IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/wiw/wiwrsa/ersa06p443.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Science and Technology Parks in Two Lagging Regions of Spain: A Comparative Evaluation Using an Innovation Network Approach

Author

Listed:
  • Achilleas Tsamis

Abstract

Science and Technology Parks (STPs) have been widely used as innovation support and regional development instruments in most European countries. In Objective 1 regions of South Europe STPs projects were developed during the 90s through regional, national or EU structural funds as tools for promoting innovation and technology upgrade. Most existing studies cast doubt on the effectiveness of parks in achieving their goals, focussing on the traditional measures of the parks added-value (profitability and growth) to the tenant companies, the university-industry linkages developed. However, more recent developments of territorial innovation models stress the role of networks and interactions for knowledge creation and diffusion. While these approaches imply that the Parks – in their strict spatial nature – may become redundant in a networked space, they can also be used to identify additional performance assessment criteria focusing on the role of the park for the development of interactions, linkages and cooperation inside as well as outside its area. The quantity and quality of linkages inside and outside the STP area and its operation as an innovation cooperation promoter in the regional and broader space are used in this assessment. The present work assesses the performance of STPs in Objective 1 regions of South Europe. It develops an evaluation framework that integrates – together with the traditional linear performance criteria – the concepts of networking, interaction and cooperation and uses it to compare the performance of Parks in two regions in Greece (Thessaloniki and Crete) and two in Spain (Asturias and Andalusia). Our preliminary results from in depth analysis show that while there are different levels of success in terms of the traditional metrics/criteria, we observe in general low levels of interaction and cooperation developed inside the parks as well as with the broader region. The Parks do not seem to operate – at least so far – as places that facilitate intensive knowledge exchange inside and outside their area.

Suggested Citation

  • Achilleas Tsamis, 2006. "Science and Technology Parks in Two Lagging Regions of Spain: A Comparative Evaluation Using an Innovation Network Approach," ERSA conference papers ersa06p443, European Regional Science Association.
    • Handle: RePEc:wiw:wiwrsa:ersa06p443
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www-sre.wu.ac.at/ersa/ersaconfs/ersa06/papers/443.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John N. H. Britton, 2004. "High technology localization and extra-regional networks," Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(5), pages 369-390, September.
    2. David Keeble & Clive Lawson & Barry Moore & Frank Wilkinson, 1999. "Collective Learning Processes, Networking and 'Institutional Thickness' in the Cambridge Region," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 33(4), pages 319-332.
    3. Mark Freel, 2000. "External linkages and product innovation in small manufacturing firms," Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(3), pages 245-266, July.
    4. Siegel, Donald S. & Westhead, Paul & Wright, Mike, 2003. "Assessing the impact of university science parks on research productivity: exploratory firm-level evidence from the United Kingdom," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 21(9), pages 1357-1369, November.
    5. Antonio Vazquez-Barquero & Emilio Carrillo, 2004. "Cartuja 98, A Technological Park located at the site of Sevilla's World's Fair," ERSA conference papers ersa04p486, European Regional Science Association.
    6. Bresnahan,Timothy & Gambardella,Alfonso (ed.), 2004. "Building High-Tech Clusters," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521827225, September.
    7. Lofsten, Hans & Lindelof, Peter, 2002. "Science Parks and the growth of new technology-based firms--academic-industry links, innovation and markets," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(6), pages 859-876, August.
    8. Siegel, Donald S & Westhead, Paul & Wright, Mike, 2003. "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, Springer, vol. 20(2), pages 177-184, March.
    9. Appold, Stephen J., 2004. "Research parks and the location of industrial research laboratories: an analysis of the effectiveness of a policy intervention," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 225-243, March.
    10. Storey, D. J. & Tether, B. S., 1998. "Public policy measures to support new technology-based firms in the European Union," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(9), pages 1037-1057, April.
    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. Fukugawa, Nobuya, 2006. "Science parks in Japan and their value-added contributions to new technology-based firms," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 381-400, March.
    2. Laura Lecluyse & Mirjam Knockaert & André Spithoven, 2019. "The contribution of science parks: a literature review and future research agenda," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 44(2), pages 559-595, April.
    3. Albahari, Alberto & Pérez-Canto, Salvador & Landoni, Paolo, 2010. "Science and Technology Parks impacts on tenant organisations: a review of literature," MPRA Paper 41914, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Alberto Albahari & Andrés Barge-Gil & Salvador Pérez-Canto & Paolo Landoni, 2023. "The effect of science and technology parks on tenant firms: a literature review," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 48(4), pages 1489-1531, August.
    5. Albahari, Alberto & Pérez-Canto, Salvador & Barge-Gil, Andrés & Modrego, Aurelia, 2017. "Technology Parks versus Science Parks: Does the university make the difference?," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 13-28.
    6. Ángela Vásquez-Urriago & Andrés Barge-Gil & Aurelia Rico & Evita Paraskevopoulou, 2014. "The impact of science and technology parks on firms’ product innovation: empirical evidence from Spain," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 24(4), pages 835-873, September.
    7. Alberto Albahari & Andrés Barge‐Gil & Salvador Pérez‐Canto & Aurelia Modrego, 2018. "The influence of science and technology park characteristics on firms' innovation results," Papers in Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 97(2), pages 253-279, June.
    8. T. Theeranattapong & D. Pickernell & C. Simms, 2021. "Systematic literature review paper: the regional innovation system-university-science park nexus," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 46(6), pages 2017-2050, December.
    9. Robert Huggins, 2008. "The Evolution of Knowledge Clusters," Economic Development Quarterly, , vol. 22(4), pages 277-289, November.
    10. Li Xiao & David North, 2017. "The graduation performance of technology business incubators in China’s three tier cities: the role of incubator funding, technical support, and entrepreneurial mentoring," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 42(3), pages 615-634, June.
    11. Eric Stokan & Lyke Thompson & Robert J. Mahu, 2015. "Testing the Differential Effect of Business Incubators on Firm Growth," Economic Development Quarterly, , vol. 29(4), pages 317-327, November.
    12. Marisa Ramírez-Alesón & Marta Fernández-Olmos, 2018. "Unravelling the effects of Science Parks on the innovation performance of NTBFs," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 43(2), pages 482-505, April.
    13. Taiane Quaresma Leite & André Luis Silva & Joaquim Ramos Silva & Sérgio Evangelista Silva, 2023. "A Multilevel Analysis of the Interaction Between Science Parks and External Agents: a Study in Brazil and Portugal," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 14(2), pages 1790-1829, June.
    14. Fangfang Cheng & Frank van Oort & Stan Geertman & Pieter Hooimeijer, 2014. "Science Parks and the Co-location of High-tech Small- and Medium-sized Firms in China’s Shenzhen," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 51(5), pages 1073-1089, April.
    15. Alberto Albahari & Magnus Klofsten & Juan Carlos Rubio-Romero, 2019. "Science and Technology Parks: a study of value creation for park tenants," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 44(4), pages 1256-1272, August.
    16. Marina van Geenhuizen & Danny P. Soetanto & Victor Scholten, 2012. "Science Parks: Changing Roles and Changing Approaches in their Evaluation," Chapters, in: Marina van Geenhuizen & Peter Nijkamp (ed.), Creative Knowledge Cities, chapter 6, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    17. Ng, Wei Keat Benny & Appel-Meulenbroek, Rianne & Cloodt, Myriam & Arentze, Theo, 2019. "Towards a segmentation of science parks: A typology study on science parks in Europe," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(3), pages 719-732.
    18. Laura Lecluyse & Mirjam Knockaert & Annelore Huyghe, 2023. "It is not because it is offered that it is used: an investigation into firm-level determinants of use intensity of buffering services in science parks," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 61(1), pages 85-104, June.
    19. Hülya Ünlü & Serdal Temel & Kristel Miller, 2023. "Understanding the drivers of patent performance of University Science Parks in Turkey," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 48(3), pages 842-872, June.
    20. Lukeš, Martin & Longo, Maria Cristina & Zouhar, Jan, 2019. "Do business incubators really enhance entrepreneurial growth? Evidence from a large sample of innovative Italian start-ups," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 82, pages 25-34.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Lists

    This item is featured on the following reading lists, Wikipedia, or ReplicationWiki pages:
    1. Technology Assessment

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:wiw:wiwrsa:ersa06p443. 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: Gunther Maier (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.ersa.org .

    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.