Small Business Economics

, Volume 52, Issue 1, pp 193–211 | Cite as

Differential performance of science park firms: an integrative model

  • Kholekile L. Gwebu
  • Jeffrey SohlEmail author
  • Jing Wang


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.


Science parks Competitive environment Location economics Spillover effect Small firm performance and growth 



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.


  1. 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. Scholar
  2. 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. Scholar
  3. 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. Scholar
  4. Arthur, W. B. (1990). ‘Silicon Valley’ locational clusters: when do increasing returns imply monopoly? Mathematical Social Sciences, 19(3), 235–251. Scholar
  5. 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. Scholar
  6. Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120. Scholar
  7. 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. Scholar
  8. Boyd, B. (1990). Corporate linkages and organizational environment: a test of the resource dependence model. Strategic Management Journal, 11(6), 419–430. Scholar
  9. Castrogiovanni, G. J. (1991). Environmental munihcence; a theoretical assessment. Academy of Management Review, 16(3), 542–565. Scholar
  10. 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.
  11. 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. Scholar
  12. Christensen, C. (2013). The innovator's dilemma: when new technologies cause great firms to fail. Boston: Harvard Business Review Press.Google Scholar
  13. 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. Scholar
  14. Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128–152. Scholar
  15. Colombo, M. G., & Delmastro, M. (2002). How effective are technology incubators? Evidence from Italy. Research Policy, 31(7), 1103–1122. Scholar
  16. Cooper, A. C., & Dunkelberg, W. C. (1986). Entrepreneurship and paths to business ownership. Strategic Management Journal, 7(1), 53–68. Scholar
  17. 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. Scholar
  18. 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. Scholar
  19. Delmar, F., Davidsson, P., & Gartner, W. B. (2003). Arriving at the high-growth firm. Journal of Business Venturing, 18, 189–216. Scholar
  20. Dess, G. G., & Beard, D. W. (1984). Dimensions of organizational task environments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29(1), 52–73. Scholar
  21. 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. Scholar
  22. 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. Scholar
  23. 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. Scholar
  24. Doutriaux, J. (1992). Emerging high-tech firms: how durable are their comparative start-up advantages? Journal of Business Venturing, 7(4), 303–322. Scholar
  25. 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. Scholar
  26. 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. Scholar
  27. 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. Scholar
  28. George, G. (2005). Slack resources and the performance of privately held firms. Academy of Management Journal, 48(4), 661–676. Scholar
  29. 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. Scholar
  30. 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. Scholar
  31. 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. Scholar
  32. 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. Scholar
  33. Hu, A. G. (2007). Technology parks and regional economic growth in China. Research Policy, 36(1), 76–87.Google Scholar
  34. Jackson, S. E., & Dutton, J. E. (1988). Discerning threats and opportunities. Administrative Science Quarterly, 33(3), 370–387. Scholar
  35. 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. Scholar
  36. Jiménez-Jiménez, D., & Sanz-Valle, R. (2011). Innovation, organizational learning, and performance. Journal of Business Research, 64(4), 408–417. Scholar
  37. 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. Scholar
  38. 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. Scholar
  39. 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. Scholar
  40. 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. Scholar
  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), 311–326. Scholar
  42. Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2007). The economics of university research parks. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 23(4), 661–674. Scholar
  43. Löfsten, H., & Lindelöf, P. (2001). Science parks in Sweden—industrial renewal and development? R&D Management, 31(3), 309–322. Scholar
  44. 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. Scholar
  45. 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. Scholar
  46. 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. Scholar
  47. MacMillan, I. C., & Day, D. L. (1987). Corporate ventures into industrial markets: dynamics of aggressive entry. Journal of Business Venturing, 2(1), 29–39. Scholar
  48. 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. Scholar
  49. Markman, G. D., Siegel, D. S., & Wright, M. (2008). Research and technology commercialization. Journal of Management Studies, 45(8), 1401–1423. Scholar
  50. McCann, B. T., & Folta, T. B. (2011). Performance differentials within geographic clusters. Journal of Business Venturing, 26(1), 104–123. Scholar
  51. Miller, D. (1988). Relating Porter's business strategies to environment and structure: analysis and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 31(2), 280–308. Scholar
  52. 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. Scholar
  53. Monck, C. S., & Peat, M. (1988). Science parks and the growth of high technology firms. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
  54. 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. Scholar
  55. Nerkar, A., & Shane, S. (2003). When do start-ups that exploit patented academic knowledge survive? International Journal of Industrial Organization, 21(9), 1391–1410. Scholar
  56. Nowak, M. J., & Grantham, C. E. (2000). The virtual incubator: managing human capital in the software industry. Research Policy, 29(2), 125–134. Scholar
  57. Pagano, M., Panetta, F., & Zingales, L. (1998). Why do companies go public? An empirical analysis. The Journal of Finance, 53(1), 27–64. Scholar
  58. Peteraf, M. A. (1993). The cornerstones of competitive advantage: a resource-based view. Strategic Management Journal, 14(3), 179–191. Scholar
  59. Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (2003). The external control of organizations: a resource dependence perspective. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  60. 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. Scholar
  61. Porter, M. E. (2000). Location, competition, and economic development: local clusters in a global economy. Economic Development Quarterly, 14(1), 15–34. Scholar
  62. Quintas, P., Wield, D., & Massey, D. (1992). Academic-industry links and innovation: questioning the science park model. Technovation, 12(3), 161–175. Scholar
  63. Sapienza, H. J., Parhankangas, A., & Autio, E. (2004). Knowledge relatedness and post-spin-off growth. Journal of Business Venturing, 19(6), 809–829. Scholar
  64. Saunders, A., & Steffen, S. (2011). The costs of being private: evidence from the loan market. The Review of Financial Studies, 24(12), 4091–4122. Scholar
  65. 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. Scholar
  66. 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. Scholar
  67. 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. Scholar
  68. 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. Scholar
  69. Singh, J. V., Tucker, D. J., & House, R. J. (1986). Organizational legitimacy and the liability of newness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 171–193.
  70. 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. Scholar
  71. 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. Scholar
  72. Tanriverdi, H., & Venkatraman, N. (2005). Knowledge relatedness and the performance of multibusiness firms. Strategic Management Journal, 26(2), 97–119. Scholar
  73. 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. Scholar
  74. 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. Scholar
  75. 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. Scholar
  76. Vinnell, R., & Hamilton, R. T. (1999). A historical perspective on small firm development. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 23(4), 5–18.Google Scholar
  77. 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. Scholar
  78. Westhead, P., & Storey, D. J. (1995). Links between higher education institutions and high technology firms. Omega, 23(4), 345–360. Scholar
  79. 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.Google Scholar
  80. 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.Google Scholar
  81. 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. Scholar
  82. 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. Scholar
  83. Wiklund, J., & Shepherd, D. (2005). Entrepreneurial orientation and small business performance: a configurational approach. Journal of Business Venturing, 20(1), 71–91. Scholar
  84. 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. Scholar
  85. Zahra, S. A., & Ellor, D. (1993). Accelerating new product development and successful market introduction. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 58(1), 9–15.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Peter T. Paul College of Business and EconomicsUniversity of New HampshireDurhamUSA

Personalised recommendations