African Journal of Business Management Vol. 5(30), pp.11999-12007, 30 November, 2011 DOI: 10.5897/AJBM11.768 Available online at http://www.academicjournals.org/AJBM ISSN 1993-8233 ©2011 Academic Journals
Full Length Research Paper
A literature review of the effect of science and technology parks on firm performance: A new model of value creation through social capital Ricardo Martínez-Cañas1, Pablo Ruiz-Palomino1 and Francisco J. Sáez-Martínez2 1
2
Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Castilla-La Mancha, Cuenca, Spain. Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Castilla-La Mancha, Albacete, Spain. Accepted 30 August, 2011
Science and technology parks provide modern infrastructural mechanisms for transferring academic research findings, generating knowledge spillovers, and catalyzing regional and national economic growth. Therefore, these parks enable the flow of knowledge, ease access to valuable resources and innovations, and foster cooperation among tenants. Reviewing previous literature we found that the effect of science park infrastructure on the performance of related firms has not conclusive findings and this divergence can be interpreted as main studies are not including the value generated through interorganizational social interactions. This study uses the concept of social capital to analyze how science and technology parks facilitate the generation of goodwill and resources that firms gain from their relationships with other economic agents in the park. Within this theoretical approach the paper proposes a model for understanding how science and technology parks create a valuable infrastructure for generating such social benefits. Finally, the paper suggests a theoretical model to examine sources, substance, contingencies, and value creation at the firm level. Key words: Science and technology parks, social capital, knowledge spillovers, firm innovation, value creation.
INTRODUCTION In a global knowledge economy, science and technology parks (STPs) represent public–private partnerships that can foster knowledge flows, mainly among park firms, as well as between these firms and external research and development institutions (R&DI), and thus improve regional economic growth (Link and Scott, 2007). Despite the lack of a confirmed definition of an STP, some common denominators across different existing models suggest a set of minimum standards and requirements that any knowledge cluster should have to earn this
*Corresponding author. E-mail:
[email protected]. Tel: (+34) 902 204 100 ext 4241. Fax: (+34) 902 204 130. Abbreviations: STPs, Science and technology parks; R&DI, research and development institutions; HEI, higher education institutions; IASP, International Association of Science Parks.
formal recognition (Link, 2009). Among these common denominators it can be highlighted that STPs facilitate access for firms to key factors such as research and development (R&D), human capital, innovation infrastructures, financers, venture capitalists, technological capital, and social capital (European-Commission, 2008). These factors are related to the capacity to adapt to technological, economic, and social changes in markets. That is, a STP is a highly complex, dynamic system that evolves; the organizations within it change the underlying characteristics of the park and thus the relative competitiveness of the surrounding region over time (Siegel et al., 2007). Therefore, STPs have emerged based on new institutional arrangements that facilitate interactive relations between universities, industry and government (Etzkowitz, 2008). STPs literature is in an emerging stage of development and during recent years researchers have stimulated an
12000
Afr. J. Bus. Manage.
important academic debate concerning whether such property-based initiatives really enhance the performance of firms and economic growth of regions (Phan et al., 2005). To this respect, there are differences of results in empirical researches founding positive or non significant effects of STPs on firm performance (Link, 2009). This divergence implies that previous studies do not analyze STPs from the point of view of their active role in the knowledge-based economy (Hansson, 2007). Thus, the main contribution of this paper is analyzing the value generated through relational aspects in STPs. Therefore, the use of social capital theory will enhance our understanding about the dynamism that is often a consequence of strong interactions among a wide range of highly creative actors (Bueno-Campos and RodriguezPomeda, 2007). In that sense the role of a STP requires an effective networking to manage and encourage the transfer of knowledge, resources, and innovations among tenants (Hansson et al., 2005). So this article also contributes to extend previous studies that have tended to measure the value of STPs for firms using traditional economic indicators, such as annual growth, profitability, employment rate, or the number of new companies created (Hansson, 2007). With a social capital approach, we take into account the growing importance of knowledge or intangible aspects derived from social relations, which can be the appropriate variables to indicate success in a network economy (Westlund, 2006). This research starts by reviewing key STP literature and then focus on the role of intangible relationship aspects, using social capital at firm level to identify the source, main dimensions, benefits, and related contingency variables. Next, the study proposes a conceptual model of social capital generation and value creation inside science parks. Finally, the study presents the main conclusions and implications for future research. LITERATURE REVIEW During recent decades, two concepts have emerged with key importance for the value creation process in firms: the knowledge economy and the idea of collaborative advantage. Both imply the need for a new strategic model, built around value creation through social relationships (Lesser, 2000). In this setting, relations and social connections determine organizational success and thus are increasingly prominent in organizational research (Nahapiet, 2009). From this point of view, firms comprise a portfolio of relationships rather than portfolios of businesses or capabilities. This perspective challenges the conventional wisdom regarding competitive success. Changes in knowledge production also imply new roles for traditional providers of scientific knowledge (mainly universities and R&D centers) that span research organized by disciplines. New knowledge production at
the firm level has a more interdisciplinary character and is driven by close collaboration with other agents (Gibbons et al., 1994). Regional knowledge clusters and STPs reflect such new institutional arrangements that facilitate interactive relations among universities, (local) state agencies, and industry (Etzkowitz, 2008). In the knowledge economy, the idea of collaborative advantage and STPs has a common denominator: relations increase the value and competitive advantage of firms. Thus, a STP can try to create a perfect knowledge landscape, in which high technology firms access valuable resources and benefit from their relationships with other economic agents.
Science and technology parks The STP phenomenon has received increasing attention, as well as resources, from policy makers as central elements of regional development policies (Link and Scott, 2007). A boom in related initiatives took place during the 1980s and 1990s (Hansson et al., 2005), and their rapid expansion was accelerated by institutional changes such as the political commitment for knowledge production through interactions among production agents (Etzkowitz, 2008). Policy makers have aimed to construct an environment conductive to innovation and growth by providing a physical and social infrastructure that will attract hightech firms, through the establishment and upgrading of local institutions and networks that stimulate new ideas and technologies (European-Commission, 2008). Main STP definitions have been proposed by both professsional organizations and academics (Link and Scott, 2007). On the one hand, from a professional point of view, the International Association of Science Parks (IASP) defines a STP as an organization managed by specialized professionals, whose main aim is to increase the wealth of the community by promoting a culture of innovation and competitiveness for its associated businesses and knowledge-based institutions (IASP, 2002). This definition has a global character, because it is based on a cross-examination and benchmarked models and experiences worldwide. Therefore, it cites the role of STPs in promoting economic development and regional competitiveness through functions related to creating new business opportunities, fostering entrepreneurship, generating knowledge-based jobs, building attractive spaces for knowledge workers, and enhancing synergy between universities and companies. This definition also encompasses related, more specific terms and expressions, such as "Technology Park”, “Research Park” or “Science Park”. On the other hand, from an academic perspective, a STP is a property-based organization with an identifiable administrative center, focused on business acceleration through knowledge agglomeration and resource sharing
Ricardo et al.
(Phan et al., 2005). To achieve these goals, a STP stimulates and manages the flow of knowledge by creating an infrastructural mechanism for using academic research findings to enhance the performance of corporations, universities, and economic regions (Link and Scott, 2007). Also, there is no single STP research line; however, related studies employ four different levels of analysis: the park, the firms located in parks, entrepreneurs involved with these firms, and the aggregate level (Phan et al., 2005). It can be difficult to develop a multilevel analysis to attain a holistic view of STPs. At the firm level, most studies examine the performance effects of STPs on tenants (Link and Scott, 2007), complemented by ancillary research questions about the types of innovation market failures that STPs can correct or which valuable resources and dynamic capabilities flow from their infrastructure. Thus, firms in STPs function in a highly differentiated environmental and institutional context, which needs further examination by a contingency approach (Phan et al., 2005). In addition, STP literature remains in an emergent stage of development; in recent years, researchers have engaged in important academic debates about whether property-based initiatives really enhance firm performance and regional economic growth (Siegel et al., 2003b). Table 1 shows the main findings that have shown some empirical researches that have tried to measure the effects of STPs on firm’s results. On the one hand, some studies conclude that STPs fail to deliver widely expected benefits such as patents or new product development (Westhead, 1997; Colombo and Delmastro, 2002), research productivity (Siegel et al., 2003a), employment growth in high-tech sectors (Shearmur and Doloreux, 2000), profitability (Lofsten and Lindelof, 2002, 2003, 2005), growth (Monck et al., 1988; Dettwiler et al., 2006), or the development of strong ties with R&D and HEIs (Bakouros et al., 2002, Malairaja and Zawdie, 2008). On the other hand, other studies reveal a positive effect of parks on patents (Squicciarini, 2008; Wright et al., 2008), productivity (Yang et al., 2009), joint research with universities (Fukugawa, 2006), access to public funds (Link and Scott, 2003), survival (Ferguson and Olofson, 2004), and new product and patent development (Siegel et al., 2007). This difference in the effects of STPs on firm performance implies the need for a new theoretical approach to the analysis of STPs, based on their active role in the modern knowledge-based, network economy (Hansson, 2007). That is, the use of traditional economic indicators might obviate some intangible aspects of social relations that represent essential indicators of success in the network economy (Westlund, 2006). The study therefore, introduces social capital theory as a means to examine the role of goodwill and intangible resources that
12001
firms gain from their relationships with other agents within the park. Social capital Social capital theory explores the benefits and costs of social ties and relationships (Chisholm and Nielsen, 2009). Organizational social capital derives from social structures such as networks, ties, and their associated norms and values, which affects the firm and its performance. These networks can be internal, if embedded in the relationships among the organization’s members, or external, if embedded in relationships beyond the firm boundaries (Westlund, 2006). Firms must manage their portfolio of relationships with customers, suppliers, universities, banks, venture capitalists, and government. These social ties then constitute a valuable resource that supports social activities and enable people and social groups to achieve outcomes that they could not otherwise, or could attain only at significant cost (Coleman, 1988). Several recent contributions in management and organizational literature note the importance of internal and external corporate social capital. Social capital reportedly has beneficial effects on factors including corporate innovation (Fountain and Atkinson, 1998), interorganizational networks and resource exchanges (Tsai and Ghoshal, 1998), regional production networks (Asheim et al., 2007), the mobilization of finance (Uzzi, 1999), collective goal orientation and shared trust (Leana and Pil, 2006), organizational citizenship behaviors (Bolino et al., 2002), the creation of new intellectual capital (Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998), knowledge acquisition and exploitation (Yli-Renko et al., 2001), family firm success (Zahra, 2010), and interorganizational learning (Wu and Cavusgil, 2006). Yet despite the vast number of empirical contributions, social capital literature lacks a universally accepted definition of its central term. Moreover, some researchers discuss the core notion of social capital without using the term itself (Farr, 2004). The study adopts a definition of social capital with great influence over management studies, as proposed by Nahapiet and Ghoshal (1998): “the sum of the actual and potential resources embedded within, available through and derived from the network of relationships possessed by an individual or social unit. Social capital comprises both the network and the assets that may be mobilized through that network”. This definition makes three distinctive contributions to management (Nahapiet, 2008): its resource-based perspective, its ability to combine multiple dimensions of relationships, and its focus on performance outcomes. The definition is based on social capital’s view of connections as both resources themselves and conduits to other resources that can be leveraged for material gain. It applies to
12002
Afr. J. Bus. Manage.
Table 1. Studies measuring the effects of STPs on firm’s performance.
Study Monck et al. (1988)
Westhead (1997)
Sample, country and method 284 UK firms (183 located in and 101 out) 95 UK firms (47 located in and 48 out)
Shearmur and Doloreux (2000) 17 Canadian STPs
Conclusion No significant effects on growth (employment), links with HEIs, patents and new products development. No significant effects on scientists and engineers, R&D expenditure, radical new research, patents, copyrights and new products development. No significant effects on employment growth.
Bakouros et al. (2002)
Case study of 24 firms located in 3 Greek STPs
No significant effects on growth, performance and the development of strong and operational ties with institutions.
Colombo and Delmastro (2002)
90 Italian firms (45 located in and 45 located out)
Positive effect on growth, inputs and innovation. No significant effect on patents.
Lofsten and Lindelof (2002)
273 Sweden new technology based firms (163 located in and 100 out)
Positive effect on growth (employment sales) but no significant effect on profitability of firms.
Lofsten and Lindelof (2003)
273 Sweden new technology based firms (134 located in and 139 out)
Siegel et al. (2003a)
177 UK firms (89 located in and 88 out)
Slightly and positive effect on new products, patents and copyrights. No significant effect considering endogeneity.
Link and Scott (2003)
88 US institutions located near STPs
Proximity to STPs improves success in obtaining extramural funding.
Ferguson and Olofsson (2004)
66 Sweden new technology based firms (30 located in and 36 located out)
Positive effect on survival. No significant effect on firm growth.
Lofsten and Lindelof (2005)
134 Sweden new technology based firms (74 University spin-offs and 60 corporate spin-offs)
No significant differences between growth and profitability. University spin-offs do not channel investments into patents (as corporate spin-offs do).
Dettwiler et al (2006)
477 Sweden firms located in and 500 located out of STPs
Positive differences in contractual agreements and facilities (proximity to competitors, consumers, infrastructure and lower costs).
Fukugawa (2006)
222 Japanese firms (74 located in and Positive effect on joint research with HEIs. 138 out)
Malairaja and Zawdie (2008)
52 Malaysian firms (22 located in and 30 out)
No significant effects on links with HEIs.
Squicciarini (2008)
120 Finish firms(48 located in and 72 out)
Positive effects on patents.
Wright et al. (2008)
349 Chinese firms located in Zhongguancun Science Park
Positive effect in returning entrepreneurs to obtain patents transferred from abroad and employment growth.
Yang et al. (2009)
147 Taiwanese new technology based firms (57 located in and 190 located Positive effect on R&D productivity. out)
Positive effect on growth and links with HEIs and proximity and product innovation.
Ricardo et al.
individuals as well as groups and communities; we also add organizations (Nahapiet, 2008). In this sense, social capital theory can address management questions related to access to resources and rent appropriation (Blyler and Coff, 2003). Furthermore, it constitutes a relational theory, because social capital takes as its prime unit of analysis the connections between actors (Chisholm and Nielsen, 2009). It again applies across different levels of analysis in this sense, from an individual to a group, organization, community, region, or even nation (Zheng, 2010). Therefore, social capital provides a valuable way to characterize an organization’s complete set of relationships, including those that cross institutional boundaries. Nahapiet and Ghoshal (1998) note three related dimensions that have been studied separately: structural, relational, and cognitive. Each dimension is important for understanding the structure and content of mutual benefits in social relations (Lesser, 2000). The structural dimension depends on the other subdimensions, such as a relative position within a relationship or network, individual relationships with other actors, and structural holes covered by the agent (Lee, 2009). The relational dimension derives from the interpersonal dynamics within the structure that lead to the formation of social capital through the generation of trust and reciprocity (Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998). Finally, the cognitive dimension entails the common context within the structure, which includes but goes beyond language to address acronyms, subtleties, and underlying assumptions that constitute basic necessities for everyday communication within a firm (Lesser, 2000). As its third contribution, social capital research emphasizes the performance outcomes of social connections (Lee, 2009). Recent studies demonstrate the role of social capital in terms of how firms start to reconfigure three dimensions over time to affect value generation, in the form of start-up performance (Maurer and Ebers, 2006), firm performance (Cooke, 2007), and firm competitiveness (Wu, 2008). This theoretical framework therefore, provides an interesting approach for research in management to study how interactions of tenant firms in STPs create value through collaborative advantages. THEORETICAL PROPOSED MODEL The varieties of definitions in social capital literature stem from the highly context-specific nature and complexity of its conceptualization and operationalization (Adler and Kwon, 2002); each definition depends on the discipline and level of investigation (Robinson et al., 2002). Across the different frameworks used to study social capital, there also is considerable disagreement about the definition, depending on whether they focus on substance, sources, or positive or negative effects (Field,
12003
2008). Adler and Kwon (2002) elaborate an exhaustive compilation of works that attempt to define the concept more precisely and articulate a conceptual framework that integrates in one model the sources, benefits, risks, and contingencies associated with social capital. For our firm-level conceptualization of social capital within the infrastructure of STPs and to combine the two main theoretical models of social capital from management (Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998; Adler and Kwon, 2002), the study proposes and analyzes the constructs of a conceptual model of social capital generation and value creation within STPs.
Sources of social capital inside STPs Social capital literature suggests social capital can be created in three ways: historical ties, institutional or organizational facilitation, or shared pursuit of common goals (Scillitoe and Chakrabarti, 2009). Therefore, as we noted in our literature review, STPs constitute an infrastructure that facilitates the development of valuable relationships for located actors, such that every agent relationship can be a differentiated source of social capital. The main actors that can generate social capital are (European-Commission, 2008): 1. R&D institutions and HEI that create or participate in STPs to commercialize their research results, earn profits, and obtain feedback. They also want to establish a good environment for graduates that will enable them to participate in interesting applied projects, develop valuable relationships, attain good employment possibilities in the future, and offer the chance to create their own companies. 2. High-tech firms looking for links to upgrade their R&D with international ideas, good information systems, qualified labor pools, good locations, and excellent services and thus increase their profits. 3. Specialized managers who develop, manage, and facilitate relationships in their search for a proactive strategy that enhances the global profit of the project, by offering premises and services needed to develop and consolidate the STP. Generally this staff is supported economically and financially by regional governments or corporate investors. With this network-based interpretation (Coleman, 1988), the research posits that each relationship contributes directly and distinctly to the generation of social capital. Therefore, the study proposes: Proposition 1: For firms located in STPs, social relationships with R&D institutions, HEI, high-tech firms, and specialized management staff of the park offer positive and distinctive sources of social capital.
12004
Afr. J. Bus. Manage.
Social capital dimensions As defined previously, social capital arises from social relations, including the goodwill and resources that firms gain from relationships with other agents inside the park. In management literature, this benefit includes three dimensions (Lee, 2009): the structural dimension related to firm ties and network configurations, the cognitive dimension that reflects shared codes and languages, and the relational dimension that involves trust, norms, obligations, and identification among agents. Adler and Kwon (2002) introduce a similar three-dimensional framework that comprises opportunity, ability, and motivation. Both opportunity and the structural dimension pertain to an existing opportunity to connect, which can be analyzed on the infrastructure level. The cognitive and ability dimensions refer to the ability to connect cognitively with other agents to understand what others mean during communications. Finally, the study notes the parallel between the relational and motivational dimensions, both of which entail the motivation to share knowledge because of socially attributed characteristics of that relationship, such as trust and reciprocity. Several reviews demonstrate that social capital in management research reflects the three core dimensions that form one construct through differentiated but related aspects (Zheng, 2010). Generally though, researchers consider each dimension separately; it is necessary to use a holistic view to obtain a complete understanding of the process-based linkages across structural, relational, and cognitive social capital (Lee, 2009). Therefore, we propose: Proposition 2: For firms located in STPs, the structural, cognitive, and relational dimensions of their relationships are distinctive aspects of their social capital. Contingencies related to social capital value Social capital has contingent value (Burt, 1997), mostly related to the key benefits and risks of social capital, which we can discuss using a cost–benefit analysis (Blyler and Coff, 2003). To determine the ultimate value of social capital, the study thus, considers two typologies of contingent factors. Firstly, contingent factors related to organizational variables include firm characteristics, resources, and capabilities (Chisholm and Nielsen, 2009). Therefore, social capital in new and small high-technology firms should increase the willingness of exchange partners to engage in interactions that help them overcome the liabilities of newness (Stinchcombe, 1965), size, and the nature of the firm’s activity (that is, high specialized firms created through incubation processes within the park or HEI). The influence of these factors on the net value of
social capital depends on other moderators, such as the age of the firm, the number of years it has been located in the park, the number of employees, and the specific sector to which the firm belongs (for example, biotechnology, medicine, engineering, information technologies). Secondly, contingent factors related to STP factors are specific to each park (Phan et al., 2005), because every STP exhibits remarkable differences in its age, stage of development, origin, nature of activity (for example, research, technology, both), financial independence, infrastructure, and type of stakeholders, which manage and control the STP’s growth and development (EuropeanCommission, 2008; Link and Scott, 2007). These factors therefore, should moderate the net value of social capital. A mix of organizational and STP factors in turn should influence the relationship among structural, relational, and cognitive aspects and the net value of the pertinent relationships. Thus, the study proposes: Proposition 3: Contingent factors related to the firm and to the STP influence the relationship between the dimensions of social capital and their net value.
Conceptual model of social capital Because the net value of social capital should be contingent on the firm and STP environment, both factors may influence the relative importance of the benefits and risks of social capital. However, existing empirical studies suggest the need to manage social aspects of relations carefully, because as a network extends beyond a certain point, the costs and negative outcomes may outweigh the benefits (Lee, 2009). The study also asserts that social capital at the firm level is an important input for the value creation process of firms, so we consider this effect and its relationships with other key variables, such as intellectual capital (Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998), intrafirm networks (Tsai and Ghoshal, 1998), knowledge acquisition and exploitation (Yli-Renko et al., 2001), strategic alliances (Koka and Prescott, 2002), adaptation capacity (Maurer and Ebers, 2006), learning (Wu and Cavusgil, 2006), and entrepreneurial orientation (Huang et al., 2010). Despite general agreements about the importance of social capital, there has been debate about whether it is completely desirable or also involves a dark side (Field, 2008). That is, the characteristics of social capital that enable beneficial, productive benefits might have the potential to cause negative externalities (Gargiulo and Benassi, 2000). Fostering relationships among organizations thus could worsen rather than improve economic performance; some mechanisms that reduce transaction costs in market exchanges also could have negative consequences for firms (Fine, 2001).
Ricardo et al.
12005
Figure 1. Proposed model of social capital generation by science and technology parks.
In this sense, every agent in an STP can be a source of social capital by providing access to desired resources but also can be a liability by producing unwanted results. The stock of social capital therefore, is simultaneously productive and unproductive, depending on the specific context (Field, 2008). Further research would be required to understand the causal relationships over time that determines the realization of productive or unproductive social capital. Moreover, social capital can be diminished by the effects of time, low or sporadic investments in relationships, and poor management practices (Nahapiet, 2008). Therefore, by examining various constructs related to the proposed theoretical model, the research proposes that the net value of a firm’s social capital, obtained through relationships inside STPs, can be represented by the conceptual model in Figure 1, which displays the relationships the study has outlined in the propositions. Conclusions With this conceptual model, this research suggests that interorganizational relationships within STPs generate social capital and create value for firms. Specifically, social capital at the firm level derives from relationships with R&D institutions, HEI, high-tech firms, and the park’s management staff. This intangible capital constitutes a multidimensional concept with structural, cognitive, and relational aspects. Moreover the net value can be moderated by factors related to both firm idiosyncrasies and STPs’ own characteristics, changes over time, continuous investments in relationships, and diverse management practices.
The challenge for further research will be to analyze the propositions empirically to gain a greater understanding of the extent to which the widely reported positive relationship between social capital dimensions and value creation takes into account the moderating role of contingency variables. For example, this theoretical model might be applied to study how low- and middle-income African countries can develop clustering knowledge activities (Zeng, 2008) that provide a basis for economic growth. By clustering in STPs, firms might overcome constraints on capital, skills, technology, and markets. Thus, STPs in developing countries could help constituents grow and compete by encouraging more effective knowledge and technology diffusion and product specialization, leveraging local comparative advantages, fostering production value chains, and achieving collective efficiency (Tavares, 2009). Furthermore, valuable relationships with key agents in the global knowledge economy might assist that process and enable the firms and STPs to contribute to African countries’ economic growth by providing good and quality jobs for the continent’s growing population. However, in the increasingly knowledge-intensive and globalized modern economy, STPs and knowledge clusters also face serious challenges that need further research, especially in the areas of policy, financing, technology, natural resources, infrastructure, skill acquisition, and quality control.
REFERENCES Adler PS, Kwon SW (2002). Social capital: prospects for a new concept. Acad. Manage. Rev., 27(1): 17-40.
12006
Afr. J. Bus. Manage.
Asheim B, Coenen L, Moodysson J, Vang J (2007). Constructing knowledge-based regional advantage: implications for regional innovation policy. Centre for innovation, research and competence in the learning economy. Working Paper, Lund University, Sweden. Bakouros YL, Mardas DC, Varsakelis NC, (2002). Science park, a high tech fantasy? An analysis of the science parks of Greece. Technovation, 22(2): 123–128. Blyler M, Coff RW (2003). Dynamic capabilities, social capital, and rent appropriation: ties that split pies. Strat. Manage. J., 24(7): 677-686. Bolino MC, Turnley WH, Bloodgood JM (2002). Citizenship behaviour and the creation of social capital in organizations. Acad. Manage. Rev., 27(4): 505-522. Bueno-Campos E, Rodriguez-Pomeda J (2007). On knowledge, networks, social capital and trust in innovation environments. Int. J. Entrepreneurs. Innovat. Manage., 7(6): 575-592. Burt RS (1997). The contingent value of social capital. Admin. Sci. Q., 42: 339-365. Coleman JS (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. Amer. J. Soc., 94: S95-S120. Colombo M, Delmastro M (2002). How effective are technology incubators? Evidence from Italy. Res. Pol., 31: 1103-1122. Cooke P (2007). Social capital, embeddedness, and market interactions: an analysis of firm performance in UK regions. Rev. Soc. Econ., 65(1): 1-29. Chisholm AM, Nielsen K (2009). Social capital and the resource-based view of the firm. Int. Stud. Manage. Org., 39(2): 7-32. Dettwiler P, Lindelof P, Lofsten 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. Etkowitz H (2008). The Triple Helix University–Industry–Government Innovation in Action. New York: Routledge. European-Commission. (2008). Regional Research Intensive Clusters and Science Parks. Brussels: European Commission Press. Farr J (2004). Social capital: a conceptual history. Pol. Theory, 32(1): 633. Ferguson R, Olofsson C (2004). Science parks and the development of new technology based firms—location, survival and growth. J. Tech. Transf., 29(1): 5-17. Field J (2008). Social Capital (Key Ideas), second edition. London: Routledge. Fine B (2001). Social Capital versus Social Theory. London: Routledge. Fountain JE, Atkinson RD (1998). Innovation, social capital, and the new economy: new federal policies to support collaborative research, Working Paper. Harvard Business School, Boston. Fukugawa N (2006). Science parks in Japan and their value-added contributions to new technology-based firms. Int. J. Indus. Org., 24(2): 381-400. Gargiulo M, Benassi M (2000). Trapped in your own net? Network cohesion, structural hole and the adaptation of social capital. Org. Sci., 11(2): 183-196. Gibbons M, Limoges C, Nowotny H, Schwartzman S, Scott P, Trow M (1994). The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. London: Sage. Hansson F (2007). Science parks as knowledge organizations—the "ba" in action? Euro. J. Innovat. Manage., 10(3): 348-366. 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(9): 1039-1049. Huang KP, Wang CH, Tseng MC, Wang KY (2010). A study on entrepreneurial orientation and resource acquisition: the effects of social capital. Afr. J. Bus. Manage., 4(15): 3226-3231. IASP (2002). International Association of Science Parks Annual Report. Malaga: IASP Publishing. Koka BR, Prescott JE (2002). Strategic alliances as social capital: a multidimensional view. Strat. Manage. J., 23(9): 795-816. Leana CR, Pil FK (2006). Social capital and organizational performance: Evidence from urban public schools. Org. Sci., 17(3): 353-366. Lee R (2009). Social capital and business and management: setting a
research agenda. Int. J. Manage. Rev., 11(3): 247-273. Lesser E (2000). Knowledge and Social Capital: Foundations and Applications. Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann. Link AN (2009). Research, science, and technology parks: an overview of the academic literature. In: Wessner CW ed. Understanding Research, Science and Technology Parks: Global Best Practice: Report of a Symposium for the National Research Council. Washington: National Academy Press. pp. 127-139. Link AN, Scott J (2003). U.S. science parks: the diffusion of an innovation and its effects on the academic missions of universities." Int. J. Indus. Org., 21: 1323–1356. Link AN, Scott JT (2006). US university research parks. J. Prod. Anal., 25: 43-55. Link AN, Scott JT (2007). The economics of university research parks. Oxf. Rev. Econ. Pol., 23: 661-674. Lofsten H, Lindelof P (2002). Science parks and the growth of new technology-based firms—academic-industry links, innovation and markets. Res. Pol., 31(6): 859-876. Lofsten H, Lindelof P (2003). Determinants for an entrepreneurial milieu: Science Parks and business policy in growing firms. Technovation, 23: 51-64. Lofsten H, Lindelof P (2005). R&D networks and product innovation patterns—academic and non-academic new technology-based firms on science parks. Technovation, 25: 1025–1037. Malairaja C, Zawdie G (2008). Science parks and university-industry collaboration in Malaysia. Tech. Anal. Strat. Manage., 20: 727-739. Maurer I, Ebers M (2006). Dynamics of social capital and their performance implications: lessons from biotechnology start-ups. Adm. Sci. Q., 51(2): 262-292. Monck CS, Porter RB, Quintas PD, Storey J, Wynarczyk P (1988). Science Parks and the Growth of High Technology Firms. London: Croom Helm. Nahapiet J (2008). Social Capital and interorganizational relations. S. Cropper, Ebers M, Huxham C, Ring PS, Eds. The Oxford Handbook of Interorganizational Relations. Oxford University Press, Oxford. pp. 580-606. Nahapiet J (2009). Capitalizing on connections: Social capital and strategic management. In Bartkus JH, Davis P eds. Social Capital: Reaching Out, Reaching in. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishers: 205-236. Nahapiet J, Ghoshal S (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Acad. Manage. Rev., 23(2): 242-266. Phan PH, Siegel DS, Wright M (2005). Science parks and incubators: observations, synthesis and future research. J. Bus. Vent., 20(2): 165-182. Robinson LJ, Schmid AA, Siles MA (2002). Is social capital really capital? Rev. Soc. Econ., 50(1): 1-21. Scillitoe JL, Chakrabarti A (2009). A conceptual model of the incubation of new technology-based Ventures: a social capital perspective. Rev. Int. Compar. Manage., 10(3): 468-482. Shearmur R, Doloreux D (2000). Science parks: actors or reactors? Canadian science parks in their urban context. Environ. Plann., 32(6): 1065–1082. Siegel DS, Veugelers R, Wright M (2007). Technology transfer offices and commercialization of university intellectual property: performance and policy implications. Oxf. Rev. Econ. Pol., 23(4): 640-660. Siegel DS, Westhead P, Wright M (2003a). Assessing the impact of university science parks on research productivity: exploratory firmlevel evidence from the United Kingdom. Int. J. Indus. Org., 21(9): 1357-1369. Siegel DS, Westhead P, Wright M (2003b). Science parks and the performance of new technology-based firms: a review of recent UK evidence and an agenda for future research. Small Bus. Econ., 20(2): 177-184. Squicciarini M (2008). Science parks’ tenants versus out-of-park firms: who innovates more? A duration model. J. Tech. Transf., 33(1): 4571. Tavares R (2009). Science and technology parks: an overview of the ongoing initiatives in Africa. Afr. J. Pol. Sci. Int. Relat., 3(5): 208-223. Tsai W, Ghoshal S (1998). Social capital and value creation: the role of
Ricardo et al.
intrafirm networks. Acad. Manage. J., 41(4): 464-476. Uzzi B (1999). Embeddedness in the making of financial capital: how social relations and networks benefit firms seeking financing. Amer. Soc. Rev., 64(4): 481-505. Westhead P (1997). R and D ‘‘inputs’’ and ‘‘outputs’’ of technologybased firms located on and off science parks. RD Manage., 27(1): 45–61. Westlund H (2006). Social Capital in the Knowledge Economy. Springer, Berlin. Wright M, Liu X, Buck T, Filatotchev I (2008). Returnee entrepreneurs, science park location choice and performance: An analysis of hightechnology SMEs in China. Entrepreneurs Theory Pract., 32(1) 131155. Wu WP (2008). Dimensions of social capital and firm competitiveness improvement: the mediating role of information sharing. J. Manage. Stud., 45(1) 122-146. Wu F, Cavusgil ST (2006). Organizational learning, commitment, and joint value creation in interfirm relationships. J. Bus. Res., 59(1): 8189.
12007
Yang CH, Motohashi K, Chen JR (2009). Are new technology-based firms located on science parks really more innovative? Evidence from Taiwan. Res. Pol., 38: 77-85. Yli-Renko H, Autio E, Sapienza HJ (2001). Social capital, knowledge acquisition, and knowledge exploitation in young technology-based firms. Strat. Manage. J., 22(6-7): 587-613. Zahra SA (2010). Harvesting family firms' organizational social capital: a relational perspective. J. Manage. Stud., 47(2) 345-366. Zeng DZ (2008). Knowledge, technology, and cluster-based growth in Africa: findings from 11 case studies of enterprise clusters in Africa in Zeng DZ ed. Knowledge, Technology, and Cluster-Based Growth in Africa. Washington: The World Bank. pp. 1-13. Zheng W (2010). A Social capital perspective of innovation from individuals to nations: where is empirical literature directing us? Int. J. Manage. Rev., 12(2): 151-183.
