See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/228335466

A literature review of the effect of science and technology parks on firm

performance: A new model of value creation through social capital

Article  in  African Journal of Business Management · November 2011

DOI: 10.5897/AJBM11.768

CITATIONS READS

3 1,875

3 authors:

Ricardo Martinez-Canas Pablo Ruiz-Palomino

University of Castilla-La Mancha University of Castilla-La Mancha
64 PUBLICATIONS   674 CITATIONS    88 PUBLICATIONS   857 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Francisco Jose Saez-Martinez

University of Castilla-La Mancha
55 PUBLICATIONS   984 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Inter-organizational and intra-organizational relationships and competitiveness in the tourism districts from a multilevel approach View project

value co-creation View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ricardo Martinez-Canas on 02 February 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

African Journal of Business Management Vol. 5(30), pp.11999-12007, 30 November, 2011
DOI: 10.5897/AJBM11.768
Available online at http://www.academicjournals.org/AJBM
ISSN 1993-8233 ©2011 Academic Journals

Full Length Research Paper

A literature review of the effect of science and

technology parks on firm performance: A new model of
value creation through social capital
Ricardo Martínez-Cañas1, Pablo Ruiz-Palomino1 and Francisco J. Sáez-Martínez2
1
Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Castilla-La Mancha, Cuenca, Spain.
2
Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Castilla-La Mancha, Albacete, Spain.
Accepted 30 August, 2011

Science and technology parks provide modern infrastructural mechanisms for transferring academic
research findings, generating knowledge spillovers, and catalyzing regional and national economic
growth. Therefore, these parks enable the flow of knowledge, ease access to valuable resources and
innovations, and foster cooperation among tenants. Reviewing previous literature we found that the
effect of science park infrastructure on the performance of related firms has not conclusive findings
and this divergence can be interpreted as main studies are not including the value generated through
interorganizational social interactions. This study uses the concept of social capital to analyze how
science and technology parks facilitate the generation of goodwill and resources that firms gain from
their relationships with other economic agents in the park. Within this theoretical approach the paper
proposes a model for understanding how science and technology parks create a valuable infrastructure
for generating such social benefits. Finally, the paper suggests a theoretical model to examine sources,
substance, contingencies, and value creation at the firm level.

Key words: Science and technology parks, social capital, knowledge spillovers, firm innovation, value creation.

INTRODUCTION

In a global knowledge economy, science and technology
parks (STPs) represent public–private partnerships that
can foster knowledge flows, mainly among park firms, as
well as between these firms and external research and
development institutions (R&DI), and thus improve
regional economic growth (Link and Scott, 2007). Despite
the lack of a confirmed definition of an STP, some
common denominators across different existing models
suggest a set of minimum standards and requirements
that any knowledge cluster should have to earn this
*Corresponding author. E-mail: Ricardo.Martinez@uclm.es. Tel:
(+34) 902 204 100 ext 4241. Fax: (+34) 902 204 130.
Abbreviations: STPs, Science and technology parks; R&DI,
research and development institutions; HEI, higher education
institutions; IASP, International Association of Science Parks.
formal recognition (Link, 2009). Among these common
denominators it can be highlighted that STPs facilitate
access for firms to key factors such as research and
development (R&D), human capital, innovation infrastruc-
tures, financers, venture capitalists, technological capital,
and social capital (European-Commission, 2008). These
factors are related to the capacity to adapt to technolo-
gical, economic, and social changes in markets. That is,
a STP is a highly complex, dynamic system that evolves;
the organizations within it change the underlying charac-
teristics of the park and thus the relative competitiveness
of the surrounding region over time (Siegel et al., 2007).
Therefore, STPs have emerged based on new
institutional arrangements that facilitate interactive
relations between universities, industry and government
(Etzkowitz, 2008).
STPs literature is in an emerging stage of development
and during recent years researchers have stimulated an
12000 Afr. J. Bus. Manage.
important academic debate concerning whether such
property-based initiatives really enhance the performance
of firms and economic growth of regions (Phan et al.,
2005). To this respect, there are differences of results in
empirical researches founding positive or non significant
effects of STPs on firm performance (Link, 2009). This
divergence implies that previous studies do not analyze
STPs from the point of view of their active role in the
knowledge-based economy (Hansson, 2007).
Thus, the main contribution of this paper is analyzing
the value generated through relational aspects in STPs.
Therefore, the use of social capital theory will enhance
our understanding about the dynamism that is often a
consequence of strong interactions among a wide range
of highly creative actors (Bueno-Campos and Rodriguez-
Pomeda, 2007). In that sense the role of a STP requires
an effective networking to manage and encourage the
transfer of knowledge, resources, and innovations among
tenants (Hansson et al., 2005). So this article also
contributes to extend previous studies that have tended
to measure the value of STPs for firms using traditional
economic indicators, such as annual growth, profitability,
employment rate, or the number of new companies crea-
ted (Hansson, 2007). With a social capital approach, we
take into account the growing importance of knowledge
or intangible aspects derived from social relations, which
can be the appropriate variables to indicate success in a
network economy (Westlund, 2006).
This research starts by reviewing key STP literature
and then focus on the role of intangible relationship
aspects, using social capital at firm level to identify the
source, main dimensions, benefits, and related contin-
gency variables. Next, the study proposes a conceptual
model of social capital generation and value creation
inside science parks. Finally, the study presents the main
conclusions and implications for future research.
LITERATURE REVIEW
During recent decades, two concepts have emerged with
key importance for the value creation process in firms:
the knowledge economy and the idea of collaborative
advantage. Both imply the need for a new strategic
model, built around value creation through social
relationships (Lesser, 2000). In this setting, relations and
social connections determine organizational success and
thus are increasingly prominent in organizational
research (Nahapiet, 2009). From this point of view, firms
comprise a portfolio of relationships rather than portfolios
of businesses or capabilities. This perspective challenges
the conventional wisdom regarding competitive success.
Changes in knowledge production also imply new roles
for traditional providers of scientific knowledge (mainly
universities and R&D centers) that span research
organized by disciplines. New knowledge production at
the firm level has a more interdisciplinary character and is
driven by close collaboration with other agents (Gibbons
et al., 1994). Regional knowledge clusters and STPs
reflect such new institutional arrangements that facilitate
interactive relations among universities, (local) state
agencies, and industry (Etzkowitz, 2008).
In the knowledge economy, the idea of collaborative
advantage and STPs has a common denominator:
relations increase the value and competitive advantage of
firms. Thus, a STP can try to create a perfect knowledge
landscape, in which high technology firms access
valuable resources and benefit from their relationships
with other economic agents.
Science and technology parks
The STP phenomenon has received increasing attention,
as well as resources, from policy makers as central ele-
ments of regional development policies (Link and Scott,
2007). A boom in related initiatives took place during the
1980s and 1990s (Hansson et al., 2005), and their rapid
expansion was accelerated by institutional changes such
as the political commitment for knowledge production
through interactions among production agents (Etzkowitz,
2008). Policy makers have aimed to construct an environ-
ment conductive to innovation and growth by providing a
physical and social infrastructure that will attract high-
tech firms, through the establishment and upgrading of
local institutions and networks that stimulate new ideas
and technologies (European-Commission, 2008).
Main STP definitions have been proposed by both
professsional organizations and academics (Link and
Scott, 2007). On the one hand, from a professional point
of view, the International Association of Science Parks
(IASP) defines a STP as an organization managed by
specialized professionals, whose main aim is to increase
the wealth of the community by promoting a culture of
innovation and competitiveness for its associated
businesses and knowledge-based institutions (IASP,
2002). This definition has a global character, because it is
based on a cross-examination and benchmarked models
and experiences worldwide. Therefore, it cites the role of
STPs in promoting economic development and regional
competitiveness through functions related to creating new
business opportunities, fostering entrepreneurship, gene-
rating knowledge-based jobs, building attractive spaces
for knowledge workers, and enhancing synergy between
universities and companies. This definition also encom-
passes related, more specific terms and expressions,
such as "Technology Park”, “Research Park” or “Science
Park”.
On the other hand, from an academic perspective, a
STP is a property-based organization with an identifiable
administrative center, focused on business acceleration
through knowledge agglomeration and resource sharing

(Phan et al., 2005). To achieve these goals, a STP
stimulates and manages the flow of knowledge by
creating an infrastructural mechanism for using academic
research findings to enhance the performance of
corporations, universities, and economic regions (Link
and Scott, 2007).
Also, there is no single STP research line; however,
related studies employ four different levels of analysis:
the park, the firms located in parks, entrepreneurs
involved with these firms, and the aggregate level (Phan
et al., 2005). It can be difficult to develop a multilevel
analysis to attain a holistic view of STPs. At the firm level,
most studies examine the performance effects of STPs
on tenants (Link and Scott, 2007), complemented by
ancillary research questions about the types of innovation
market failures that STPs can correct or which valuable
resources and dynamic capabilities flow from their
infrastructure. Thus, firms in STPs function in a highly
differentiated environmental and institutional context,
which needs further examination by a contingency
approach (Phan et al., 2005).
In addition, STP literature remains in an emergent
stage of development; in recent years, researchers have
engaged in important academic debates about whether
property-based initiatives really enhance firm
performance and regional economic growth (Siegel et al.,
2003b). Table 1 shows the main findings that have shown
some empirical researches that have tried to measure the
effects of STPs on firm’s results.
On the one hand, some studies conclude that STPs fail
to deliver widely expected benefits such as patents or
new product development (Westhead, 1997; Colombo
and Delmastro, 2002), research productivity (Siegel et al.,
2003a), employment growth in high-tech sectors
(Shearmur and Doloreux, 2000), profitability (Lofsten and
Lindelof, 2002, 2003, 2005), growth (Monck et al., 1988;
Dettwiler et al., 2006), or the development of strong ties
with R&D and HEIs (Bakouros et al., 2002, Malairaja and
Zawdie, 2008).
On the other hand, other studies reveal a positive effect
of parks on patents (Squicciarini, 2008; Wright et al.,
2008), productivity (Yang et al., 2009), joint research with
universities (Fukugawa, 2006), access to public funds
(Link and Scott, 2003), survival (Ferguson and Olofson,
2004), and new product and patent development (Siegel
et al., 2007).
This difference in the effects of STPs on firm
performance implies the need for a new theoretical
approach to the analysis of STPs, based on their active
role in the modern knowledge-based, network economy
(Hansson, 2007). That is, the use of traditional economic
indicators might obviate some intangible aspects of social
relations that represent essential indicators of success in
the network economy (Westlund, 2006). The study
therefore, introduces social capital theory as a means to
examine the role of goodwill and intangible resources that
Ricardo et al. 12001
firms gain from their relationships with other agents within
the park.
Social capital
Social capital theory explores the benefits and costs of
social ties and relationships (Chisholm and Nielsen,
2009). Organizational social capital derives from social
structures such as networks, ties, and their associated
norms and values, which affects the firm and its per-
formance. These networks can be internal, if embedded
in the relationships among the organization’s members,
or external, if embedded in relationships beyond the firm
boundaries (Westlund, 2006). Firms must manage their
portfolio of relationships with customers, suppliers,
universities, banks, venture capitalists, and government.
These social ties then constitute a valuable resource that
supports social activities and enable people and social
groups to achieve outcomes that they could not
otherwise, or could attain only at significant cost
(Coleman, 1988).
Several recent contributions in management and
organizational literature note the importance of internal
and external corporate social capital. Social capital
reportedly has beneficial effects on factors including
corporate innovation (Fountain and Atkinson, 1998),
interorganizational networks and resource exchanges
(Tsai and Ghoshal, 1998), regional production networks
(Asheim et al., 2007), the mobilization of finance (Uzzi,
1999), collective goal orientation and shared trust (Leana
and Pil, 2006), organizational citizenship behaviors
(Bolino et al., 2002), the creation of new intellectual
capital (Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998), knowledge
acquisition and exploitation (Yli-Renko et al., 2001),
family firm success (Zahra, 2010), and interorganizational
learning (Wu and Cavusgil, 2006).
Yet despite the vast number of empirical contributions,
social capital literature lacks a universally accepted
definition of its central term. Moreover, some researchers
discuss the core notion of social capital without using the
term itself (Farr, 2004). The study adopts a definition of
social capital with great influence over management
studies, as proposed by Nahapiet and Ghoshal (1998):
“the sum of the actual and potential resources embedded
within, available through and derived from the network of
relationships possessed by an individual or social unit.
Social capital comprises both the network and the assets
that may be mobilized through that network”. This defini-
tion makes three distinctive contributions to management
(Nahapiet, 2008): its resource-based perspective, its
ability to combine multiple dimensions of relationships,
and its focus on performance outcomes. The definition is
based on social capital’s view of connections as both
resources themselves and conduits to other resources
that can be leveraged for material gain. It applies to
12002 Afr. J. Bus. Manage.

Table 1. Studies measuring the effects of STPs on firm’s performance.

Study Sample, country and method Conclusion

284 UK firms (183 located in and 101 No significant effects on growth (employment), links
Monck et al. (1988)
out) with HEIs, patents and new products development.

No significant effects on scientists and engineers,

Westhead (1997) 95 UK firms (47 located in and 48 out) R&D expenditure, radical new research, patents,
copyrights and new products development.

Shearmur and Doloreux (2000) 17 Canadian STPs No significant effects on employment growth.

No significant effects on growth, performance and

Case study of 24 firms located in 3
Bakouros et al. (2002) the development of strong and operational ties with
Greek STPs
institutions.

90 Italian firms (45 located in and 45 Positive effect on growth, inputs and innovation. No
Colombo and Delmastro (2002)
located out) significant effect on patents.

273 Sweden new technology based Positive effect on growth (employment sales) but no
Lofsten and Lindelof (2002)
firms (163 located in and 100 out) significant effect on profitability of firms.

Positive effect on growth and links with HEIs and

273 Sweden new technology based
Lofsten and Lindelof (2003) proximity and product innovation.
firms (134 located in and 139 out)

177 UK firms (89 located in and 88 Slightly and positive effect on new products, patents
Siegel et al. (2003a) out) and copyrights. No significant effect considering
endogeneity.

88 US institutions located near STPs Proximity to STPs improves success in obtaining

Link and Scott (2003)
extramural funding.

66 Sweden new technology based

Positive effect on survival. No significant effect on
Ferguson and Olofsson (2004) firms (30 located in and 36 located
firm growth.
out)

134 Sweden new technology based No significant differences between growth and
Lofsten and Lindelof (2005) firms (74 University spin-offs and 60 profitability. University spin-offs do not channel
corporate spin-offs) investments into patents (as corporate spin-offs do).

477 Sweden firms located in and 500 Positive differences in contractual agreements and
Dettwiler et al (2006) located out of STPs facilities (proximity to competitors, consumers,
infrastructure and lower costs).

222 Japanese firms (74 located in and

Fukugawa (2006) 138 out) Positive effect on joint research with HEIs.

52 Malaysian firms (22 located in and

Malairaja and Zawdie (2008) No significant effects on links with HEIs.
30 out)

120 Finish firms(48 located in and 72

Squicciarini (2008) out) Positive effects on patents.

349 Chinese firms located in Positive effect in returning entrepreneurs to obtain

Wright et al. (2008) Zhongguancun Science Park patents transferred from abroad and employment
growth.

147 Taiwanese new technology based

Yang et al. (2009) firms (57 located in and 190 located Positive effect on R&D productivity.
out)

individuals as well as groups and communities; we also
add organizations (Nahapiet, 2008). In this sense, social
capital theory can address management questions
related to access to resources and rent appropriation
(Blyler and Coff, 2003).
Furthermore, it constitutes a relational theory, because
social capital takes as its prime unit of analysis the con-
nections between actors (Chisholm and Nielsen, 2009). It
again applies across different levels of analysis in this
sense, from an individual to a group, organization, com-
munity, region, or even nation (Zheng, 2010). Therefore,
social capital provides a valuable way to characterize an
organization’s complete set of relationships, including
those that cross institutional boundaries.
Nahapiet and Ghoshal (1998) note three related
dimensions that have been studied separately: structural,
relational, and cognitive. Each dimension is important for
understanding the structure and content of mutual
benefits in social relations (Lesser, 2000). The structural
dimension depends on the other subdimensions, such as
a relative position within a relationship or network,
individual relationships with other actors, and structural
holes covered by the agent (Lee, 2009). The relational
dimension derives from the interpersonal dynamics within
the structure that lead to the formation of social capital
through the generation of trust and reciprocity (Nahapiet
and Ghoshal, 1998). Finally, the cognitive dimension
entails the common context within the structure, which in-
cludes but goes beyond language to address acronyms,
subtleties, and underlying assumptions that constitute
basic necessities for everyday communication within a
firm (Lesser, 2000).
As its third contribution, social capital research empha-
sizes the performance outcomes of social connections
(Lee, 2009). Recent studies demonstrate the role of
social capital in terms of how firms start to reconfigure
three dimensions over time to affect value generation, in
the form of start-up performance (Maurer and Ebers,
2006), firm performance (Cooke, 2007), and firm
competitiveness (Wu, 2008). This theoretical framework
therefore, provides an interesting approach for research
in management to study how interactions of tenant firms
in STPs create value through collaborative advantages.
THEORETICAL PROPOSED MODEL
The varieties of definitions in social capital literature stem
from the highly context-specific nature and complexity of
its conceptualization and operationalization (Adler and
Kwon, 2002); each definition depends on the discipline
and level of investigation (Robinson et al., 2002). Across
the different frameworks used to study social capital,
there also is considerable disagreement about the
definition, depending on whether they focus on
substance, sources, or positive or negative effects (Field,
Ricardo et al. 12003
2008). Adler and Kwon (2002) elaborate an exhaustive
compilation of works that attempt to define the concept
more precisely and articulate a conceptual framework
that integrates in one model the sources, benefits, risks,
and contingencies associated with social capital. For our
firm-level conceptualization of social capital within the
infrastructure of STPs and to combine the two main
theoretical models of social capital from management
(Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998; Adler and Kwon, 2002),
the study proposes and analyzes the constructs of a
conceptual model of social capital generation and value
creation within STPs.
Sources of social capital inside STPs
Social capital literature suggests social capital can be
created in three ways: historical ties, institutional or
organizational facilitation, or shared pursuit of common
goals (Scillitoe and Chakrabarti, 2009). Therefore, as we
noted in our literature review, STPs constitute an
infrastructure that facilitates the development of valuable
relationships for located actors, such that every agent
relationship can be a differentiated source of social
capital. The main actors that can generate social capital
are (European-Commission, 2008):
1. R&D institutions and HEI that create or participate in
STPs to commercialize their research results, earn
profits, and obtain feedback. They also want to establish
a good environment for graduates that will enable them to
participate in interesting applied projects, develop va-
luable relationships, attain good employment possibilities
in the future, and offer the chance to create their own
companies.
2. High-tech firms looking for links to upgrade their R&D
with international ideas, good information systems,
qualified labor pools, good locations, and excellent
services and thus increase their profits.
3. Specialized managers who develop, manage, and
facilitate relationships in their search for a proactive
strategy that enhances the global profit of the project, by
offering premises and services needed to develop and
consolidate the STP. Generally this staff is supported
economically and financially by regional governments or
corporate investors.
With this network-based interpretation (Coleman, 1988),
the research posits that each relationship contributes
directly and distinctly to the generation of social capital.
Therefore, the study proposes:
Proposition 1: For firms located in STPs, social
relationships with R&D institutions, HEI, high-tech firms,
and specialized management staff of the park offer
positive and distinctive sources of social capital.
12004 Afr. J. Bus. Manage.
Social capital dimensions
As defined previously, social capital arises from social
relations, including the goodwill and resources that firms
gain from relationships with other agents inside the park.
In management literature, this benefit includes three
dimensions (Lee, 2009): the structural dimension related
to firm ties and network configurations, the cognitive
dimension that reflects shared codes and languages, and
the relational dimension that involves trust, norms, obli-
gations, and identification among agents. Adler and Kwon
(2002) introduce a similar three-dimensional framework
that comprises opportunity, ability, and motivation. Both
opportunity and the structural dimension pertain to an
existing opportunity to connect, which can be analyzed
on the infrastructure level. The cognitive and ability
dimensions refer to the ability to connect cognitively with
other agents to understand what others mean during
communications. Finally, the study notes the parallel
between the relational and motivational dimensions, both
of which entail the motivation to share knowledge
because of socially attributed characteristics of that
relationship, such as trust and reciprocity.
Several reviews demonstrate that social capital in
management research reflects the three core dimensions
that form one construct through differentiated but related
aspects (Zheng, 2010). Generally though, researchers
consider each dimension separately; it is necessary to
use a holistic view to obtain a complete understanding of
the process-based linkages across structural, relational,
and cognitive social capital (Lee, 2009). Therefore, we
propose:
Proposition 2: For firms located in STPs, the structural,
cognitive, and relational dimensions of their relationships
are distinctive aspects of their social capital.
Contingencies related to social capital value
Social capital has contingent value (Burt, 1997), mostly
related to the key benefits and risks of social capital,
which we can discuss using a cost–benefit analysis
(Blyler and Coff, 2003). To determine the ultimate value
of social capital, the study thus, considers two typologies
of contingent factors.
Firstly, contingent factors related to organizational
variables include firm characteristics, resources, and
capabilities (Chisholm and Nielsen, 2009). Therefore,
social capital in new and small high-technology firms
should increase the willingness of exchange partners to
engage in interactions that help them overcome the
liabilities of newness (Stinchcombe, 1965), size, and the
nature of the firm’s activity (that is, high specialized firms
created through incubation processes within the park or
HEI). The influence of these factors on the net value of
social capital depends on other moderators, such as the
age of the firm, the number of years it has been located
in the park, the number of employees, and the specific
sector to which the firm belongs (for example,
biotechnology, medicine, engineering, information
technologies).
Secondly, contingent factors related to STP factors are
specific to each park (Phan et al., 2005), because every
STP exhibits remarkable differences in its age, stage of
development, origin, nature of activity (for example,
research, technology, both), financial independence, in-
frastructure, and type of stakeholders, which manage and
control the STP’s growth and development (European-
Commission, 2008; Link and Scott, 2007). These factors
therefore, should moderate the net value of social capital.
A mix of organizational and STP factors in turn should
influence the relationship among structural, relational,
and cognitive aspects and the net value of the pertinent
relationships. Thus, the study proposes:
Proposition 3: Contingent factors related to the firm and
to the STP influence the relationship between the
dimensions of social capital and their net value.
Conceptual model of social capital
Because the net value of social capital should be
contingent on the firm and STP environment, both factors
may influence the relative importance of the benefits and
risks of social capital. However, existing empirical studies
suggest the need to manage social aspects of relations
carefully, because as a network extends beyond a certain
point, the costs and negative outcomes may outweigh the
benefits (Lee, 2009).
The study also asserts that social capital at the firm
level is an important input for the value creation process
of firms, so we consider this effect and its relationships
with other key variables, such as intellectual capital
(Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998), intrafirm networks (Tsai
and Ghoshal, 1998), knowledge acquisition and
exploitation (Yli-Renko et al., 2001), strategic alliances
(Koka and Prescott, 2002), adaptation capacity (Maurer
and Ebers, 2006), learning (Wu and Cavusgil, 2006), and
entrepreneurial orientation (Huang et al., 2010).
Despite general agreements about the importance of
social capital, there has been debate about whether it is
completely desirable or also involves a dark side (Field,
2008). That is, the characteristics of social capital that
enable beneficial, productive benefits might have the
potential to cause negative externalities (Gargiulo and
Benassi, 2000). Fostering relationships among organi-
zations thus could worsen rather than improve economic
performance; some mechanisms that reduce transaction
costs in market exchanges also could have negative
consequences for firms (Fine, 2001).

Figure 1. Proposed model of social capital generation by science and technology parks.
In this sense, every agent in an STP can be a source of
social capital by providing access to desired resources
but also can be a liability by producing unwanted results.
The stock of social capital therefore, is simultaneously
productive and unproductive, depending on the specific
context (Field, 2008). Further research would be required
to understand the causal relationships over time that
determines the realization of productive or unproductive
social capital. Moreover, social capital can be diminished
by the effects of time, low or sporadic investments in
relationships, and poor management practices (Nahapiet,
2008).
Therefore, by examining various constructs related to
the proposed theoretical model, the research proposes
that the net value of a firm’s social capital, obtained
through relationships inside STPs, can be represented by
the conceptual model in Figure 1, which displays the
relationships the study has outlined in the propositions.
Conclusions
With this conceptual model, this research suggests that
interorganizational relationships within STPs generate
social capital and create value for firms. Specifically,
social capital at the firm level derives from relationships
with R&D institutions, HEI, high-tech firms, and the park’s
management staff. This intangible capital constitutes a
multidimensional concept with structural, cognitive, and
relational aspects. Moreover the net value can be
moderated by factors related to both firm idiosyncrasies
and STPs’ own characteristics, changes over time,
continuous investments in relationships, and diverse
management practices.
Ricardo et al. 12005
The challenge for further research will be to analyze the
propositions empirically to gain a greater understanding
of the extent to which the widely reported positive
relationship between social capital dimensions and value
creation takes into account the moderating role of con-
tingency variables. For example, this theoretical model
might be applied to study how low- and middle-income
African countries can develop clustering knowledge
activities (Zeng, 2008) that provide a basis for economic
growth. By clustering in STPs, firms might overcome con-
straints on capital, skills, technology, and markets. Thus,
STPs in developing countries could help constituents
grow and compete by encouraging more effective know-
ledge and technology diffusion and product specializa-
tion, leveraging local comparative advantages, fostering
production value chains, and achieving collective
efficiency (Tavares, 2009). Furthermore, valuable
relationships with key agents in the global knowledge
economy might assist that process and enable the firms
and STPs to contribute to African countries’ economic
growth by providing good and quality jobs for the
continent’s growing population.
However, in the increasingly knowledge-intensive and
globalized modern economy, STPs and knowledge
clusters also face serious challenges that need further
research, especially in the areas of policy, financing,
technology, natural resources, infrastructure, skill
acquisition, and quality control.
REFERENCES
Adler PS, Kwon SW (2002). Social capital: prospects for a new concept.
Acad. Manage. Rev., 27(1): 17-40.
12006 Afr. J. Bus. Manage.
Asheim B, Coenen L, Moodysson J, Vang J (2007). Constructing
knowledge-based regional advantage: implications for regional
innovation policy. Centre for innovation, research and competence in
the learning economy. Working Paper, Lund University, Sweden.
Bakouros YL, Mardas DC, Varsakelis NC, (2002). Science park, a high
tech fantasy? An analysis of the science parks of Greece.
Technovation, 22(2): 123–128.
Blyler M, Coff RW (2003). Dynamic capabilities, social capital, and rent
appropriation: ties that split pies. Strat. Manage. J., 24(7): 677-686.
Bolino MC, Turnley WH, Bloodgood JM (2002). Citizenship behaviour
and the creation of social capital in organizations. Acad. Manage.
Rev., 27(4): 505-522.
Bueno-Campos E, Rodriguez-Pomeda J (2007). On knowledge,
networks, social capital and trust in innovation environments. Int. J.
Entrepreneurs. Innovat. Manage., 7(6): 575-592.
Burt RS (1997). The contingent value of social capital. Admin. Sci. Q.,
42: 339-365.
Coleman JS (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital.
Amer. J. Soc., 94: S95-S120.
Colombo M, Delmastro M (2002). How effective are technology
incubators? Evidence from Italy. Res. Pol., 31: 1103-1122.
Cooke P (2007). Social capital, embeddedness, and market
interactions: an analysis of firm performance in UK regions. Rev. Soc.
Econ., 65(1): 1-29.
Chisholm AM, Nielsen K (2009). Social capital and the resource-based
view of the firm. Int. Stud. Manage. Org., 39(2): 7-32.
Dettwiler P, Lindelof P, Lofsten H (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(4): 506-517.
Etkowitz H (2008). The Triple Helix University–Industry–Government
Innovation in Action. New York: Routledge.
European-Commission. (2008). Regional Research Intensive Clusters
and Science Parks. Brussels: European Commission Press.
Farr J (2004). Social capital: a conceptual history. Pol. Theory, 32(1): 6-
33.
Ferguson R, Olofsson C (2004). Science parks and the development of
new technology based firms—location, survival and growth. J. Tech.
Transf., 29(1): 5-17.
Field J (2008). Social Capital (Key Ideas), second edition. London:
Routledge.
Fine B (2001). Social Capital versus Social Theory. London: Routledge.
Fountain JE, Atkinson RD (1998). Innovation, social capital, and the
new economy: new federal policies to support collaborative research,
Working Paper. Harvard Business School, Boston.
Fukugawa N (2006). Science parks in Japan and their value-added
contributions to new technology-based firms. Int. J. Indus. Org.,
24(2): 381-400.
Gargiulo M, Benassi M (2000). Trapped in your own net? Network
cohesion, structural hole and the adaptation of social capital. Org.
Sci., 11(2): 183-196.
Gibbons M, Limoges C, Nowotny H, Schwartzman S, Scott P, Trow M
(1994). The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science
and Research in Contemporary Societies. London: Sage.
Hansson F (2007). Science parks as knowledge organizations—the "ba"
in action? Euro. J. Innovat. Manage., 10(3): 348-366.
Hansson F, Husted K, Vestergaard J (2005). Second generation
science parks: from structural holes jockeys to social capital catalysts
of the knowledge society. Technovation, 25(9): 1039-1049.
Huang KP, Wang CH, Tseng MC, Wang KY (2010). A study on
entrepreneurial orientation and resource acquisition: the effects of
social capital. Afr. J. Bus. Manage., 4(15): 3226-3231.
IASP (2002). International Association of Science Parks Annual Report.
Malaga: IASP Publishing.
Koka BR, Prescott JE (2002). Strategic alliances as social capital: a
multidimensional view. Strat. Manage. J., 23(9): 795-816.
Leana CR, Pil FK (2006). Social capital and organizational
performance: Evidence from urban public schools. Org. Sci., 17(3):
353-366.
Lee R (2009). Social capital and business and management: setting a
research agenda. Int. J. Manage. Rev., 11(3): 247-273.
Lesser E (2000). Knowledge and Social Capital: Foundations and
Applications. Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Link AN (2009). Research, science, and technology parks: an overview
of the academic literature. In: Wessner CW ed. Understanding
Research, Science and Technology Parks: Global Best Practice:
Report of a Symposium for the National Research Council.
Washington: National Academy Press. pp. 127-139.
Link AN, Scott J (2003). U.S. science parks: the diffusion of an
innovation and its effects on the academic missions of universities."
Int. J. Indus. Org., 21: 1323–1356.
Link AN, Scott JT (2006). US university research parks. J. Prod. Anal.,
25: 43-55.
Link AN, Scott JT (2007). The economics of university research parks.
Oxf. Rev. Econ. Pol., 23: 661-674.
Lofsten H, Lindelof P (2002). Science parks and the growth of new
technology-based firms—academic-industry links, innovation and
markets. Res. Pol., 31(6): 859-876.
Lofsten H, Lindelof P (2003). Determinants for an entrepreneurial
milieu: Science Parks and business policy in growing firms.
Technovation, 23: 51-64.
Lofsten H, Lindelof P (2005). R&D networks and product innovation
patterns—academic and non-academic new technology-based firms
on science parks. Technovation, 25: 1025–1037.
Malairaja C, Zawdie G (2008). Science parks and university-industry
collaboration in Malaysia. Tech. Anal. Strat. Manage., 20: 727-739.
Maurer I, Ebers M (2006). Dynamics of social capital and their
performance implications: lessons from biotechnology start-ups.
Adm. Sci. Q., 51(2): 262-292.
Monck CS, Porter RB, Quintas PD, Storey J, Wynarczyk P (1988).
Science Parks and the Growth of High Technology Firms. London:
Croom Helm.
Nahapiet J (2008). Social Capital and interorganizational relations. S.
Cropper, Ebers M, Huxham C, Ring PS, Eds. The Oxford Handbook
of Interorganizational Relations. Oxford University Press, Oxford. pp.
580-606.
Nahapiet J (2009). Capitalizing on connections: Social capital and
strategic management. In Bartkus JH, Davis P eds. Social Capital:
Reaching Out, Reaching in. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishers:
205-236.
Nahapiet J, Ghoshal S (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and
the organizational advantage. Acad. Manage. Rev., 23(2): 242-266.
Phan PH, Siegel DS, Wright M (2005). Science parks and incubators:
observations, synthesis and future research. J. Bus. Vent., 20(2):
165-182.
Robinson LJ, Schmid AA, Siles MA (2002). Is social capital really
capital? Rev. Soc. Econ., 50(1): 1-21.
Scillitoe JL, Chakrabarti A (2009). A conceptual model of the incubation
of new technology-based Ventures: a social capital perspective. Rev.
Int. Compar. Manage., 10(3): 468-482.
Shearmur R, Doloreux D (2000). Science parks: actors or reactors?
Canadian science parks in their urban context. Environ. Plann., 32(6):
1065–1082.
Siegel DS, Veugelers R, Wright M (2007). Technology transfer offices
and commercialization of university intellectual property: performance
and policy implications. Oxf. Rev. Econ. Pol., 23(4): 640-660.
Siegel DS, Westhead P, Wright M (2003a). Assessing the impact of
university science parks on research productivity: exploratory firm-
level evidence from the United Kingdom. Int. J. Indus. Org., 21(9):
1357-1369.
Siegel DS, Westhead P, Wright M (2003b). Science parks and the
performance of new technology-based firms: a review of recent UK
evidence and an agenda for future research. Small Bus. Econ., 20(2):
177-184.
Squicciarini M (2008). Science parks’ tenants versus out-of-park firms:
who innovates more? A duration model. J. Tech. Transf., 33(1): 45-
71.
Tavares R (2009). Science and technology parks: an overview of the
ongoing initiatives in Africa. Afr. J. Pol. Sci. Int. Relat., 3(5): 208-223.
Tsai W, Ghoshal S (1998). Social capital and value creation: the role of

intrafirm networks. Acad. Manage. J., 41(4): 464-476.
Uzzi B (1999). Embeddedness in the making of financial capital: how
social relations and networks benefit firms seeking financing. Amer.
Soc. Rev., 64(4): 481-505.
Westhead P (1997). R and D ‘‘inputs’’ and ‘‘outputs’’ of technology-
based firms located on and off science parks. RD Manage., 27(1):
45–61.
Westlund H (2006). Social Capital in the Knowledge Economy.
Springer, Berlin.
Wright M, Liu X, Buck T, Filatotchev I (2008). Returnee entrepreneurs,
science park location choice and performance: An analysis of high-
technology SMEs in China. Entrepreneurs Theory Pract., 32(1) 131-
155.
Wu WP (2008). Dimensions of social capital and firm competitiveness
improvement: the mediating role of information sharing. J. Manage.
Stud., 45(1) 122-146.
Wu F, Cavusgil ST (2006). Organizational learning, commitment, and
joint value creation in interfirm relationships. J. Bus. Res., 59(1): 81-
89.
View publication stats
Ricardo et al. 12007
Yang CH, Motohashi K, Chen JR (2009). Are new technology-based
firms located on science parks really more innovative? Evidence from
Taiwan. Res. Pol., 38: 77-85.
Yli-Renko H, Autio E, Sapienza HJ (2001). Social capital, knowledge
acquisition, and knowledge exploitation in young technology-based
firms. Strat. Manage. J., 22(6-7): 587-613.
Zahra SA (2010). Harvesting family firms' organizational social capital: a
relational perspective. J. Manage. Stud., 47(2) 345-366.
Zeng DZ (2008). Knowledge, technology, and cluster-based growth in
Africa: findings from 11 case studies of enterprise clusters in Africa in
Zeng DZ ed. Knowledge, Technology, and Cluster-Based Growth in
Africa. Washington: The World Bank. pp. 1-13.
Zheng W (2010). A Social capital perspective of innovation from
individuals to nations: where is empirical literature directing us? Int. J.
Manage. Rev., 12(2): 151-183.