovation, 12(3), 161–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/0166-4972(92)90033-E.
Sapienza, H. J., Parhankangas, A., & Autio, E. (2004). Knowledge relatedness and post-spin-off growth. Journal of Business Venturing, 19(6), 809–829. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2003.06.002.
Saunders, A., & Steffen, S. (2011). The costs of being private: evidence from the loan market. The Review of Financial Studies, 24(12), 4091–4122. https://doi.org/10.1093/rfs/hhr083.
Schwartz, M., & Hornych, C. (2008). Specialization as strategy for business incubators: an assessment of the Central German Multimedia Center. Technovation, 28(7), 436–449. Journal, 4(3), 221–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2008.02.003.
Schwartz, M., & Hornych, C. (2010). Cooperation patterns of incubator firms and the impact of incubator specialization: empirical evidence from Germany. Technovation, 30(9), 485–495. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2010.05.001.
Shepherd, D., & Wiklund, J. (2009). Are we comparing apples with apples or apples with oranges? Appropriateness of knowledge accumulation across growth studies. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(1), 105–123. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2008.00282.x.
Siegel, D. S., Westhead, P., & Wright, M. (2003). Assessing the impact of university science parks on research productivity: exploratory firm-level evidence from the United Kingdom. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 21(9), 1357–1369. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-7187(03)00086-9.
Singh, J. V., Tucker, D. J., & House, R. J. (1986). Organizational legitimacy and the liability of newness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 171–193. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392787.
Squicciarini, M. (2008). Science Parks' tenants versus out-of-park firms: who innovates more? A duration model. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 33(1), 45–71. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-007-9037-z.
Tan, J. (1996). Regulatory environment and strategic orientations in a transitional economy: a study of Chinese private enterprise. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 21(1), 31–44. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1552141.
Tanriverdi, H., & Venkatraman, N. (2005). Knowledge relatedness and the performance of multibusiness firms. Strategic Management Journal, 26(2), 97–119. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.435.
Trostel, A. O., & Nichols, M. L. (1982). Privately-held and publicly-held companies: a comparison of strategic choices and management processes. Academy of Management Journal, 25(1), 47–62. https://doi.org/10.2307/256023.
Vásquez-Urriago, Á. R., Barge-Gil, A., Rico, A. M., & Paraskevopoulou, E. (2014). The impact of science and technology parks on firms’ product innovation: empirical evidence from Spain. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 24(4), 835–873. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00191-013-0337-1.
Venkataraman, S., Van de Ven, A. H., Buckeye, J., & Hudson, R. (1990). Starting up in a turbulent environment: a process model of failure among firms with high customer dependence. Journal of Business Venturing, 5(5), 277–295. https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-9026(90)90006-F.
Vinnell, R., & Hamilton, R. T. (1999). A historical perspective on small firm development. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 23(4), 5–18.
Westhead, P. (1997). R&D ‘inputs’ and ‘outputs’ of technology-based firms located on and off science parks. R&D Management, 27(1), 45–62. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9310.00041.
Westhead, P., & Storey, D. J. (1995). Links between higher education institutions and high technology firms. Omega, 23(4), 345–360. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-0483(95)00021-F.
Westhead, P., Storey, D. J., & Britain, G. (1994). An assessment of firms located on and off science parks in the United Kingdom. HM Stationery Office.
Westhead, P., Storey, D., & 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 Publishing Ltd.
Westhead, P., Batstone, S., & Martin, F. (2000). Technology-based firms located on science parks: the applicability of Bullock’s ‘soft-hard’ model. Enterprise and Innovation Management Studies, 1(2), 107–139. https://doi.org/10.1080/14632440050119550.
Wiklund, J. (2006). The sustainability of the entrepreneurial orientation–performance relationship. In P. Davidsson, F. Delmar, & J. Wiklund (Eds.), Entrepreneurship and the growth of firms (pp. 141–155). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781781009949.
Wiklund, J., & Shepherd, D. (2005). Entrepreneurial orientation and small business performance: a configurational approach. Journal of Business Venturing, 20(1), 71–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2004.01.001.
Yang, C., Motohashi, K., & Chen, J. (2009). Are new technology-based firms located on science parks really more innovative?: Evidence from Taiwan. Research Policy, 38(1), 77–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2008.09.001.
Zahra, S. A., & Ellor, D. (1993). Accelerating new product development and successful market introduction. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 58(1), 9–15.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank Laura Hill and Christine Westgate for their help with the research and writing of this paper and The Institute for Exceptional Growth Companies and the Edward Lowe Foundation for providing access to the database used in this research.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Gwebu, K.L., Sohl, J. & Wang, J. Differential performance of science park firms: an integrative model. Small Bus Econ 52, 193–211 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-018-0025-5
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-018-0025-5