Determinants for an entrepreneurial milieu: Science Parks and business policy in growing firms

Technovation

Volumn 23, Issue 1, 2003, Pages 51-64

  Löfsten, Hans ^a   Lindelöf, Peter ^b  

^a CHALMERS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Sweden)

^b UNIVERSITY OF GOTHENBURG   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Added value; New technology based firms; Science Parks

Indexed keywords

FINANCE; MANAGERS; PUBLIC POLICY; RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT;

BUSINESS POLICY;

INDUSTRIAL ECONOMICS;

EID: 0037215208     PISSN: 01664972     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0166-4972(01)00086-4     Document Type: Article

References (65)

1. Acs Z.J., Audretsch D.B. Entrepreneurial strategy and the presence of small firms. Small Business Economics. 1(3):1988;193-274.
2. Aldrich H.E. Organizations and Environment. 1979;Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
3. Allen, D., Bazan, E., 1990. Value-added contribution of Pennsylvania's business incubators to tenant firms and local economies. Report prepared for Pennsylvania Department of Commerce. Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA.
4. Amirahmadi H., Saff G. Science Parks: a critical assessment. Journal of Planning Literature. 8(2):1993;107-123.
5. Anderson J.C., Gerbing D.W. Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin. 103(3):1988;411-423.
6. Baker N.R. R&D project selection models: an assessment. IEE Transactions on Engineering Management. 21(4):1974;165-171.
7. Bentler P.M. EQS Structural Equations Program Manual. 1989;BMDP Statistical Software, Los Angeles.
8. Bezdek R.H. The 1980 economic impact regional and occupational of compensated shifts in defense spending. Journal of Regional Science. 15:1975;183-198.
9. Bollinger L., Hope K., Utterback J. A review of literature and hypotheses on new technology-based firms. Research Policy. 12:1983;1-4.
10. Bourgeois L.-J.I. Strategy and environment: a conceptual integration. Academy of Management Review. 5(1):1980;25-39.
11. Chandler, A.D., 1991. The functions of the unit in the multibusiness firm (special issue). Strategic Management Journal 12, 31-50.
12. Child J. Organizational structure and strategies of control: a replication of the Aston study. Administrative Science Quarterly. 17:1972;163-177.
13. Currie J. Science Parks in Britain - Their Role for the Late 1980s. 1985;CSP Economic Publications, Cardiff.
14. Damanpour F. Organizational innovation: a meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators. Academy of Management Journal. 34:1991;555-590.
15. Davidsson, P., 1989. Continued entrepreneurship and Small Firm Growth. Dissertation, Stockholm School of Economics, EFI.
16. Davidsson, P., Lindmark, L., Olofsson, C., 1996. Näringslivsdynamik på 90-talet (in Swedish). Nutek förlag, Stockholm.
17. Doz, Y.L., 1988. Technology partnerships between larger and smaller firms: some critical issues. In: Contractor, F.J., Lorange, P. (Eds.), Cooperative Strategies in International Business: Joint Ventures and Technology Partnerships between Firms. Lexington Books, Boston.
18. Eisenhardt K., Schoonhoven C. Organizational growth: linking founding team, strategy, environment and growth among US semi-conductor ventures, 1978-1988. Administrative Science Quarterly. 35:1990;504-529.
19. Eul, F.M., 1985. Science Parks and Innovation Centres - property, the unconsidered element. In: Gibb, J.M. (Ed.), Science Parks and Innovation Centres: Their Economic and Social Impact. Elsevier, Amsterdam.
20. Felsenstein D. University-related science parks - "seedbeds" or "enclaves" of innovation? Technovation. 14(2):1994;93-110.
21. Galbraith J. Designing Complex Organizations. 1973;Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
22. Galbraith C. High technology location and development: the case of orange county. California Management Review. 28:1985;98-109.
23. Gilmore F.F. Formulating strategy in smaller companies. Harvard Business Review. 49(3):1971;71-81.
24. Goold M., Campbell A. Strategies and Styles: The Role of the Centre in Managing Diversified Corporations. 1987;Basil Blackwell, Oxford.
25. Grant, R.M., 1991. The resource-based theory of competitive advantage. California Management Review (Spring), 114-135.
26. Graves S.B. Optimal R&D expenditure streams: an empirical view. IEE Transactions on Engineering Management. 34(3):1987;42-48.
27. Hall P., Breheney M., McQuid R., Hart D. Western Sunrise: the Genesis and Growth of Britain's Major High Tech Corridor. 1987;Allen and Unwin, London.
28. Hitt, M.A., Hoskisson, R.E., Ireland, R.D., 1990. Mergers and acquisitions and managerial commitment to innovation in M-form firms (special issue). Strategic Management Journal 11, 29-47.
29. Jensen M.C. The modern industrial revolution, exit and the failure of international control systems. Journal of Finance. 48:1993;831-880.
30. Joreskog K.G., Sorbom D. LISREL VI: Analysis of Linear Structural Relationships by the Method of Maximum Likelihood. 1984;National Educational Resources, Chicago.
31. Joseph R.A. Technology Parks and their contribution to the development of technology oriented complexes in Australia. Environment and Planning C. 7:1989;173-192.
32. Khandwalla P.N. The Design of Organizations. 1977;Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, New York.
33. Liberatore M.J. An extension of the analytic hierarchy process for industrial R&D project selection and resource allocation. IEE Transactions on Engineering Management. 34(1):1987;12-18.
34. Little A.D. New Technology-based Firms in the UK and Federal Republic of Germany. 1979;Wilton House Publications, London.
35. Löfsten, H., Lindelöf, P., 2001a. Growth, management and financing of new technology-based firms - assessing value-added contributions of firms located on and off Science Parks. Working paper, Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden.
36. Löfsten, H., Lindelöf, P., 2001b. Science Parks and the growth of new technology-based firms - academic-industry links, innovation and markets. Working paper, Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden.
37. Löfsten H., Lindelöf P. Science Parks in Sweden - industrial renewal and development? R&D Management. 31(3):2001;309-322.
38. MacDonald S. British Science Parks: reflections on the politics of high technology. R&D Management. 17(1):1987;25-37.
39. Markusen A., Hall P., Glasmeier A. High Tech America: The What, How, Where and Why of the Sunrise Industries. 1986;George Allen and Unwin, Boston, MA.
40. Massey, D., Quintas, P., Wield, 1992. High Tech Fantasies: Science Parks in Society, Science and Space. Routledge, London.
41. Mian, S., 1991. An assessment of university-sponsored business incubators in supporting the development of new technology-based firms. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. George Washington University, Washington DC.
42. Mian S.A. US university-sponsored technology incubators: an overview of management, policies and performance. Technovation. 14(9):1994;515-528.
43. Mian S. Assessing value-added contributions of university technology business incubators to tenant firms. Research Policy. 25:1996;325-335.
44. Mian S.S. Assessing and managing the university technology business incubator: an integrative framework. Journal of Business Venturing. 12:1997;251-285.
45. Miller D. Strategy making and structure: analysis and implications for performance. Academy of Management Journal. 30(1):1987;7-32.
46. Monck C.S.P., Porter R.B., Quintas P., Storey D.J., Wynarczyk P. Science Parks and the Growth of High Technology Firms. 1988;Croom Helm, London.
47. O'Farrell P.N., Hitchens D.M.W.N. The relative competitiveness and performance of small manufacturing firms in Scotland and the mid-west of Ireland: an analysis of matched pairs. Regional Studies. 22:1988;339-415.
48. Peck F.W. The use of matched-pairs research design in industrial surveys. Environment and Planning A. 17:1985;981-989.
49. Pugh D., Hickson D.J., Hinings C.R. Dimensions of organizational structure. Administrative Science Quarterly. 13:1969;65-105.
50. Reimann B. On the dimensions of bureaucratic structure: an empirical reappraisal. Administrative Science Quarterly. 18:1973;462-476.
51. Rickne A., Jacobsson S. New technology-based firms in Sweden - A study of their direct impact on industrial renewal. Economics of Innovation and New Technology. 8:1999;197-223.
52. Rothwell R. Innovation and firm size: a case for dynamic complementarity: or, is small really so beutiful? Journal of General Management. 8(3):1983;5-25.
53. Segers J.P. Strategic partnering between new-technology based firms and large established firms in the biotechnology and micro-electronics industries in Belgium. Small Business Economics. 5:1993;271-281.
54. Souder W.E. Comparative analysis of R&D investment models. AIIE Transactions. 4(1):1972;57-64.
55. Souder W.E., Mandakovic T. R&D project selection models - The dawn of a new era. Research Management. 29(4):1986;36-42.
56. Souder W.E., Maher P.M., Shumway C.R., Baker N.R., Rubenstein A.H. Methodology for increasing the adoption of R&D project selection models. R&D Management. 4(2):1974;75-83.
57. Steed G., De Genoa D. Ottawa's technology oriented complexes in Australia. Canadian Geographer. 27(1):1983;263-278.
58. Storey D.J. Entrepreneurship and the New Firm. 1982;Croom Helm, London.
59. Taylor C., Silberston A. The Economic Impact of the Patent System. 1973;Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
60. Van der Auwera F., Eysenbrandts D. High Tech Firms in Flanders. 1989;BBM, Brussels.
61. Weiss C.H. Evaluation Research. 1972;Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs. NJ.
62. Westhead P. New owner-managed businesses in rural and urban areas in Great Britain: a matched pairs comparison. Regional Studies. 29:1995;367-380.
63. Westhead P. R&D "inputs" and "outputs" of technology-based firms located on and off Science Parks. R&D Management. 27(1):1997;45-62.
64. Westhead P., Storey D.J. An Assessment of Firms Located On and Off Science Parks in the United Kingdom. 1994;HMSO, London.
65. Yap C.M., Souder W.E. A filter system for technology evaluation and selection. Technovation. 13(7):1993;449-469.