IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/vrs/caeeur/v11y2017i1p1-26n1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Technology Parks in Poland As an Element of Public Proinnovation Policy—Selected Results from Empirical Research

Author

Listed:
  • Wróblewski Marek

    (University of Wrocław, Faculty of Social Sciences, Institute of International Studies ul. Koszarowa 3, 51-149 Wrocław, Poland)

  • Kwieciński Leszek

    (Professor University of Wroclaw, Faculty of Social Sciences, Institute of International Studies, ul. Koszarowa 3, 51-149 Wrocław, Poland)

Abstract

Nowadays, regional pro-innovation policy concentrates on the creation of endogenous economic resources that are intended to become the main driving force for regional economic growth. In current economic conditions, this resource refers primarily to the paradigm of the knowledge economy. Hence the crucial importance of regional policy is to support the development of innovative enterprises. At the same time, a prerequisite for the more dynamic development of innovative enterprises, and thus the development of the region, is to implement efficient pro-innovation policy instruments. Therefore the main research aim of this paper is to define how the technology parks in Poland, as a regional tool of the public pro-innovation policy, could stimulate innovations as well as competitiveness of SME. The article will be based mostly on the empirical approach, presenting selected results of the nationwide research project financed by the National Science Centre of Poland. The obtained initial empirical data suggest that technology parks in Poland expand highly-specialized services for their tenant enterprises to a very limited extent and focus on basic and routine aspects of their operations (rental, day-to-day administration of premises and equipment etc). In effect, the technology parks in Poland have played so far a very limited role in practice as a stimulus of innovativeness of SME. The study used the method of systemic analysis and also the empirical method (PAPI) for primary data collections.

Suggested Citation

  • Wróblewski Marek & Kwieciński Leszek, 2017. "Technology Parks in Poland As an Element of Public Proinnovation Policy—Selected Results from Empirical Research," Central and Eastern European Review, Sciendo, vol. 11(1), pages 1-26, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:vrs:caeeur:v:11:y:2017:i:1:p:1-26:n:1
    DOI: 10.1515/caeer-2018-0001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1515/caeer-2018-0001
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1515/caeer-2018-0001?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Oliver E. Williamson, 2000. "The New Institutional Economics: Taking Stock, Looking Ahead," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 38(3), pages 595-613, September.
    2. Bob Jessop & Ngai-Ling Sum, 2006. "Beyond the Regulation Approach," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 3606.
    3. Richard R. Nelson, 1959. "The Simple Economics of Basic Scientific Research," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 67(3), pages 297-297.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Darcy W E Allen, 2020. "When Entrepreneurs Meet:The Collective Governance of New Ideas," World Scientific Books, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., number q0269, August.
    2. Eyüp ÖZVEREN & Erkan GÜRPINAR, 2024. "More a Commons Than a Fictitious Commodity: Tacit Knowledge, Sharing, and Cooperation in Knowledge Governance," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 15(1), pages 3824-3843, March.
    3. Bianchini, Stefano & Llerena, Patrick & Martino, Roberto, 2019. "The impact of R&D subsidies under different institutional frameworks," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 65-78.
    4. Kibar, Samet, 2020. "Eine ökonomisch theoretische Analyse der Konzeption und Legitimation staatlicher Clusterförderung," Arbeitspapiere 191, University of Münster, Institute for Cooperatives.
    5. Lily Fang & Josh Lerner & Chaopeng Wu & Qi Zhang, 2023. "Anticorruption, Government Subsidies, and Innovation: Evidence from China," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 69(8), pages 4363-4388, August.
    6. Citera, Emanuele & Sau, Lino, 2019. "Complexity, Conventions and Instability: the role of monetary policy," Department of Economics and Statistics Cognetti de Martiis. Working Papers 201924, University of Turin.
    7. Emmanuel Yeboah-Assiamah & Kobus Muller & Kwame Ameyaw Domfeh, 2018. "‘Complex crisis’ and the rise of collaborative natural resource governance: institutional trajectory of a wildlife governance experience in Ghana," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 20(5), pages 2205-2224, October.
    8. Eicher, Theo S. & Schreiber, Till, 2010. "Structural policies and growth: Time series evidence from a natural experiment," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(1), pages 169-179, January.
    9. Engelhardt, Sebastian v. & Freytag, Andreas, 2013. "Institutions, culture, and open source," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 90-110.
    10. Stephanie Rosenkranz & Patrick W. Schmitz, 2007. "Can Coasean Bargaining Justify Pigouvian Taxation?," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 74(296), pages 573-585, November.
    11. Ozgur Aydogmus & Erkan Gürpinar, 2022. "Science, Technology and Institutional Change in Knowledge Production: An Evolutionary Game Theoretic Framework," Dynamic Games and Applications, Springer, vol. 12(4), pages 1163-1188, December.
    12. Elisa D?Adamo, 2018. "La Cost-Benefit Analysis delle grandi infrastrutture: un riesame del Large Hadron Collider (LHC) del CERN," PRISMA Economia - Societ? - Lavoro, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2018(1-2), pages 97-108.
    13. Peter G. Klein & Michael E. Sykuta, 2010. "Editors’ Introduction," Chapters, in: Peter G. Klein & Michael E. Sykuta (ed.), The Elgar Companion to Transaction Cost Economics, chapter 1, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    14. Osei-Tutu, Francis & Weill, Laurent, 2023. "Individualism reduces borrower discouragement," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 211(C), pages 370-385.
    15. Nastasi, Federico & Spagano, Salvatore, 2023. "Institutionalist Clues in Celso Furtado’s Economic Thought," MPRA Paper 120242, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    16. Evans, Lewis & Meade, Richard, 2005. "The Role and Significance of Cooperatives in New Zealand Agriculture, A Comparative Institutional Analysis," Working Paper Series 3847, Victoria University of Wellington, The New Zealand Institute for the Study of Competition and Regulation.
    17. Schmitz, Patrick W., 2021. "On the optimality of outsourcing when vertical integration can mitigate information asymmetries," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 202(C).
    18. Oliver Falck & Anita Fichtl & Tobias Lohse & Friederike Welter & Heike Belitz & Cedric von der Hellen & Carsten Dreher & Carsten Schwäbe & Dietmar Harhoff & Monika Schnitzer & Uschi Backes-Gellner & C, 2019. "Steuerliche Forschungsförderung: Wichtiger Impuls für FuE-Aktivitäten oder zu wenig zielgerichtet?," ifo Schnelldienst, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, vol. 72(09), pages 03-25, May.
    19. Cimoli, Mario & Primi, Annalisa & Rovira, Sebastián, 2011. "National innovation surveys in latin America: empirical evidence and policy implications," Documentos de Proyectos 3897, Naciones Unidas Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL).
    20. Peter Grajzl & Stjepan Srhoj & Jaka Cepec & Barbara Mörec, 2024. "A by-product of big government: the attenuating role of public procurement for the effectiveness of grants-based entrepreneurship policy," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 62(3), pages 895-916, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:vrs:caeeur:v:11:y:2017:i:1:p:1-26:n:1. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.sciendo.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.