High‐technology clustering through spin‐out and attraction: The Cambridge case

By Elizabeth Garnsey, P. Heffernan. 2005

244 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Political Science and International Relations

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/3ffd6be7df97ef38757826f87dec5d05118797ea

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Economics and Econometrics

In Political Science and International Relations

Citations in the corpus

Institutional determinants of university spin-off quantity and quality: a longitudinal, multilevel, cross-country study (2016, background): “The creation of new ventures to commercialize university research is an example of potentially highgrowth firms that could have significant economic impact at national and regional levels (Garnsey and Heffernan 2005; Lawton Smith and Ho 2006; Vincett 2010).”
A Network-based view of regional growth (2014, background): “Even in those locations possessing a knowledge rich environment there is evidence of a greater role being played by non-localised networks (Athreye, 2004; Bathelt et al., 2004; Doloreux, 2004; Garnsey and Heffernan, 2005; Saxenian, 2005; Simmie, 2004; Broekel and Boschma, 2011).”
Entrepreneurship, innovation and regional growth: a network theory (2015, background): “The constraining effect of distance on knowledge flow and transfer is considered by some to be gradually diminishing, and there is increasing evidence of the heightened role being played by international knowledge sourcing networks in many places across the globe (Athreye 2004; Doloreux 2004; Garnse”
Entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial ecosystems (2018, background): “…research can identify habitual and serial entrepreneurs, who “recycle their money and knowledge back into the ecosystem” (Ensign & Farlow, 2016, p. 2; Auerswald & Branscomb, 2003; Garnsey & Heffernan, 2005), or people involved in the establishment of new firms as angels (Lawton Smith et al., 2005).”
Reconsidering the Bayh-Dole Act and the Current University Invention Ownership Model (2009, background): “Though there are no international comparisons, it is also quite possible that it has been the most fertile university in terms of technology-based entrepreneurship outside the United States (Garnsey and Heffernan, 2005; Druilhe and Garnsey, 2004; Myint et al., 2005; SegalQuinceWicksteedLtd., 1985).”
The Economic and Innovation Contribution of Universities: A Regional Perspective (2009, background): “…the most competitive in the world in terms of economic growth rates, workforce qualifications and the number of large, international firms based in new or high technology sectors (Saxenian, 1994; Owen-Smith and Powell, 2004; Gertler and Wolfe, 2004; Lawton Smith, 2003; Garnsey and Heffernan, 2005).”
Entrepreneurship, Evolution and Geography (2009, background): “The growth of these industries – by both the indigenous creation of new firms and the attraction of subsidiaries - is then reinforced by this institutional structure (Keeble et al. 1999; Garnsey and Heffernan 2005).”
Universities, knowledge networks and regional policy (2008, background): “For example, in the high-technology setting of Cambridge in the UK many actors report global networks as being of greater significance to their operations (Athreye, 2004; Garnsey and Heffernan, 2005).”
Universities and open innovation: the determinants of network centrality (2019, background): “In general, the constraining effect of distance on knowledge flow and transfer is considered by some to be gradually diminishing, and there is increasing evidence of the heightened role being played by non-local knowledge sourcing networks in many places across the globe (Athreye 2004; Doloreux 2004”
Network Capital, Social Capital and Knowledge Flow: How the Nature of Inter-organizational Networks Impacts on Innovation (2012, background): “Even in those locations possessing a knowledge-rich environment there is evidence of a greater role being played by non-localized networks (Athreye, 2004; Doloreux, 2004; Garnsey and Heffernan, 2005; Saxenian, 2005).”