Science Parks and the growth of new technology-based firms : academic-industry links, innovation and markets

By Hans Löfsten, Peter Lindelöf. 2002

556 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Strategy and Management

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/dd60bb54b0fd5950f4551fa57da2f451edd90c8d

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 Strategy and Management

Citations in the corpus

Critical Role and Screening Practices of European Business Incubators (2007, background): “Löfsten and Lindelöf (2002) examine the added value of science parks to tenant performance by employment growth, sales growth and profitability.”
A comparison of innovation capacity at science parks across the Taiwan Strait: the case of Zhangjiang High-Tech Park and Hsinchu Science-based Industrial Park (2005, background): “Comparing the differences between science park and off-park enterprises, the observed differences could reflect the motivations of the enterprises as well as the benefits of a science park location (Löfsten and Lindelöf, 2002).”
An Analytical Framework for Science Parks and Technology Districts with an Application to Singapore (2005, unknown): “The studies cover a range of geographic localities, such as Storey and Tether (1998), who provided an overview of science parks in Europe; Lofsten and Lindelof (2002 , 2003) on science parks in Sweden; Athreye (2001) on the agglomeration and growth of the Cambridge science district; Saxenian (2001a,”
Cooperation patterns of incubator firms and the impact of incubator specialization: Empirical evidence from Germany (2010, unknown): “…is the case for science parks, such as in the United Kingdom (e.g., Westhead and Storey, 1994), the United States (e.g., Link and Scott, 2003, 2006) or in Sweden (e.g., 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 0 .2 9 1 0 .2 0 0 .3 5 1 0 .1 5 0 .2 5 0 .1 7 1 Löfsten and Lindelöf, 2002; Lindelöf and Löfsten, 2004).”
R&D, product innovation, and exporting: evidence from UK new technology based firms (2011, background): “…market products since they address new needs and as marketing data for such products typically do not exist, especially if they are highly customized and involve a great deal of customer-specific development activity (Autio and Yli-Renko, 1998; Lofsten and Lindelof, 2002; Maine and Garnsey, 2006).”
Revisiting incubation performance (2012, unknown): “An incubator is an entity which provides small businesses with resources [5] that improve their chances of foundation and survival [38,39].”
Specialization as strategy for business incubators: An assessment of the Central German Multimedia Center (2008, background): “…show that on-park firms have higher survival rates (Ferguson and Olofsson, 2004), higher growth rates in terms of employment and sales (Colombo and Delmastro, 2002; Löfsten and Lindelöf, 2002) and a wider market distribution (Löfsten and Lindelöf, 2003) than comparable off-park firms.”
Organizing for innovation (2016, background): “One categorization defines corporate incubators, for example, as an entity providing entrepreneurial ventures with resources (Allen and McCluskey 1990) that improve their chances of foundation and survival (see Löfsten and Lindelöf 2002; Hackett and Dilts 2004; Dettwiler et al. 2006).”
Technology Parks versus Science Parks: does the university make the difference? (2013, background): “These results are confirmed by Westhead and Storey (1995), Vedovello (1997) and Löfsten and Lindelöf (2002) who find that STPs facilitate the establishment of informal links, but that there is mostly no influence on establishment of high-level (more formal) links with universities or other higher…”
Science Parks’ tenants versus out-of-Park firms: who innovates more? A duration model (2008, background): “No significant differences emerge with respect to the profitability of the NTBFs located in and out-SPs (Löfsten and Lindelöf 2005 ), but in-SP NTBFs are found more likely to have links with HEIs than out-of-Park firms (Löfsten and Lindelöf, 2002; Lindelöf and Löfsten, 2004).”
The role of science parks and business incubators in converging countries: Evidence from Portugal (2010, methodology): “Our research confirmed the role of management as critical for the success of SPs and BIs (Aernoudt, 2004; Grimaldi and Grandi, 2005; Lee and Osteryoung, 2004; Löfsten and Lindelöf, 2002).”
A control group study of incubators’ impact to promote firm survival (2010, background): “Previous studies in incubator/ incubation research use four important variables to identify an appropriate control group: firm location, industry affiliation, age of the firm and legal form (e.g., Colombo and Delmastro, 2002; Ferguson and Olofsson, 2004; Lindelöf and Löfsten, 2004; Löfsten and Linde”