The impact of science and technology parks on firms´ product innovation: empirical evidence from Spain

Vásquez Urriago, Ángela Rocio and Barge-Gil, Andrés and Modrego Rico, Aurelia and Paraskevopoulou, Evita (2011): The impact of science and technology parks on firms´ product innovation: empirical evidence from Spain.

Abstract

Science and Technology Parks (STP) are one of the most important and extensive innovation policy initiatives introduced in recent years. This work evaluates the impact of STP on firm product innovation in the Spanish context. Spain is less developed than most of the advanced countries, and regional and national governments are prioritizing STP initiatives. The large firm sample for our study is from the Spanish Technological Innovation Survey, provided by the National Statistical Institute. We focus on average treatment effects for firms located in 22 Spanish STP. Our results show that Spanish STP have a strong and positive impact on the probability and amount of product innovation achieved by STP located firms. These results hold for different assumptions about the mechanisms underlying location in a STP.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: Science and Technology Parks; product innovation; treatment effects; regional development policies.
• Subjects: R - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics > R5 - Regional Government Analysis > R53 - Public Facility Location Analysis ; Public Investment and Capital Stock; L - Industrial Organization > L2 - Firm Objectives, Organization, and Behavior > L25 - Firm Performance: Size, Diversification, and Scope; O - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth > O2 - Development Planning and Policy > O25 - Industrial Policy; O - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth > O1 - Economic Development > O18 - Urban, Rural, Regional, and Transportation Analysis ; Housing ; Infrastructure; L - Industrial Organization > L3 - Nonprofit Organizations and Public Enterprise > L38 - Public Policy; O - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth > O3 - Innovation ; Research and Development ; Technological Change ; Intellectual Property Rights > O30 - General; H - Public Economics > H7 - State and Local Government ; Intergovernmental Relations > H76 - State and Local Government: Other Expenditure Categories

References

Adkins, L., 2010. Testing parameter significance in instrumental variables probit estimators: some simulation results. Journal of Statistical Computation and Simulation. In press. Available at http://www.learneconometrics.com/pdf/Binder2.pdf.

Angrist, J., 2000. Estimation of limited-dependent variable models with dummy endogenous regressors: simple strategies for empirical practice. NBER Technical Working Paper 248.

Angrist, J., Pishke, J., 2008. Mostly harmless econometrics: an empiricist’s companion. Princeton University Press

Appold, S., 2004. Research parks and the location of industrial research laboratories: an analysis of the effectiveness of a policy intervention. Research Policy 33, 225-243.

Asheim, B., 1996. Industrial districts as learning regions: a condition of prosperity? European Planning Studies 4(4), 379-400.

Aschhoff, B., Schmidt, T., 2008. Empirical evidence on the success of R&D cooperation – happy together? Review of Industrial Organization 33, 41-62.

Baptista, R., Swann, P., 1998. Do firms in clusters innovate more? Research Policy 27, 525–540.

Bascle, G., 2008. Controlling for endogeneity with instrumental variables in strategic management research. Strategic Organization 6, 285-327.

Blundell, R., Costa-Dias, M., 2002. Alternative Approaches to Evaluation in Empirical Microeconomics. Portuguese Economic Journal 1, 91-115.

Brouwer, E., Kleinknecht, A., 1996a. Firm size, small business presence and sales of innovative products: a micro-econometric analysis. Small Business Economics 8, 189-201.

Brouwer, E., Kleinknecht, A., 1996b. Determinants of innovation: a microeconometric analysis of three alternative innovation output indicators. In Kleinknecht A. (ed), Determinants of Innovation. The Message from New Indicators, Palgrave: p. 99-124.

Caloghirou, Y., Kastelli, I., Tsakanikas, A., 2004. Internal capabilities and external knowledge sources: complements or substitutes for innovative performance. Technovation 24, 29-39.

Cameron, A., Trivedi, P., 2005. Microeconometrics. Methods and Applications, Cambridge University Press.

Cassiman, B., Veugelers, R., 2006. In search of complementarity in innovation strategy: internal R&D and external knowledge acquisition. Management Science 52, 68-82.

Colombo, M., Delmastro, M., 2002. How effective are technology incubators? Evidence from Italy. Research Policy 31, 1103-1122.

Cooke, P., Morgan, K., 1998. The associational economy. Firms, regions and innovation, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Crepón, B., Duguet, E., Mairesse, J., 1998. Research and development, innovation and productivity: an econometric analysis at the firm level. Economics of Innovation and New Technology 7, 115-158.

D´Este, P., Iammarino, S., Savona, M., von Tunzelmann, N., 2008. What hampers innovation? Evidence from the UK CIS 4. Working Paper nº 168, SEWP (SPRU Electronic Working Paper Series)

DeBresson, C., Amesse, F., 1991. Networks of innovators: a review and introduction to the issue. Research Policy 20, 363-380.

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, 506–517.

Eom, B., Lee, K., 2010. Determinants of industry-academy linkages and, their impact on firm performance: the case of Korea as a latecomer in knowledge industrialization. Research Policy 39, 625 – 639.

Faems, D., Van Looy, B., Debackere, K., 2005. Interorganizational collaboration and innovation: toward a portfolio approach. The Journal of Product Innovation Management 22, 238-250.

Falk, M., 2007. Cross-country and cross-industry patterns in the determinants of innovation output: evidence for 12 EU countries based on CIS 3 micro data. The 2nd European Conference on Entrepreneurship and Innovation, Utrecht School of Economics, University of Utrecht, Netherlands.

Ferguson, R., Olofsson, C., 2004. Science Parks and the Development of NTBFs—Location, Survival and Growth. Journal of Technology Transfer 29, 5-17.

Fosfuri,A., Tribó, J., 2008. Exploring the antecedents of potential absorptive capacity and its impact on innovation performance. OMEGA - The International Journal of Management Science 36, 173-187.

Freeman, C., 1991. Networks of innovators: a synthesis of research issues. Research Policy 20, 499-514.

Frenz, M., Ietto-Gillies, G., 2009. The impact on innovation performance of different sources of knowledge: evidence from the UK Community Innovation Survey. Research Policy 38, 1125-1135.

Fukugawa, N., 2006. Science parks in Japan and their value-added contributions to new technology-based firms. International Journal of Industrial Organization 24, 381– 400.

Griliches, Z., 1990. Patent statistics as economic indicators: a survey. Journal of Economic Literature 28, 1661-1707.

Guo, S., Fraser, M., 2010. Propensity Score Analysis. Statistical Methods and Applications. Advanced Quantitative Techniques in the Social Sciences Series 11. SAGE.

Hussinger, K., 2008. R&D and subsidies at the firm level: an application of parametric and semiparametric two-step selection models. Journal of Applied Econometrics 23, 729-747.

Imbens, G., Wooldridge, J., 2009. Recent developments in the econometrics of program evaluation. Journal of Economic Literature 47, 5-86.

Jaffe, A., 1986. Technological opportunity and spillovers from R&D: evidence from firms´ patents, profits and market value. American Economic Review 76, 984-1001.

Jaffe, A., 1989. Real effects of academic research. American Economic Review 79, 957-970.

Janz, N., Peters, B., 2002. Innovation and innovation success in the German manufacturing sector: econometric evidence at firm level. ZEW working paper.

Johansson, B., Hans, L., 2008. Innovation activities explained by firm attributes and location. Economics of Innovation and New Technology 17, 533-552.

Keeble, D., Lawson, C., Moore, B., Wilkinson, F., 1999. Collective learning processes, networking and ‘institutional thickness' in the Cambridge region. Regional Studies 33, 319-332.

Kleinknecht, A., Van Montfor, K., Brouwer, E., 2002. The non-trivial choice between innovation indicators. Economics of Innovation and New Technology 11, 109-121.

Klomp, L., Van Leeuwen, G., 2001. Linking innovation and firm performance: a new approach. International Journal of the Economics Business 8 (3), 343-364.

Krugman, P., 1991. Increasing Returns and Economic Geography. The Journal of Political Economy 99, 483-499.

Lambooy, J., Boschma, R., 2001. Evolutionary Economics and Regional Policy. Annals of Regional Science 35, 113-131.

Laursen, K., Salter, A., 2006. Open for innovation: the role of openness in explaining innovation performance among U.K. manufacturing firms. Strategic Management Journal 27, 131-150.

Lawson C., Lorenz E., 1999. Collective learning, tacit knowledge and regional innovative capacity. Regional Studies 33, 305–317.

Lee, M.-J., 2005. Micro-econometrics for policy, program, and treatment effects. Advanced texts in econometrics, New York, Oxford University Press.

Lindelöf, P., Löfsten, H., 2003. Science Park Location and New Technology-Based Firms in Sweden – Implications for Strategy and Performance. Small Business Economics 20, 245-258.

Lindelöf, P., Löfsten, H., 2004. Proximity as a resource base for competitive advantage – university–industry links for technology transfer. Journal of Technology Transfer 29, 311-326.

Link, A., Scott, J., 2003. U .S. science parks: the diffusion of an innovation and its effects on the academic missions of universities. International Journal of Industrial Organization 21, 1323–1356.

Link, A., Scott, J., 2006. U.S. University Research Parks. Journal of Productivity Analysis 25, 43-55.

Link, A., Scott J., 2007. The economics of university research parks. Oxford Review of Economic Policy 23, 661-674.

Löfsten, H., Lindelöf, P., 2001. Science Parks in Sweden – industrial renewal and development? R&D Management 31, 309-322.

Löfsten, H., Lindelöf, P., 2002. Science Parks and the growth of new technology-based firms.academic-industry links, innovation and market. Research Policy 31, 859–876.

Löfsten, H., Lindelöf, P., 2003. Determinants for an entrepreneurial milieu: Science Parks and business policy in growing firms. Technovation 23, 51-64.

Love, J., Roper, S., 1999. The determinants of innovation: R&D, technology transfer and networking effects. Review of Industrial Organization 15: 43-64.

Lundvall, B., 1992. National systems of innovation: towards a theory of innovation and interactive learning, London, Pinter.

Maddala, G.S., 1983. Limited-dependent and qualitative variables in econometrics, Econometric Society Monographs 3.

Mairesse, J., Mohnen, P., 2001. “To be or not to be innovative: an exercise in measurement.” STI Review Special Issue on New Science and Technology Indicators 27: 103-129.

Mairesse, J., Mohnen, P., 2005. The importance of R&D for innovation: a reassessment using French survey data. Journal of Technology Transfer 30, 183-197.

Mairesse, J., Mohnen, P., 2010. Using innovation surveys for econometric analysis. Scientific Series, CIRANO.

Malairaja, C., Zawdie, G., 2008. Science parks and university-industry collaboration in Malaysia. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 20, 727-739.

Marshall, A., 1920. Principles of Economics. London, Macmillan.

Maskell, P., Malmberg, A., 1999. The competitiveness of firms and regions: Ubiquitification and the importance of localized learning. European Urban and Regional Studies 6, 9-25.

McKelvey, M., 1996. Evolutionary Innovations: the business of biotechnology, New York, Oxford University Press.

Metcalfe, S., 1994. The economic foundations of technology policy: equilibrium and evolutionary perspectives. In

Dodgson, M, Rothwell, R. (eds), The handbook of industrial innovation, Edward Elgar, p. 491-503.

Mills, E., 1987. Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics, Elsevier.

Miotti, L., Sachwald, F., 2003. Co-operative R&D: why and with whom? An integrated framework of analysis. Research Policy 32: 1481-1499.

Mohnen, P., Dagenais, M., 2000. Towards an innovation intensity index: the case of CIS 1 in Denmark and Ireland. Scientific Series, CIRANO.

Mohnen, P., Mairesse J., Dagenais, M., 2006. Innovativity: a comparison across seven European countries. Economics of Innovation and New Technology 15, 391-413.

Monck, C. S. P., Porter, R. B., Quintas, P., Storey, D. J., Wynarczyk, P., 1988. Science Parks and the Growth of High Technology Firms. London, Croom Helm.

Morgan, K., 1997. The learning region: institutions innovation and regional renewal. Regional Studies 31(5), 491-503.

Negassi, S., 2004. R&D co-operation and innovation a microeconometric study on French firms. Research Policy 33, 365-384.

Nelson, R., 1993. National innovation systems: a comparative analysis. Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Nelson, R., 2000. Selection Criteria and selection processes in cultural evolution theories. In Ziman, J. (Ed.), Technological innovation as an evolutionary process, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, p. 66-74.

OECD, 2005. OECD Science, technology and industry scoreboard 2005. OECD Publishing.

Ondategui, J., 2001. Los Parques Científicos y Tecnológicos en España: retos y oportunidades. Fundación madri+d.

Pavitt, K., 1987. On the nature of technology, Mimeo, Univ. of Sussex- Science Policy Research Unit.

Porter, M., 1990. The competitive advantage of nations. London, Macmillan.

Raymond, W., Mohnen, P., Palm, F., van der Loeff, S. S., 2006. A classification of Dutch manufacturing based on a model of innovation. De Economist 154, 85-105.

Romera, F., 2003. Los parques científicos y tecnológicos, sistemas virtuosos de innovación. Economía industrial 354, 85-102.

Rosembaum, P., Rubin, D., 1983. The central role of the Propensity Score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 70, 41-55.

Saxenian, A., 1994. Regional advantage: culture and competition in Silicon Valley and route 128. Cambridge, Harvard University Press.

Siegel, D. S., Westhead, P., Wright, M., 2003a. Assessing the impact of Science Parks on Research Productivity: exploratory firm-level evidence from the United Kingdom. International Journal of Industrial Organization 21, 1357-69.

Siegel, D. S., Westhead, P., Wright, M., 2003b. Science Parks and the Performance of New Technology-Based Firms: A Review of Recent U.K. Evidence and an Agenda for Future Research. Small Business Economics 20, 177-184.

Sofoulli, E., Vonortas, N., 2007. S&T parks and business incubator in middle-sized countries: the case of Greece. The Journal of Technology Transfer 32, 525-544.

Squicciarini, M., 2008. Science Parks’ tenants versus out-of-Park firms: who innovates more? A duration model. The Journal of Technology Transfer 33, 45-71.

Staiger, D., Stock, J. H., 1997. Instrumental variables regression with weak instruments. Econometrica 65, 557-586.

Sternberg, T., Arndt, O., 2001. The firm or the region: what determines the innovation behavior of European firms? Economic Geography 77, 364-382.

Tsai, K., 2009. Collaborative networks and product innovation performance: toward a contingency perspective. Research Policy 38, 765-778.

Vestergaard, J., Hansson, F., Husted, K., 2005. Second generation science parks: from structural holes jockeys to social capital catalysts of the knowledge society. Technovation 25, 1039–1049.

Westhead, P., 1997. R&D Inputs and Outputs of Technology-based firms located on and off Science Parks. R&D Management 27, 45-62.

Westhead, P., Storey, D., 1994. An assessment of firms located on and off science parks in the United Kingdom. London, HSMO.

Wooldridge, J., 2002. Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data. MIT Press.

Wooldridge, J., 2003. Introductory econometrics: a modern approach. 2E. South-Western Collage Publishing.

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, 77-85.