Rethinking technology-oriented business incubators: Developing a robust policy instrument for entrepreneurship, innovation, and regional development?

Growth and Change

Volumn 38, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 460-473

  Tamásy, Christine ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF AUCKLAND   (New Zealand)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANTAGONISM; EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS; ENTREPRENEUR; INDUSTRIAL POLICY; INNOVATION; PRIVATE SECTOR; REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT;

EID: 34548287506     PISSN: 00174815     EISSN: 14682257     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2257.2007.00379.x     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. ADT Bundesverband Deutscher Innovations-, Technologie- und Gründerzentren e.V. 2006. http://www.adt-online.de/homepage.html (accessed August 10, 2006).
2. Allen, D.N., and V. Levine. 1986. Nurturing advanced technology enterprises: Emerging issues in state and local economic development policy. New York: Praeger.
3. Asian Association of Business Incubation (AABI). 2006. http://www.aabi.info (accessed August 10, 2006).
4. Bearse, P. 1998. A question of evaluation: NBIA's impact assessment of business incubators. Economic Development Quarterly 12: 322-333.
5. Bigliardi, B., A.I. Dormio, A. Nosella, and G. Petroni. 2006. Assessing science parks' performances: Directions from selected Italian case studies. Technovation 26: 489-505.
6. Birch, D.L. 1987. Job creation in America. New York: Free Press.
7. Bøllingtoft, A., and J.P. Ulhøi. 2005. The networked business incubator-Leveraging entrepreneurial agency? Journal of Business Venturing 25: 265-290.
8. Chan, K.F., and T. Lau. 2005. Assessing technology incubator programs in the science park: The good, the bad and the ugly. Technovation 25: 1215-1228.
9. Colombo, M.G., and M. Delmastro. 2002. How effective are technology incubators? Evidence from Italy. Research Policy 31: 1103-1122.
10. Dettwiler, P., P. Lindelöf, and H. Löfsten. 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.
11. Ferguson, R. 2004. Why firms on science parks should not be expected to show better performance - The story of twelve biotechnology firms. International Journal of Technology Management 28: 470-482.
12. 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.
13. Grayson, L. 1993. Science parks. An experiment in high technology transfer. London: British Library.
14. Grimaldi, R., and A. Grandi. 2005. Business incubators and new venture creation: An assessment of incubating models. Technovation 25: 111-121.
15. Hansson, F., K. Husted, and J. Vestergaard. 2005. Second generation science parks: From structural holes jockeys to social capital catalysts of the knowledge society. Technovation 25: 1039-1049.
16. Incubators New Zealand (INZ). 2006. http://www.incubators.org.nz (accessed August 10, 2006).
17. Joseph, R.A. 1989. Silicon Valley myth and the origins of technology parks in Australia. Science and Public Policy 16: 353-365.
18. Kim, H., and M. Ames. 2006. Business incubators as economic development tools: Rethinking models based on the Korea experience. International Journal of Technology Management 33: 1-24.
19. Koh, F.C.C., W.T.H. Koh, and F.T. Tschang. 2005. An analytical framework for science parks and technology districts with an application to Singapore. Journal of Business Venturing 20: 217-239.
20. Lichtenstein, G.A., and T.S. Lyons. 1996. Incubating new enterprises: A guide to successful practice. Washington, DC: Aspen Institute.
21. Link, A.N., and J.T. Scott. 2003a. 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.
22. Link, A.N., and J.T. Scott. 2003b. The growth of Research Triangle Park. Small Business Economics 20: 167-175.
23. Löfsten, H., and P. Lindelöf. 2002. Science parks and the growth of new technology-based firms-Academic-industry links, innovation and markets. Research Policy 31: 859-876.
24. Löfsten, H., and P. Lindelöf. 2003. Determinants for an entrepreneurial milieu: Science parks and business policy in growing firms. Technovation 23: 51-64.
25. Löfsten, H., and P. Lindelöf. 2005. R&D networks and product innovation patterns-academic and non-academic new technology-based firms on science parks. Technovation 25: 1025-1037.
26. Luger, M.I., and H.A. Goldstein. 1991. Technology in the garden. Research parks & regional economic development. Chapel Hill, London: University of North Carolina Press.
27. Markman, G.D., P.H. Phan, D.B. Balkin, and P.T. Gianiodis. 2005. Entrepreneurship and university-based technology transfer. Journal of Business Venturing 20: 241-263.
28. Massey, D., P. Quintas, and D. Wield. 1992. High-tech fantasies. Science parks in society, science and space. London: Routledge.
29. McAdam, M., and R. McAdam. 2006. The networked incubator: The role and operation of entrepreneurial networking with the university science park incubator (USI). The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation 7: 87-97.
30. Monck, C.S.P., B. Porter, P. Quintas, D.J. Storey, and P. Wynarczyk. 1988. Science parks and the growth of high-technology firms. London: Croom Helm.
31. National Business Incubation Association (NBIA). 2006. http://www.nbia.org/ (accessed August 10, 2006).
32. O'Neal, T. 2005. Evolving a successful university-based incubator: Lessons learned from the UCF technology incubator. Engineering Management Journal 17: 11-25.
33. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). 1999. Business incubation, international case studies. Paris: OECD.
34. Phan, P.H., D.S. Siegel, and M. Wright. 2005. Science parks and incubators: Observations, synthesis and future research. Journal of Business Venturing 20: 165-182.
35. Phillips, R.G. 2002. Technology business incubators: How effective as technology transfer mechanisms? Technology in Society 24: 299-316.
36. Quintas, P. 1994. Evaluating the UK science park model: Some methodological issues. European Symposium on Research into Science Parks, April 5-7, 1994, Rennes.
37. Rothaermel, F.T., and M. Thursby. 2005a. Incubator firm failure or graduation? The role of university linkages. Research Policy 34: 1076-1090.
38. Rothaermel, F.T., and M. Thursby. 2005b. University-incubator firm knowledge flows: Assessing their impact on incubator firm performance. Research Policy 34: 305-320.
39. Shearmur, R., and D. Doloreux. 2000. Science parks: Actors or reactors? Canadian science parks in their urban context. Environment and Planning a 32: 1065-1082.
40. Siegel, D.S., P. Westhead, and M. Wright. 2003a. Assessing the impact of university science parks on research productivity: Exploratory firm-level evidence from the United Kingdom. International Journal of Industrial Organization 21: 1375-1369.
41. Siegel, D.S., P. Westhead, and M. Wright. 2003b. Science park and the perfomance of new technology-based firms: A review of recent U.K. evidence and an agenda for future research. Small Business Economics 20: 177-184.
42. Sternberg, R., H. Behrendt, H. Seeger, and C. Tamásy. 1997. Bilanz eines Booms-Wirkungsanalyse von Technologie- und Gruenderzentren in Deutschland, 2nd ed. Dortmund, Germany: Dortmunder Vertrieb für Bau- und Planungsliteratur.
43. Storey, D.J., and A. Strange. 1992. Where are they now? Some changes in firms located on UK science parks in 1986. New Technology, Work and Employment 7: 15-28.
44. Sutherland, D. 2005. China's science parks: Production bases or a tool for institutional reform? Asia Pacific Business Review 11: 83-104.
45. Tamásy, C. 2001. Evaluating innovation centres in Germany: Issues of methodology, empirical results and international comparison. In Promoting local growth. Process, practice and policy, ed. D. Felsenstein and M. Taylor, 109-126. Aldershot: Ashgate.
46. Thierstein, A., and B. Wilhelm. 2001. Incubator, technology, and innovation centres in Switzerland: Features and policy implications. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 13: 315-331.
47. UK Business Incubation (UKBI). 2006. http://www.ukbi.co.uk/ (accessed August 10, 2006).
48. Westhead, P. 1997. R&D "inputs"and "outputs"of technology-based firms located on and off science parks. R&D Management 27: 45-62.
49. Westhead, P., and S. Batstone. 1998. Independent technology-based firms: The perceived benefits of a science park location. Urban Studies 12: 2197-2219.
50. Westhead, P., and S. Batstone. 1999. Perceived benefits of a managed science park location. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 11: 129-154.
51. Westhead, P., S. Batstone, and F. Martin. 2000. Technology-based firms located on science parks: The applicability of Bullock's "soft-hard"model. Enterprise & Innovation Management Studies 2: 137-139.
52. Westhead, P., and D.J. Storey. 1994. An assessment of firms located on and off science parks in the UK. London: HMSO.
53. Zhang, Y. 2005. The science park phenomenon: Development, evolution and typology. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management 5: 138-154.