Science Parks' tenants versus out-of-Park firms: Who innovates more? A duration model

Journal of Technology Transfer

Volumn 33, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 45-71

  Squicciarini, Mariagrazia ^a  

^a VTT TECHNICAL RESEARCH CENTRE OF FINLAND   (Finland)

Author keywords

Innovation; Matching sample; Patents; Science Parks; Survival analysis

Indexed keywords

BETTER PERFORMANCE; DURATION MODELING; HAZARD RATES; MODEL SPECIFICATIONS; PATENTING ACTIVITIES; PATENTS; SCIENCE PARK; SURVIVAL ANALYSIS;

INDUSTRY; INNOVATION;

PATENTS AND INVENTIONS;

EID: 37549044685     PISSN: 08929912     EISSN: 15737047     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10961-007-9037-z     Document Type: Article

References (78)

1. Acs, Z. J., & Audretsch, D. B. (1991). Firm size and innovative activity. In Z. J. Acs, D. B. Audretsch (Eds.), Innovation and technological change. Harvester Wheatsheaf.
2. Acs, Z. J., & Audretsch, D. B. (1988). Innovation in large and small firms: An empirical analysis. American Economic Review, 678-690.
3. Acs, Z. J., & Audretsch, D. B. (1990). Innovation and small firms, MIT Press, Cambridge.
4. Aghion, P., & Tirole, J. (1994). The management of innovation. The Quarterly Journal of Economics,109, 1185-1209.
5. Appold, S. J. (2004). Research Parks and the location of industrial research laboratories: An analysis of the effectiveness of a policy intervention. Research Policy, 33, 225-243.
6. Audretsch, D. B., & Feldman, M. P. (1996). R&D spillovers and the geography of innovation and production. American Economic Review, 86 (3), 630-640.
7. Borgan, Ø., & Langholz, B. (2005). Using martingale residuals to assess goodness-of-fit for sampled risk set data. Statistical Research Report, Dept. of Math., University of Oslo, n. 8.
8. Box-Steffensmeier, J. M., & Zorn, C. (2002). Duration models for repeated events. The Journal of Politics, 1069-1094.
9. Cameron, A. C., & Trivedi, P. K. (2005). Microeconometrics. Cambridge University Press.
10. Cassiman, B., & Veugelers, R. (2002). R&D cooperation and spillovers: Some empirical evidence from Belgium. American Economic Review, 92 (4), 1169-1184.
11. Cefis, E. (2003). Is there persistence in innovative activities? International Journal of Industrial Organization, 21, 489-515.
12. Chakrabarti, A. K. (1990). Scientific output of small and medium size firms in high tech industries. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 37 (1), 48-52.
13. Cleves, M. A., Gould, W. W., & Gutierrez, R. G. (2002). An introduction to survival analysis using stata. USA: Stata Corporation.
14. Cohen, W. M., Levin, R. C., & Mowery, D. C. (1987). Firm size and R&D intensity: A re-examination. Journal of Industrial Economics, 543-565.
15. Colombo, M., & Delmastro, M. (2002). How effective are technology incubators? Evidence from Italy. Research Policy, 31, 1103-1122.
16. Crépon, B., Duguet, E., & Mairesse, J. (1998). Research, innovation, and productivity: An econometric analysis at the firm level, NBER Working Papers n. 6696.
17. Evans D. S. (1987). Tests of alternative theories of firm growth. The Journal of Political Economy, 95 (4), 657-674.
18. Feldman, M. P., & Audretsch D. B. (1999). Innovation in cities: Science-based diversity, specialization and localized competition. European Economic Review, 43, 409-429.
19. Felsenstein D., (1994). University-related science parks: "seedbeds" or "enclaves" of innovation? Technovation, 14, 93-110.
20. Ferguson, R., & Olofsson C. (2004) Science parks and the development of NTBFs - location, survival and growth. Journal of Technology Transfer, 29, 5-17.
21. 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.
22. Geroski, P. A., Van Reenen, J., & Walters, C. F. (1997). How persistently do firms innovate? Research Policy, 26 (1), 33-48.
23. Greene, W. H. (2000). Econometric analysis (IV ed.). Prentice Hall International.
24. Griliches Z., (1990). Patent statistics as economic indicators: A survey. Journal of Economic Literature, 28 (4), 1661-1707.
25. Grossman, G., & Helpman, E. (1990). Trade, innovation and growth. American Economic Review, 80 (2), 86-91.
26. Hall, B. H. (1987). The relationship between firm size and firm growth in the US manufacturing sector. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 35 (4), 583-606.
27. Heckman, J., Ichimura, H., & Todd, P. E. (1997). Matching as an econometric evaluation estimator: Evidence from evaluating a job training programme. The Review of Economic Studies, 64 (4), 605-654.
28. Heckman, J., Ichimura, H., & Todd, P. (1998). Matching as an econometric evaluation estimator. The Review of Economic Studies, 65 (2), 261-294.
29. Heckman, J., Ichimura, H., Smith, J. A., & Todd, P. (1998). Characterizing selection bias using experimental data. Econometrica, 66 (5), 1017-1098.
30. Heckman, J., & Navarro-Lozano, S. (2004). Using matching, instrumental variables, and control functions to estimate economic choice models. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 86 (1), 30-57.
31. Heckman, J., & Smith, J. A. (1999). The pre-programme earning dip and the determinants of participation in a social programme. Implications for simple programme evaluation strategies. The Economic Journal, 109 (457), 313-348.
32. Heckman J., & Vytlacil, E. J. (2001) Local instrumental variables. In C. Hsiao, K. Morimune, & J. L. Powell (Eds.), Nonlinear statistical modeling: Proceedings of the Thirteen International Symposium in Economic Theory and Econometrics: Essays in Honor of Takeshi Amemiya (pp. 1-46). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
33. Henderson, V., Kuncoro, A., & Turner, M., (1995). Industrial development in cities. Journal of Political Economy, 103, 1067-1090.
34. Hosmer, D. W. Jr, & Lemeshow, S. (1999). Applied survival analysis. Regression modeling of time to event data. New York: J. Wiley & Sons Inc.
35. Ichimura, H., & Taber, C. (2001). Propensity-score matching with instrumental variables. American Economic Review, 91 (2), 119-124.
36. International Association of Science Parks, www.iasp.ws
37. Hodgson, B. (1996). A methodological framework to analyse the impact of Science and Technology Parks. In M. Guedes, & P. Formica (Eds.), The Economics of Science Parks. IASP and AURRP.
38. Jaffe, A. B., & Trajtenberg, M. (2002). Patents, citations and innovations. Cambridge (MA): The MIT Press.
39. Jobber, D., & Saunders, J. (1993). A note on the applicability of the Brurold-Comer model for mail survey response rates to commercial populations. Journal of Business Research, 223-236.
40. Jovanovic, B. (1982). Selection and the evolution of industry. Econometrica, 649-670.
41. Kang, B.-J. (2004). A study of the establishing development model for Research Parks. Journal of Technology Transfer, 29, 203-210.
42. Katz M. L., (1986). An analysis of cooperative research and development. RAND Journal of Economics, 17, 527-543.
43. Kelly, P. J., & Lim, L. L.-Y. (2000). Survival analysis for recurrent event data: An application to child infectious diseases. Statistics in Medicine, 19, 13-33.
44. Klein, J. P., & Moeschberger, M. L. (1997). Survival analysis. Techniques for censored and truncated data. New York: Springer-Verlag.
45. Klette, T. J. (1996). R&D, scope economies, and plant performance. RAND Journal of Economics, 27 (3), 502-522.
46. Klette, T. J., & Grliches, Z. (2000). Empirical patterns of firm growth and R&D investment: A quality ladder model interpretation. The Economic Journal, 110, 363-387.
47. Lancaster, T. (1990). The econometric analysis of transition data. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
48. Lin, D. Y., & Wei, L. J. (1989). The robust inference for the Cox proportional hazards model. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 84, 1074-1078.
49. Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2003). US science parks: The diffusion of an innovation and its effects on the academic missions of universities. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 21, 1323-1356.
50. Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2006). US university research parks. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 25, 43-55.
51. Lindelöf, P., & Löfsten, H. (2003). Science parks location and new technology-based firms in Sweden - implications for strategy and performance. Small Business Economics, 20, 245-258.
52. Lindelöf, P., &, Löfsten, H. (2004). Proximity as a resource base for competitive advantage: University-industry links for technology transfer. Journal of Technology Transfer 29, 311-326.
53. Löfsten, H., & Lindelöf, P. (2001). Science parks in Sweden: Industrial renewal and development? R&D Management 31, 309-322.
54. Löfsten, H., & Lindelöf, P. (2002). Science parks and the growth of new technology-based firms - academic-industry links, innovation and markets. Research Policy, 31, 859-876.
55. Löfsten, H.,& Lindelöf,P. (2005). R&D networks and product innovation patterns - academic and non-academic new technology-based firms on science parks, Technovation, 25, 1025-1037.
56. Luger, M. I., & Goldstein, H. A. (1991). Technology in the garden, Chapel Hill, UNC Press.
57. Massey, D., Quintas, P., & Wield, D. (1992). High-tech fantasies. Science parks in society, science and space. London: Routledge.
58. Monck, C. S. P., Porter, R. B., Quintas, P., Storey, D. J., & Wynarczyk, P. (1988). Science parks and the growth of high technology firms. Peat Marwick McLintock.
59. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (1997). Technology incubators: Nurturing young firms, OCDE/GD (97) 202.
60. Pavitt, K., Robson, M., & Townsend, J. (1987). The size distribution of innovating firms in the UK: 1945-1983. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 35 (3), 373-379.
61. Prentice, R. L., Williams, B. J., & Peterson, A. V. (1981). On the regression analysis of multivariate failure time data. Biometrika, 68, 373-379.
62. Sasieni, P. D., & Winnett, A. (2003). Martingale difference residuals as a diagnostic tool for the Cox model. Biometrika, 899-912.
63. Scherer F. M., (1980) Industrial market structure and economic performance. Rand Mc Nally.
64. Scherer, F. M. (1984). Using linked patent and R&D data to measure interindustry technology flows. In Z. Griliches (Ed.), R&D, patents and productivity. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
65. Sena, V. (2004). The return of the Prince of Denmark: A survey on recent developments in the economics of innovation. The Economic Journal, 114, 312-332.
66. Shane, S. (2001). Technological opportunities and new firm creation. Management Science, 47 (2), 205-220.
67. Sheehan, K. (2001). E-mail survey response rates: A review. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication.
68. Siegel, D. S., Westhead, P., & Wright, M. (2003). Assessing the impact of University Science parks on research productivity: Exploratory firm-level evidence from the United Kingdom. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 21, 1357-1369.
69. Smith, P. E., & Todd, J. A. (2005). Does matching overcome LaLonde's critique of nonexperimental estimators? Journal of Econometrics, 125, 305-353.
70. Squicciarini, M. (2005b). Do Science parks encourage innovation? Evidence from the tenants' patenting activity - a duration model, working paper presented at the 4th International Industrial Organization Conference, Boston.
71. Squicciarini, M. (2005a). Science parks' characteristics and companies' innovative performance: Evidence from Finland, working paper presented at the 7th Conference on "Innovations and Intellectual Property", Applied Econometrics Association, Paris.
72. Stein J. C. (1997). Waves of creative destruction: Firm-specific learning-by-doing and the dynamics of innovation. The Review of Economic Studies, 64 (2), 265-288.
73. Struthers, C. A., & Kalbfleish, J. D. (1984). Misspecified proportional hazard models. Biometrica, 73, 363-369.
74. Therneau, T. M., & Grambsch, P. M. (2000). Modeling survival data: Extending the Cox model. New York: Springer.
75. Van den Berg, G. J. (2001). Duration models: Specification, identification and multiple durations in handbook of econometrics, (Vol. 5). Elsevier Science.
76. Wei, L. J., Lin, D. Y., & Weissfeld, L. (1989). Regression analysis of multivariate incomplete failure time data by modeling marginal distributions. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 84, 1065-1073.
77. Westhead, P. (1997). R&D 'inputs' and 'outputs' of technology-based firms located on and off Science parks. R&D Management, 27 (1), 45-62.
78. Westhead, P., & Storey, D. J. (1994). An assessment of firms located on and off Science parks in the United Kingdom. UK: SME Centre, University of Warwick.