Advertisement

The Journal of Technology Transfer

, Volume 42, Issue 1, pp 158–183 | Cite as

The role of Science Parks: a puzzle of growth, innovation and R&D investments

  • Francesco LampertiEmail author
  • Roberto Mavilia
  • Simona Castellini
Article

Abstract

This paper investigates the impact of Science Parks on growth and innovativeness of affiliated firms. Both the role and the effectiveness of these policy instruments in sustaining tenants’ performances are still open issues. We rely on unique Italian data and compare the performance of firms located within a park with a control sample of off-park firms. Firstly, we focus on the estimation of the treatment effect of being located within the park. Our results show a significant difference between on and off park firms with respect to their innovativeness and propensity to invest in R&D; to the contrary, firms’ growth appears unaffected by location effects. Secondly, we analyse what features of Science Parks drive the impact on the diverse measures of performance. Our main finding is that both patenting activity and R&D investments are actively sustained by the presence and quantity of research centres within the park. Growth remains a largely unexplained phenomenon and Gibrat law is found to hold robustly within the class of on-park firms.

Keywords

Science Parks Innovation Growth R&D investments 

JEL Classification

D22 O30 L25 

References

  1. Aghion, P., & Howitt, P. (1992). A model of growth through creative destruction. Econometrica, 60(2), 323–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Audretsch, D., Bozeman, B., Combs, K., Feldman, M., Link, A., Siegel, D., et al. (2002). The economics of science and technology. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 27(2), 155–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Audretsch, D. B., Coad, A., & Segarra, A. (2014). Firm growth and innovation. Small Business Economics, 43(4), 743–749.Google Scholar
  4. Battaglia, R., Lamperti, F., & Siligato, L. (2012). AREA SP: Potere alleccellenza. In: Dai distretti tecnologici ai polidi innovazione. Milan: Egea.Google Scholar
  5. Bellavista, J., & Sanz, L. (2009). Science and technology parks: Habitats of innovation: Introduction to special section. Science and Public Policy, 36(7), 499–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bianchini, S., Pellegrino, G., & Tamagni, F. (2014). Innovation strategies and firm growth: New longitudinal evidence from spanish firms. Technical report, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant’Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.Google Scholar
  7. Blackwell, M., Iacus, S. M., King, G., & Porro, G. (2009). Cem: Coarsened exact matching in stata. Stata Journal, 9(4), 524–546.Google Scholar
  8. Bottazzi, G., & Secchi, A. (2006). Explaining the distribution of firm growth rates. RAND Journal of Economics, 37, 235–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bound, J., Cummins, C., Griliches, Z., & Bronwyn, H. (1984). Who does R&D and who patents? In Z. Griliches (Ed.), R&D, patents, and productivity (pp. 21–54). Chicago: University of Chicago.Google Scholar
  10. Brusoni, S., Cefis, E., & Orsenigo, L. (2006). Innovate or die? A critical review of the literature on innovation and performance. Technical Report 179, CESPRI—Università Commerciale Luigi Bocconi.Google Scholar
  11. Coad, A., & Rao, R. (2008). Innovation and firm growth in high-tech sectors: A quantile regression approach. Research Policy, 37(4), 633–648.Google Scholar
  12. Colombo, M. G., & Delmastro, M. (2002). How effective are technology incubators?: Evidence from italy. Research Policy, 31(7), 1103–1122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Demirel, P., & Mazzucato, M. (2012). Innovation and firm growth: Is R&D worth it? Industry and Innovation, 19(1), 45–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Díez-Vial, I., & Fernández-Olmos, M. (2014). Knowledge spillovers in science and technology parks: How can firms benefit most? The Journal of Technology Transfer, 40(1), 70–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dosi, G. (2005). Statistical regularities in the evolution of industries. A guide through some evidence and challenges for the theory. LEM Papers Series 2005/17, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant’Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.Google Scholar
  16. Felsenstein, D. (1994). University-related science parks, seedbeds or enclaves of innovation. Technovation, 14, 93–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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
  18. Ferrara, M., & Mavilia, R. (2012). Dai distretti tecnologici ai poli di innovazione. Milan: Egea.Google Scholar
  19. Ferrara, M., Mavilia, R., & Lamperti, F. (2012). The effects of innovation poles and science parks on regional economies in Italy. In Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on communication and management in technological innovation and academy (pp. 196–202).Google Scholar
  20. Frenken, K. & Nuvolari, A. (2004). Entropy statistics as a framework to analyse technological evolution. In Applied evolutionary economics and complex systems, (pp. 95–133). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  21. Fukugawa, N. (2004). 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
  22. Geroski, P., & Machin, S. (1992). Do innovating firms outperform non-innovators?*. Business Strategy Review, 3(2), 79–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Geroski, P., & Mazzucato, M. (2002). Learning and the sources of corporate growth. Industrial and Corporate Change, 11(4), 623–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Geroski, P. A., Van Reenen, J., & Walters, C. F. (1997). How persistently do firms innovate? Research Policy, 26(1), 33–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gibrat, R. (1931). Les inégalités économiques. Paris: Recueil Sirey.Google Scholar
  26. Goldstein, H., & Luger, M. (1991). Technology in the Garden. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
  27. Gu, X. S., & Rosenbaum, P. R. (1993). Comparison of multivariate matching methods: Structures, distances, and algorithms. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics, 2(4), 405–420.Google Scholar
  28. Hausman, J. A., Hall, B. H., & Griliches, Z. (1984). Econometric models for count data with an application to the patents-R&D relationship. Econometrica, 52(4), 909–938.Google Scholar
  29. Heckman, J. J., & Robb, R, Jr. (1985). Alternative methods for evaluating the impact of interventions: An overview. Journal of Econometrics, 30(1), 239–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Henderson, J. V. (1986). Efficiency of resource usage and city size. Journal of Urban Economics, 19(1), 47–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hodgson, B. (1996). A methodological framework to analyse the impact of science and technology parks. In: M. Guedes & P. Formica (Eds.), The economics of Science Parks. Rio de Janeiro: ANTROPOTEC, IASP and AURP.Google Scholar
  32. Hotz, V. J., Imbens, G. W., & Klerman, J. A. (2006). Evaluating the differential effects of alternative welfaretowork training components: A reanalysis of the california gain program. Journal of Labor Economics, 24(3), 521–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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
  34. Iacus, S. M., King, G., & Porro, G. (2012). Causal inference without balance checking: Coarsened exact matching. Political Analysis, 20(1), 1–24.Google Scholar
  35. Imai, K., King, G., & Stuart, E. A. (2008). Misunderstandings between experimentalists and observationalists about causal inference. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society), 171(2), 481–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Jaffe, A. B. (1986). Technological opportunity and spillovers of R&D: Evidence from firms’ patents, profits, and market value. The American Economic Review, 76(5), 984–1001.Google Scholar
  37. Klette, T. J., & Griliches, Z. (2000). Empirical patterns of firm growth and R&D investment: A quality ladder model interpretation. Economic Journal, 110(463), 363–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Klette, T. J., & Kortum, S. (2004). Innovating firms and aggregate innovation. Journal of Political Economy, 112(5), 986–1018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Krugman, P. R. (1991). Geography and trade. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  40. Liberati, D., Marinucci, M., & Tanzi, G. (2015). Science and technology parks in Italy: Main features and analysis of their effects on the firms hosted. The Journal of Technology Transfer. doi: 10.1007/s10961-015-9397-8.
  41. 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(3–4), 311–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Link, A. N., & Link, K. R. (2003). On the growth of us science parks. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 28(1), 81–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2003). Us science parks: The diffusion of an innovation and its effects on the academic missions of universities. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 21(9), 1323–1356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2006). US university research parks. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 25(1–2), 43–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2007). The economics of university research parks. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 23(4), 661–674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Löfsten, H., & Lindelöf, P. (2001). Science parks in Sweden—Industrial renewal and development? R&D Management, 31(3), 309–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 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
  48. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Mann, H. B., & Whitney, D. R. (1947). On a test of whether one of two random variables is stochastically larger than the other. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 18(1), 50–60.Google Scholar
  50. Mansfield, E. (1962). Entry, gibrat’s law, innovation, and the growth of firms. The American Economic Review, 52(5), 1023–1051.Google Scholar
  51. Mian, S. A. (1996). Assessing value-added contributions of university technology business incubators to tenant firms. Research Policy, 25(3), 325–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Monck, C. S. (1988). Science Parks and the growth of high technology firms. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  53. Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (2009). An evolutionary theory of economic change. Harvard: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Pakes, A., & Griliches, Z. (1980). Patents and R&D at the firm level: A first report. Economics Letters, 5(4), 377–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Plaeksakul, A. (2011). Science parks to nurture technology and innovation. In: Proceedings and papers presented at the consultative workshop on the promotion of national innovation systems in countries with special needs of the Asia-Pacific region.Google Scholar
  57. Rubin, D. B. (1974). Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomized and nonrandomized studies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 66(5), 688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Salvador, E., & Rolfo, S. (2011). Are incubators and science parks effective for research spin-offs? Evidence from Italy. Science and Public Policy, 38(3), 170–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Saublens, C. (2007). Regional research intensive clusters and sps. Technical report, EU Commission, DG RTD.Google Scholar
  60. Scherer, F. M. (1965). Corporate inventive output, profits, and growth. The Journal of Political Economy, 73(3), 290–297.Google Scholar
  61. Siegel, D., & Wessner, C. (2012). Universities and the success of entrepreneurial ventures: Evidence from the small business innovation research program. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 37(4), 404–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Squicciarini, M. (2009a). Science parks, knowledge spillovers, and firms innovative performance. Evidence from Finland. Economics Discussion Paper 2009-32, Kiel Institute for the World Economy.Google Scholar
  65. Squicciarini, M. (2009b). Science parks: Seedbeds of innovation? A duration analysis of firms patenting activity. Small Business Economics, 32(2), 169–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Stam, E., & Wennberg, K. (2009). The roles of R&D in new firm growth. Small Business Economics, 33(1), 77–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Storey, D. J. (1994). Understanding the small business sector. Stamford: Thomson.Google Scholar
  68. Stuart, E. A. (2010). Matching methods for causal inference: A review and a look forward. Statistical Science: A Review Journal of the Institute of Mathematical Statistics, 25(1), 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Sutton, J. (1997). Gibrat’s legacy. Journal of Economic Literature, 35(1), 40–59.Google Scholar
  70. Wallsten, S. (2004). Do sps generate regional economic growth? An empirical analysis of their effects on job growth and venture capital. Technical report, Joint Center.Google Scholar
  71. Wilcoxon, F. (1945). Individual comparisons by ranking methods. Biometrics Bulletin, 1(6), 80–83.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Francesco Lamperti
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    Email author
  • Roberto Mavilia
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
  • Simona Castellini
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Institute of EconomicsScuola Superiore Sant’AnnaPisaItaly
  2. 2.CRIOS - Bocconi UniversityMilanItaly
  3. 3.MEDAlics, Research Centre for the Mediterranean RelationsReggio CalabriaItaly
  4. 4.University for Foreigners “Dante Alighieri”Reggio CalabriaItaly

Personalised recommendations