The Journal of Technology Transfer

, Volume 40, Issue 1, pp 70–84 | Cite as

Knowledge spillovers in science and technology parks: how can firms benefit most?

  • Isabel Díez-VialEmail author
  • Marta Fernández-Olmos


This research evaluates the role of science and technology parks as locations fostering local knowledge exchange and promoting innovation. We consider that these knowledge externalities depend on firms’ internal efforts and strategies, since their capacity to understand and exploit others’ knowledge depends on their own knowledge base. Empirical evidence has been gathered from 2007 to 2011 in a longitudinal analysis on 11,201 firms in total, using a Spanish database from PITEC (Technological Innovation Panel). Results of a two Tobit models with random effects, confirm our hypotheses. First, firms with previous cooperation agreements with universities and research institutions would benefit most from the park as they can more easily incorporate existing knowledge in the park and improve their product innovation. Secondly, results also seem to indicate that product innovation is higher when firms with internal R&D efforts can share knowledge on a reciprocal basis with other firms that are also investing in R&D.


Science and technology park Knowledge Innovation Cooperation University 

JEL Classification

O32 58 M10 



Funding for this research was provided by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation (ECO2011-29445, and ECO2012-36290-C03-01), and the CREVALOR Group of Research of Excellence.


  1. Acs, Z. J., Anselin, L., & Varga, A. (2002). Patents and innovation counts as measures of regional production of new knowledge. Research Policy, 31(7), 1069–1085.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ahuja, G. (2000). Collaboration networks, structural holes, and innovation: A longitudinal study. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(3), 425–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Almus, M., & Nerlinger, E. A. (1999). Growth of new technology-based firms: Which factors matter? Small Business Economics, 13(2), 141–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anderson, R., & Reeb, D. (2003). Founding family ownership and firm performance: Evidence from the SandP 500. Journal of Finance, 58, 1301–1329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Anselin, L., Varga, A., & Acs, Z. J. (1997). Local geographic spillovers between university research and high technology innovations. Journal of Urban Economics, 42(3), 422–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Aschhoff, B., & Schmidt, T. (2008). Empirical evidence on the success of R&D cooperation—Happy together? Review of Industrial Organization, 33, 41–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Asheim, B. T., & Isaksen, A. (2002). Regional innovation systems: The integration of local “sticky” and global “ubiquitous” knowledge. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 27, 77–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ashish, A., & Gambardella, A. (1990). Complementarity and external linkages: The strategies of the large firms in Biotechnology. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 38(4), 361–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bakouros, Y. L., Mardas, D. C., & Varsakelis, N. C. (2002). Science park, a high tech fantasy? An analysis of the science parks of Greece. Technovation, 22(2), 123–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Baptista, R., & Swann, P. (1998). Do firms in clusters innovate more? Research Policy, 27(5), 525–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Barge-Gil, A. (2010). Open, semi-open and closed innovators: Towards an explanation of degree of openness. Industry and innovation, 17(6), 577–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Belderbos, R., Carree, M., Diederen, B., & Lokshin, B. (2004). Cooperative R&D and firm performance. Research Policy, 33(10), 1477–1492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bloom, N., & Van Reenen, I. (2002). Patents, real options and firm performance. The Economic Journal, 112, 97–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Boschma, R. A. (2005). Proximity and innovation: A critical assessment. Regional Studies, 39(1), 61–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Boschma, R. A., & Ter Wal, J. (2007). Knowledge networks and innovative performance in an industrial district: The case of a footwear district in the south of Italy. Industry and Innovation, 14(2), 177–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cassiman, B., & Veugelers, R. (2006). In search of complementarity in innovation strategy: Internal R&D and external knowledge acquisition. Management Science, 52(1), 68–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Chan, K. F., & Lau, T. (2005). Assessing technology incubator programs in the science park: The good, the bad and the ugly. Technovation, 25(10), 1215–1228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cohen, W. M., Nelson, R. R., & Walsh, J. P. (2002). Links and impacts: The influence of public research on industrial R&D. Management Science, 48(1), 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Colombo, M. G., & Delmastro, M. (2002). How effective are technology incubators? Evidence from Italy. Research Policy, 31, 1103–1122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dettwiler, P., Lindelöf, P., & Löfsten, H. (2006). Utility of location: A comparative survey between small new technology-based firms located on and off Science Parks—Implications for facilities management. Technovation, 26(4), 506–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Giuliani, E. (2011). Role of technological gatekeepers in the growth of industrial clusters : Evidence from Chile. Regional Studies, 45(10), 1329–1348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Giuliani, E., & Bell, M. (2005). The micro-determinants of meso-level learning and innovation: Evidence from a Chilean wine cluster. Research Policy, 34(1), 47–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Glancey, K. (1998). Determinants of growth and profitability in small entrepreneurial firms. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior and Research, 4(1), 18–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gorman, M. E. (2002). Types of knowledge and their roles in technology transfer. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 27, 219–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360–1380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Grant, R. M. (1996). Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17(Winter Special Issue), 109–122.Google Scholar
  30. Greene, W. H. (2000). Econometric analysis. New Jersey: Prentince Hall.Google Scholar
  31. Grimaldi, R., & Grandi, A. (2005). Business incubators and new venture creation: An assessment of incubating models. Technovation, 25(2), 111–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Gulati, R. (1995). Does familiarity breed trust? The implications of repeated ties for contractual choice in alliances. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 85–112. doi: 10.2307/256729.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Gulati, R., & Gargiulo, M. (1999). Where do interorganizational networks come from? American Journal of Sociology, 104(5), 1439–1493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Günday, G., Ulusoy, G., Kılıç, K., & Alpkan, L. (2011). Effects of innovation types on firm performance. International Journal of Production Economics, 133(2), 662–676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hansen, M. T. (1999). The search-transfer problem: The role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across subunits organization. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(1), 82–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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, 1039–1049.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Huang, K.-F., Yu, C.-M. J., & Seetoo, D.-H. (2012). Firm innovation in policy-driven parks and spontaneous clusters: The smaller firm the better? The Journal of Technology Transfer, 37(5), 715–731.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Johansson, M., Jacob, M., & Hellstro, T. (2005). The strength of strong ties: University spin-offs and the significance of historical relations. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 30, 271–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1992). Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organization Science, 3(3), 383–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lambooy, J. G. (2004). The transmission of knowledge, emerging networks, and the role of universities: An evolutionary approach. European Planning Studies, 12(5), 643–657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lambooy, J. G. (2010). Knowledge transfers, spillovers and actors: The role of context and social capital. European Planning Studies, 18(6), 873–891.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lee, C., Lee, K., & Pennings, J. M. (2001). Internal capabilities, external networks, and performance: A study on technology-based ventures. Strategic Management Journal, 22(6–7), 615–640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2007). The economics of university research parks. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 23(4), 661–674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Löfsten, H., & Lindelöf, P. (2001). Science parks in Sweden—industrial renewal and development? R&D Management, 31(3), 309–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Löfsten, H., & Lindelöf, P. (2002). Science parks and the growth of new technology-based firms—Academic-industry links, innovation and markets. Research Policy, 31(6), 859–876.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 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, 1025–1037.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lööf, H., & Broström, A. (2008). Does knowledge diffusion between university and industry increase innovativeness? The Journal of Technology Transfer, 33(1), 73–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. López A (2012) Effect of microaggregation on regression results: An application to Spanish innovation data. The Empirical Economics Letters, 10(12).Google Scholar
  49. Löwegren, M. (2003). New technology-based firms in science parks: A study of resources and absorptive capacity. Sweden: Lund University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Massey, D., Quintas, P., & Wield, D. (1992). High-tech fantasies: Science parks in society, science and space. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  51. McAdam, M., & McAdam, R. (2008). High tech start-ups in University Science Park incubators: The relationship between the start-up’s lifecycle progression and use of the incubator’s resources. Technovation, 28(5), 277–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Mian, S. A. (1997). Assesing and managing the university technology business incubator: An integrative framework. Journal of Business Venturing, 12, 251–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Molina-Morales, F. X., & Martínez-Fernández, M. T. (2004). How much difference is there between industrial district firms? A net value creation approach. Research Policy, 33(3), 473–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Montoro-Sánchez, A., Ortiz-de-Urbina-Criado, M., & Mora-Valentín, E. M. (2011). Effects of knowledge spillovers on innovation and collaboration in science and technology parks. Journal of Knowledge Management, 15(6), 948–970.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Morosini, P. (2004). Industrial clusters. Knowledge integration and performance. World Development, 32(2), 305–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Morrison, A. (2008). All Gatekeepers of knowledge within industrial districts: Who they are, how they interact. Regional Studies, 42(6), 817–835.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Morrison, A., & Rabellotti, R. (2009). Knowledge and information networks in an Italian wine cluster. European Planning Studies, 17(7), 983–1006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Quintas, P., Wield, D., & Massey, D. (1992). Academic-industry links and innovation: Questioning the science park model. Technovation, 12(3), 161–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Robertson, P. L., & Langlois, R. N. (1995). Innovation, networks, and vertical integration. Research Policy, 24(4), 543–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Rotemberg, J. J., & Saloner, G. (2000). Competition and human capital accumulation: A theory of interregional specialization and trade. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 30, 373–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Rothaermel, F. T., & Thursby, M. (2005). University–incubator firm knowledge flows: Assessing their impact on incubator firm performance. Research Policy, 34(3), 305–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Shaver, J. M., & Flyer, F. (2000). Agglomeration economies, firm heterogeneity, and foreign direct investment in the United States. Strategic Management Journal, 21(12), 1175–1193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Siegel, D. S., Westhead, P., & Wright, M. (2003). Science parks and the performance of new technology-based firms: A review of recent UK evidence and an agenda for future research. Small Business Economics, 20, 177–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Simon, H. A. (1991). Bounded rationality and organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 125–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Soda, G., Usai, A., & Zaheer, A. (2004). Network memory: The influence of past and current networks on performance. Academy of Management Journal, 47(6), 893–906.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Squicciarini, M. (2007). Science parks’ tenants versus out-of-park firms: Who innovates more? A duration model. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 33(1), 45–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Sterlacchini, A. (1999). Do innovative activities matter to small firms in non-R&D intensive industries? An application to export performance. Research Policy, 28(8), 819–832.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Teece, D., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18, 509–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Ter Wal, A. L. J., & Boschma, R. A. (2009). Applying social network analysis in economic geography: Framing some key analytic issues. Annals of Regional Science, 43, 739–756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Tsai, W. (2001). Knowledge transfer in intraorganizational networks: Effects of network position and absorptive capacity on business unit innovation and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44(5), 996–1004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Vásquez Urriago, A. R., Modrego, A., Barge-Gil, A., & Paraskevopoulou, E. (2010). The impact of science and technology parks on firms’ radical product innovation. Empirical evidence from Spain.Google Scholar
  73. Vedovello, C. (1997). Science parks and university-industry interaction: Geographical proximity between the agents as a driving force. Technovation, 17(9), 491–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Villalonga, B. (2004). Intangible resources, Tobin’s q, and the sustainability of performance differences. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 54, 205–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Wakelin, K. (1998). Innovation and export behavior at firm level. Research Policy, 26, 829–841.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Westhead, P., & Batstone, S. (1998). Independent technology-based Firms: The perceived benefits of a science park location. Urban Studies, 35(12), 2197–2219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Wooldridge, J. (2006). Introductory econometrics: A modern approach. Mason, OH: Thomson, Couth-Western.Google Scholar
  79. Yang, C.-H., Motohashi, K., & Chen, J.-R. (2009). Are new tecnology-based firms located on science parks really more innovative? Research Policy, 38, 77–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Zahara, A. A., & George, G. (2002). Absorptive capacity: A review, reconceptualization, and extension. Academy of Management Review, 27(2), 185–203.Google Scholar
  81. Zaheer, A., & Bell, G. G. (2005). Benefiting from network position: Firm capabilities, structural holes, and performance. Strategic Management Journal, 26, 809–825.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Zhang, Y. (2005). The science park phenomenon: Development, evolution and typology. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, 5(1/2), 138–154.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Business Management Department, Facultad de Ciencias Economicas y EmpresarialesComplutense University of MadridMadridSpain
  2. 2.Business Management DepartmentUniversity of ZaragozaZaragozaSpain

Personalised recommendations