دانلود رایگان مقاله لاتین پارک علم و فناوری از سایت الزویر
عنوان فارسی مقاله:
پارک علم و فناوری و همکاری برای نوآوری: شواهد تجربی از اسپانیا
عنوان انگلیسی مقاله:
Science and Technology Parks and cooperation for innovation: Empirical evidence from Spain
بخشی از مقاله انگلیسی:
2. Previous literature
We first review the literature on the relationship between proximity and cooperation for innovation more generally before focusing on the more specific literature on STPs and cooperation for innovation. Finally, we provided a detailed description of Spanish STPs. We adopt an explicit interdisciplinary perspective since the main scholarly arguments on these topics come from various disciplines such as economics, geography, management and innovation studies. 2.1. Proximity and cooperation for innovation The agglomeration of knowledge intensive organizations traditionally was considered a source of innovation (Marshall, 1890; Jacobs, 1970), but it was not until the early 1990s that research has focused on this effect in particular (Feldman and Kogler, 2010). An important reason for the influence of agglomeration on innovation is that agglomeration favours the initiation and development of linkages between different organizations (Baptista, 1998; HervásOliver and Albors-Garrigos, 2009). The likelihood of establishing relationships is higher for firms in agglomerations; geographical proximity increases the chances of casual meetings and conversations that identify common interests and may lead to joint projects (Guillain and Huriot, 2001). There is a lack of agreement about why relationships between co-located partners work better (Breschi and Lissoni, 2001; Dahl and Pedersen, 2004; Giuliani, 2007; Ibrahim et al., 2009). This debate is based on twomain arguments. First, geographical proximity facilitates knowledge flows and, as a result, learning processes because closeness has a positive effect on the number of interactions (Torre and Gilly, 2000). Since tacit knowledge plays an important role in innovation processes (Polanyi, 1966), and frequent and repeated face-to-face contacts are key to its transmission (Baptista, 1998; Amin and Wilkinson, 1999), geographical proximity is a facilitator. Maskell and Malmberg (1999) argue that the higher the tacit component of the knowledge, the more important is geographical proximity for knowledge to flow between partners. Accordingly, innovation partnerships among firms in agglomerations should achieve higher flows of knowledge due to the more diverse relationships they enable. Second, geographical proximity reduces uncertainty; it reduces searchcosts (Feldman, 1999) and increases the likelihood of explicit search for innovation partners (MacPherson, 1997). Also, it contributes to the building of trust which reduces the transaction costs involved in joint projects and results in more stable and longer lasting relationships (Bennet et al., 2000; Love and Roper, 2001). Longer relationships encourage the sharing of more valuable knowledge, resulting in a better adjustment between expectations and results, greater trust and increasing returns from collaboration (Izushi, 2003; Abramovsky and Simpson, 2011), especially in relation to intangible results (Barge-Gil and Modrego, 2011). However, geographical proximity is necessary, but not suffi- cientfor effective inter-organizational learning (Lane and Lubatkin, 1998). Following Knoben and Oerlemans (2006, p. 80), other types of proximity may be relevant for cooperation: technological proximity, defined as ‘the level of overlap of the knowledge bases of two collaborating actors’ (Lane and Lubatkin, 1998) and organizational proximity, defined as ‘the set of routines – explicit or implicit – which allows coordination without having to define beforehand how to do so. The set of routines incorporates organizational structure, organizational culture, performance measurements systems, language and so on’ (Rallet and Torre, 1999). This broader notion of proximity influences the frequency and density (variety and duration) of interactions (Baptista, 1998; Torre and Gilly, 2000).
Science and technology parks and cooperation for innovation ... https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/39572/ by ÁR Vásquez-Urriago - 2012 - Cited by 23 - Related articles Jun 19, 2017 - Science and technology parks and cooperation for innovation: Empirical evidence from Spain. Vásquez-Urriago, Ángela Rocío and Barge-Gil, ... [PDF]Science and technology parks and cooperation for innovation ... https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/39572/1/Final_Version.pdf by AR Vásquez-Urriago - 2012 - Cited by 23 - Related articles Jul 10, 2012 - Keywords: Science and technology parks; cooperation; innovation; effect; ... Parks (STPs) as part of public policy to stimulate innovation. Science and Technology Parks and cooperation for innovation ... https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/respol/v45y2016i1p137-147.html by ÁR Vásquez-Urriago - 2016 - Cited by 23 - Related articles Downloadable (with restrictions)! Science and Technology Parks (STPs) are one of the most important innovation policy initiatives. Previous studies show that ... Workshop on the role of Science/ Technology Parks and Incubators in ... https://ec.europa.eu › European Commission › EU Science Hub Mar 17, 2017 - Workshop on the role of Science/ Technology Parks and Incubators in ... Parks through GSRT programmes and international cooperation initiatives ... Science and Technology parks and regional innovation strategies - the EU ... Science and Technology Park fostering innovation in Lubuskie ... ec.europa.eu › European Commission › Regional Policy › Projects Jan 27, 2016 - The Science and Technology Park of the University of Zielona Góra acts as an interface to foster cooperation between the researchers and ...