The role of science and technology parks in the growth of sales of portuguese firms

RAE-Revista de Administração de Empresas | FGV EAESP 1 FGV EAESP | RAE | São Paulo | V. 63 (6) | 2023 | 1-21 | e2023-0017 eISSN 2178-938X ARTICLES Submitted 01-14-2023. Approved 05-30-2023 Evaluated through a double-blind review process. Ad hoc Associate Editor: Paola Rücker Schaeffer The reviewers did not authorize disclosure of their identity and peer review report. Translated version | DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0034-759020230601x THE ROLE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY PARKS IN THE GROWTH OF SALES OF PORTUGUESE FIRMS O Papel dos parques de ciência e tecnologia no crescimento das vendas das empresas portuguesas El papel de los parques científico-tecnológicos en el crecimiento de las ventas de empresas portuguesas Júlio Paulo da Silva Martins¹ | julio[email protected] | ORCID: 0000-0002-7093-4840 María Jesús Rodríguez-Gulías² | [email protected] | ORCID: 0000-0001-8390-474X David Rodeiro-Pazos² | [email protected] | ORCID: 0000-0002-5272-2676 Raul Rios-Rodríguez*3 | [email protected] | ORCID: 0000-0003-2614-1875 *Corresponding author ¹Instituto Politécnico de Gestão e Tecnologia, Escola Superior de Gestão, Vila Nova de Gaia, Portugal ²Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, Departamento de Economia Financeira e Contabilidade, Santiago de Compostela, Galiza, Spain ³Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, Departamento de Economia Aplicada, Santiago de Compostela, Galiza, Spain ABSTRACT The role of science and technology parks (STPs) in economic development, and in particular in the growth of the firms, has received considerable attention from government policies in different countries. However, there is no consensus in the literature on whether the location in these parks has positive effects on firms’ sales growth. This paper aims to extend the discussion on the effects of STPs by providing new empirical evidence. With this purpose, we use a sample of 553 Portuguese companies located in these infrastructures and a control sample of the same size. We use the Propensity Score Matching Procedure to match the samples and the analysis is carried out by the Generalized Method of Moments in dynamic panel data. The empirical analysis does not prove any statistically significant effect of the location of the firms in science and technology parks on their growth in sales. Keywords: science and technology parks, sales growth, regional development, location effects, Propensity Score Matching. RESUMO O papel dos parques de ciência e tecnologia (PCT) no desenvolvimento econômico, especialmente no crescimento de empresas, tem merecido particular atenção por parte das políticas públicas dos diferentes países. Porém, na literatura não existe consenso sobre se a localização nesses parques tem efeitos positivos no crescimento em vendas das empresas. O objetivo deste artigo é alargar a discussão acerca dos efeitos dos PCT, proporcionando novas evidências empíricas. Para isso, utilizamos uma amostra de 553 firmas portuguesas localizadas nessas infraestruturas e uma amostra de controle de idêntica dimensão. O método de emparelhamento utilizado é o Propensity Score Matching (PSM), e a análise é efetuada com recurso ao método generalizado dos momentos em dados em painel dinâmico. A análise empírica não permite provar qualquer efeito estatisticamente significativo da localização das firmas em PCT sobre o seu crescimento em vendas. Palavras-chave: parques de ciência e tecnologia, crescimento das vendas, desenvolvimento regional, efeitos da localização, Propensity Score Matching. RESUMEN El papel de los parques científico-tecnológicos (PCT) en el desarrollo económico y, en particular, en el crecimiento de las empresas ha merecido especial atención por parte de las políticas públicas de los diferentes países. Sin embargo, en la literatura no existe consenso sobre si la ubicación en estos parques tiene efectos positivos sobre el crecimiento en ventas de las empresas. El objetivo de este artículo es ampliar la discusión sobre los efectos de los PCT, proporcionando nuevas evidencias empíricas. Para ello, utilizamos una muestra de 553 firmas portuguesas ubicadas en estas infraestructuras y una muestra de control de idéntica dimensión. El método de emparejamiento utilizado fue el Propensity Score Matching y el análisis se realizó a través del método generalizado de los momentos en datos de panel dinámicos. El análisis empírico no permitió probar ningún efecto estadísticamente significativo de la ubicación de las firmas en PCT sobre su crecimiento en ventas. Palabras clave: parques científico-tecnológicos, crecimiento de las ventas, desarrollo regional, efectos de la ubicación, Propensity Score Matching. ARTICLES | The role of science and technology parks in the growth of sales of portuguese firms Júlio Paulo da Silva Martins | María Jesús Rodríguez-Gulías | David Rodeiro-Pazos | Raul Rios-Rodríguez 2 FGV EAESP | RAE | São Paulo | V. 63 (6) | 2023 | 1-21 | e2023-0017 eISSN 2178-938X INTRODUCTION The topic of Science and Technology Parks (STP) has shown a growing interest, materialized by the number of such infrastructures in different countries. The first STPs were born in the second half of the twentieth century, but it is in the twenty-first century that these infrastructures proliferate significantly (International Association of Science Parks [IASP], 2016; Lecluyse et al., 2019). In 2013, the European Commission (EC) estimated that the number of STPs located in Member States amounted to about 365 parks, hosting more than 40,000 firms and employing more than 750,000 people (European Commission, 2013). In Brazil, there are currently 93 STPs initiatives, with 58 of them already in the operational phase (Ministério da Ciência, Tecnologia e Inovações, 2021). One of the main objectives of STPs, which justifies the public support they receive, is to enhance the performance of the companies located in them, thus acting as catalysts for regional development. However, and despite the increase of STPs, the scientific literature about these infrastructures is still in an expansion phase (Albahari et al., 2022; Hobbs et al., 2017; Lecluyse et al., 2019). Among the existing studies, those that analyse the effects of STPs on firms located there are still scarce. Moreover, the results of these studies are heterogeneous, and it is not clear whether there is an effective positive relationship between the location of firms in these infrastructures and their performance (Albahari et al., 2022; Hobbs et al., 2017; Lecluyse et al., 2019). In their comprehensive literature review on STPs, Albahari et al. (2022) highlight the different sample sizes considered in the different studies as the main factor explaining the mentioned divergence of results: those researches with smaller samples tend not to find significant effects of STPs on firms. The statistical significance depends on the ratio between the estimated coefficient and the estimated standard deviation for this coefficient, which leads to small samples underestimating the effect of the independent variable (STP location) on the dependent variable (performance). The aim of this paper is to investigate the existence of potential effects of STPs on the economic performance of the companies located there. The analysis focuses on growth, one of the most common indicators to assess business performance (Brush & Vanderwerf, 1992), and, in particular, on growth in sales, as it reflects the evolution of the firm's capacity to have its business accepted by the market (Spithoven & Knockaert, 2011). Taking into consideration the recommendation of Albahari et al. (2022), we used a sample of 553 firms located in STPs and a control sample of identical size, thus avoiding underestimating the effect of parks on firms' growth. In the 38 studies identified by Albahari et al. (2022), only 20% of the analyses use samples of more than 500 firms. Another shortcoming identified in some of the existing literature is bias in the selection of control samples (Albahari et al., 2022). The management of STPs decides whether to admit a firm on the basis of its viability and business growth potential, so it may be assumed that firms located in STPs have already had better conditions than other firms even before locating in the ARTICLES | The role of science and technology parks in the growth of sales of portuguese firms Júlio Paulo da Silva Martins | María Jesús Rodríguez-Gulías | David Rodeiro-Pazos | Raul Rios-Rodríguez 3 FGV EAESP | RAE | São Paulo | V. 63 (6) | 2023 | 1-21 | e2023-0017 eISSN 2178-938X STPs. To avoid the risk of bias, the control sample used in this research was constructed using Propensity Score Matching (PSM) to control for firms' characteristics. A control sample with the most similar characteristics possible to the sample of firms located in STPs was thus obtained. Thus, this paper not only aims to reach empirical results in a scope still little explored in the literature on STPs, but also aims to overcome problems identified in previous literature, using a large sample and reducing to a minimum the risk of bias through PSM. The research takes Portugal as a case study. In that country, the STPs are born from 1991 on, but, similarly to what happens internationally, it is in the first decade of the 21st century that more parks are created, representing about 57.6% of the total number of parks between 1991 and 2015 (this calculation is the authors' own elaboration, resulting from the direct taking of information about the year of birth of each STP). According to the existing evidence (Albahari et al., 2022), there is no relationship between the type of STPs effects observed and the countries taken as case studies, so the results obtained from Portugal (or any other country) should be interpreted as extrapolable to other contexts. The paper is structured as follows: firstly, the literature review is carried out and the research hypothesis is presented; secondly, the methodology followed is explained, including the application of the PSM, the definition of the variables and the specification of the model; thirdly, the results are presented; fourthly, the empirical results are discussed; and, finally, the final part presents the conclusions, limitations and suggestions for future research. LITERATURE REVIEW AND RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS According to the CE (2013), STPs aim to take on six functions: i) promotion of innovation and customer competitiveness, ii) provision of specific spaces and other services, providing local and regional economic development, iii) knowledge-based work, iv) technological start-up activity, v) investment in knowledge-based businesses, and vi) cluster development. Theoretically, the location of firms in STPs may facilitate the introduction of resources that result into growth potential, not achieved by firms elsewhere. The resources would leverage economies of growth (Penrose, 1959), that is, economies available at firm level that allow profitable expansion/growth. Incidentally, one of the motivations related to the creation of STPs is associated with the growth and development of economic activity (EC, 2013), so sales growth is assumed as one of the most relevant variables of the expected outcome associated with the location of firms in these infrastructures (Ferguson & Olofsson, 2004; Lamperti et al., 2017; Liberati et al., 2016; Löfsten & Lindelöf, 2001, 2002; Monck et al., 1988). This contribution with local and regional economic development is what would justify the political support that, in the form of public funding, a significant number of STPs receive (Colombo & Delmastro, 2002; Ferguson & Olofsson, 2004; Stokan et al., 2015). However, the literature on STPs is still expanding (Albahari et al., 2022; Hobbs et al., 2017; Lecluyse et al., 2019), and it is not clear the contribution of parks to the performance of the firms located there or, by extension, to the development of the regions in which they are ARTICLES | The role of science and technology parks in the growth of sales of portuguese firms Júlio Paulo da Silva Martins | María Jesús Rodríguez-Gulías | David Rodeiro-Pazos | Raul Rios-Rodríguez 4 FGV EAESP | RAE | São Paulo | V. 63 (6) | 2023 | 1-21 | e2023-0017 eISSN 2178-938X based. The topics analysed and the objectives of existing works are diverse, including: projects to create new STPs (Cricelli et al., 1997; Fikirkoca & Saritas, 2012), frameworks for assessing the performance of existing STPs (Hobbs et al., 2020; Meseguer-Martinez et al., 2021; Ribeiro et al., 2021), studies on the evolution trends and outcomes of concrete STPs or groups of STPs (Howard & Link, 2019; Kim & Jung, 2010; Yan et al., 2020), good practices and decisive factors for success (Berbegal-Mirabent et al., 2020; Correia et al., 2021) , or the role of STPs in the regional or national economy (Albahari et al., 2019; Silva et al., 2020). In particular, there are some studies on the effects of STPs on firms located there, focusing on three dimensions: innovation performance (e.g.: Corrocher et al., 2019; Xue & Zhao, 2023), patterns of cooperation between firms (e.g.: Chan et al., 2010; Vásquez-Urriago et al., 2016) and economic performance. The most usual indicators of economic performance are profitability, productivity, employment growth and sales growth (Albahari et al., 2022). As already mentioned, there is little research on the effect of STPs location on the growth of companies' sales. In fact, the few existing studies reach divergent results. The first relevant work on STPs is presented by Monck et al. (1988), which, despite not analysing sales growth, shows that firms that have been located in STPs for 10 years or more record a significantly higher turnover compared to firms not located in these parks. More recently, some works have found a positive effect of STPs on sales growth. In this regard, Löfsten and Lindelöf, in four studies, found that firms located in STPs recorded significantly higher growth rates in sales than firms located outside the parks (Lindelöf & Löfsten, 2002; Löfsten & Lindelöf, 2001, 2002, 2003). The results were further confirmed by Liberati et al. (2016) and by Díez-Vial and Fernández-Olmos (2017a). Other studies, however, come to the opposite conclusion. In this sense, Westhead and Storey (1994), Ferguson and Olofsson (2004) and, more recently, Lamperti et al. (2017) and Díez-Vial and Fernández-Olmos (2017b) find no statistically significant evidence confirming that firms located in STPs record higher sales growth than those located outside parks. In fact, Arauzo-Carod et al. (2018) find a negative average effect of STPs on sales growth for firms located there, although parks are more beneficial for high-growth firms. Methodologically, part of the referred studies rely on mean comparison analyses (Ferguson & Olofsson, 2004; Lindelöf & Löfsten, 2002; Monck et al., 1988; Westhead & Storey, 1994), while others carry out different types of regression analyses (Arauzo-Carod et al., 2018; DíezVial & Fernández-Olmos, 2017a, 2017b; Lamperti et al., 2017; Löfsten & Lindelöf, 2001, 2002, 2003) to control for individual firm characteristics and avoid potential endogeneity problems. Albahari et al. (2022) recently conducted an extensive review of the literature on STPs, in which they explore the causes of the heterogeneity of results obtained by studies about the effects of parks on company performance. They found that those researches that analyse small sample sizes are less likely to find statistically significant effects of STPs location on firm performance. The explanation is that, since statistical significance depends on the relationship between the estimated coefficient and the estimated standard deviation for that coefficient, samples composed of few companies might underestimate the effect of the independent variable (STP) on the dependent variable (performance). Additionally, Albahari et al. (2022) also draw attention ARTICLES | The role of science and technology parks in the growth of sales of portuguese firms Júlio Paulo da Silva Martins | María Jesús Rodríguez-Gulías | David Rodeiro-Pazos | Raul Rios-Rodríguez 5 FGV EAESP | RAE | São Paulo | V. 63 (6) | 2023 | 1-21 | e2023-0017 eISSN 2178-938X to the risk of bias in the selection of control samples (firms outside STPs). Theoretically, the firms that are admitted to STPs already start from good conditions in terms of growth potential and business viability, so one could expect greater growth from them than from firms located outside the STPs. The aim of this paper is to provide new empirical evidence to broaden the current discussion about the effects of STPs on firm performance and, specifically on sales growth, a topic for which the few existing studies have obtained divergent results. In doing so, we try to overcome the issues identified in the literature review that could be the source of the current lack of consensus on the existence, or non-existence, of effects. To do so, we used a large sample of 553 firms located in STPs, thus avoiding a potential underestimation of park effects. In this sense, it should be noted that, in the 38 papers identified by Albahari et al. (2022) on the effects of STPs on firm performance, only 20% of the analyses use samples of more than 500 firms. On the other hand, the PSM method is used for sample matching, and the analysis is carried out using the generalised method of moments in dynamic panel data. This allows for especially robust empirical results, given that problems of bias are avoided when constructing the control sample, and individual characteristics of firms that may influence growth are controlled for. Taking as a reference the literature reviewed, the following research hypothesis is formulated: H1: The location of Portuguese firms in STPs positively influences their sales growth. METHODS Sample construction For the construction of the sample, in a first phase, the existing STPs in Portugal were identified through the register of the Portuguese Association of Science and Technology Parks (TecParques). Twenty-six STPs were identified. To identify the companies located in the STPs we use the Iberian Balance-Sheet Analysis System (SABI for its acronym in Portuguese) database to perform a search based on the zip codes of the identified parks' locations and taking 2002-2014 as study period. This database of Bureau Van Dijk (BVD) and Informa contains general information and annual accounts for thousands of Portuguese companies. The selection of 2002-2014 as the study period responds to two criteria. Firstly, it is a period of expansion of the STPs in Portugal and of the number of companies located there, which allows guaranteeing that the sample has a high number of observations and, therefore, the statistical significance results are robust (Albahari et al., 2022). Second, it is a period that comprises an economic expansion phase (2002-2007) and a recession phase (2008-2014), avoiding the bias that would result from considering only a single phase of the economic cycle (Díez-Vial & Fernández-Olmos, 2017b). ARTICLES | The role of science and technology parks in the growth of sales of portuguese firms Júlio Paulo da Silva Martins | María Jesús Rodríguez-Gulías | David Rodeiro-Pazos | Raul Rios-Rodríguez 6 FGV EAESP | RAE | São Paulo | V. 63 (6) | 2023 | 1-21 | e2023-0017 eISSN 2178-938X In order to include in the sample only companies incorporated under one of the corporate forms foreseen in the Commercial Companies Code; non-corporate entities (such as associations and cooperatives), firms whose corporate purpose does not have a commercial or industrial nature, as is the case of Holding Companies, and branches of foreign firms were excluded. Likewise, only companies with a start-up equal or posterior to 1991, the year the first STPs was created, were considered. Finally, those companies with economic activity code (CAE, for its Portuguese acronym) of food supply and similar were excluded, as they are only located in the STPs to offer food and beverage services to the companies in the park. After this process, the final sample of firms located in STPs consisted of 591 entities. In a second phase, a control sample was created consisting of firms not located in STPs, with similar characteristics to the firms located in STPs. Companies that met the following criteria were selected in SABI: having a economic activity code (CAE) equal to at least one of the companies in the sample of firms located in STPs, having a date of incorporation equal to or greater than 1991, being located in at least one of the regions where the firms in STPs are located, and not being any of the firms that integrate the sample of firms located in STPs. For the construction of the control sample, non-corporate entities, such as associations and cooperatives, as well as holding companies and branches of foreign firms, were also excluded. In order to guarantee the quality of the data of the companies of the control sample, the following restrictions were additionally placed on the observations to be included in the sample: existence of profits on sales in the period of analysis, presenting an asset value greater than zero and presenting a positive value of equity. In this way, it is ensured that all companies analysed have effective activity during the period of analysis. By applying the conditions and restrictions presented, a control sample with an initial size of 137,915 firms not located in STPs was obtained. Propensity Score Matching a sampling method To matching the sample of companies located in STPs and the control sample, we use the PSM, proposed by Rosenbaum and Rubin (1983) as a statistical method to study the causality effects related to a specific treatment, in order to minimize the evaluation bias of these effects from a set of observable data. To the best of our knowledge, there are no previous works in the literature on STPs that apply the PSM, besides the work developed by Stokan et al. (2015), which apply the methodology to the study of the differential effect on the growth of companies that were in incubators, before the others. PSM had its origin in the statistical literature and shows a close connection with the experimental context. In fact, these methods have been widely used in clinical trials and in the evaluation of economic policy interventions (Becker & Ichino, 2002). As Caliendo and Kopeinig (2008) mention, in this type of study the first problem that arises relates to the fact that we intend to know the difference between the outcome of a group with and without treatment; in ARTICLES | The role of science and technology parks in the growth of sales of portuguese firms Júlio Paulo da Silva Martins | María Jesús Rodríguez-Gulías | David Rodeiro-Pazos | Raul Rios-Rodríguez 7 FGV EAESP | RAE | São Paulo | V. 63 (6) | 2023 | 1-21 | e2023-0017 eISSN 2178-938X the case of this study, companies located in STPs and not located in STPs. The impossibility of observing at the same time the business results of the same group of firms in both situations (with and without treatment) leads to the need to find a comparable group that allows us to evaluate the impact of the treatment variable, i.e. the impact of the STP location. The choice of the comparable group integrates a selection bias, but the use of PSM allows reducing this bias to a minimum by matching observations with and without treatment that are as similar as possible (Caliendo & Kopeinig, 2008; Dehejia & Wahba, 2002). Following Caliendo and Kopeinig (2008), the PSM was developed in four steps: i) evaluation of the propensity score (PS), ii) choice of the matching algorithm, iii) verification of the common support region, and iv) evaluation of the matching quality. To estimate the PS of each firm located in STPs and those that are eligible to be part of the control sample (i.e. the 137,915 firms that meet the criteria defined in the process presented above) - step (i) - a binary model was chosen (in which the explained or dependent variable is a dummy variable), considering that what is under analysis is the probability of the firm being located in a STP or not. Given that it is not expected that there are significant differences in the binary models applied (Caliendo & Kopeinig, 2008) , it was decided to apply logistic regression (Logit model). The independent variables chosen to integrate the PSM are the variables used by other authors who, despite not using this method for the pairing, used other methods to do the sample matching (Lamperti et al., 2017; Liberati et al., 2016; Löfsten & Lindelöf, 2001, 2002). Thus, first, we use the variable Age, of discrete quantitative type, calculated in the reference year 2015 and taking the value 1 for all firms born in 2014, the value 2 for firms born in 2013, and so on. Second, the Sector variable, of nominal qualitative type, corresponds to the sector of economic activity (CAE Rev. 3) at two digits in which the firm is registered. Finally, the variable Region, of nominal qualitative type, corresponds to the region where the firm is located. The logistic regression model applied is the following: P (parki = 1) = P (Agei, Sector, Regioni). Based on the estimated PS, each firm located on STPs is matched with a firm from the control sample, by applying the Nearest Neighbour (NN) method - step (ii). The algorithm was applied without replacement, so as to guarantee the matching of the control group with a single firm located in PCT. For this purpose, it was ensured that the order of the data was random, given that the calculations depend on the order of the data (Caliendo & Kopeinig, 2008). To reduce, as far as possible, the realization of inadequate pairings related to possible high distances between the PS, a maximum distance between PS, also called calliper, of 0.000005 was established. The attribution of this calliper resulted from a balance between the number of pairings and their quality, given that the smaller the calliper, the fewer the number of companies that could be matched between the two sub-samples. The use of this calliper also allows for a significant reduction in any problems related to compliance with the condition of existence of a common support region. The verification of the common support region - step (iii) - is carried out from the graphic analysis of the matching procedure carried out. Figure 1 shows the graphs with the distribution ARTICLES | The role of science and technology parks in the growth of sales of portuguese firms Júlio Paulo da Silva Martins | María Jesús Rodríguez-Gulías | David Rodeiro-Pazos | Raul Rios-Rodríguez 8 FGV EAESP | RAE | São Paulo | V. 63 (6) | 2023 | 1-21 | e2023-0017 eISSN 2178-938X of PS before and after the matching process, verifying an overlapping of the distributions of the firms included in the sample in STPs and the firms of the control sample. The overlapping reflects the high quality of the matching through the PSM. Figure 1. Distribution of Propensity Scores before (above) and after (below) the matching process Source: Elaborated by authors. Subsequently, the common support region was established, comparing the minimum and maximum PS. The condition of existence of a common support region resulted in the elimination of 38 companies located in STPs for which the model did not find support, decreasing the number of companies located in STPs in the sample from 591 to 553. To assess the quality of the matching - step (iv) -, we tested whether the sample of firms located in STPs and the control sample were significantly different in the mean values of the variables before and after the matching process. The absence of statistically significant differences between the samples for most variables demonstrates that the PSM allowed reducing or eliminating the differences existing before the matching. Taking into account the results displayed, we conclude that the matching process used is appropriate, fulfilling the conditions of its application: i) conditional independence for the covariates used in the regression model to calculate the PS, and ii) existence of a common support region for the two sub-samples, as shown by the two graphs presented before and after the application of the matching process using PSM. Variable definition One of the components analysed and commonly used in the literature to assess corporate results is growth (Brush & Vanderwerf, 1992). This variable is measured in different ways in the literature (Delmar et al., 2003), sales is one of the most frequently employed, given the fact that it simultaneously reflects the short and long term changes of firms and that it can be easily obtained (Zhou & Wit, 2009). ARTICLES | The role of science and technology parks in the growth of sales of portuguese firms Júlio Paulo da Silva Martins | María Jesús Rodríguez-Gulías | David Rodeiro-Pazos | Raul Rios-Rodríguez 9 FGV EAESP | RAE | São Paulo | V. 63 (6) | 2023 | 1-21 | e2023-0017 eISSN 2178-938X Sales are considered the preferred measurement for analysing the growth of companies (Delmar et al., 2003) because, in addition to the ease of access, it applies to firms regardless of the sector of activity, the degree of integration and the degree of fixed capital intensity. It is an indicator that reflects business autonomy and market acceptance of the business (Spithoven & Knockaert, 2011). Moreover, in instrumental terms, growth in sales as an outcome variable has two relevant advantages (Ferguson & Olofsson, 2004): i) the reliability associated with the objectivity of its measurement, and ii) the comparability that it provides, per se, for different studies. In a similar way to the work of Colombo and Delmastro (2002), Lamperti et al. (2017) and Liberati et al. (2016), the variable is measured by the natural logarithm of sales. The notation used follows that presented by Amezcua (2010) for incubated entities, according to which the dependent variable GROWTH is constructed as the natural logarithm of the difference in the SIZE of the firm: (1) Considering the equation above, the growth of sales (GSALES) of firm i corresponds to the difference between the natural logarithms of its net sales and services rendered at time t and its net sales and services rendered at time t-1, which is equivalent to the natural logarithm of the growth rate of net sales and services rendered. The main explanatory variable that will allow us to empirically evaluate the hypothesis presented (H1) is the dichotomous variable PARK, which indicates the location of the firm taking the value of 1 if it is located in a STP, and the value 0 otherwise. Considering the literature related to the study of STPs, sales growth can be explained by different variables related to business characteristics, among which are age (Lamperti et al., 2017; Löfsten & Lindelöf, 2002), sector of economic activity (Liberati et al., 2016; Löfsten & Lindelöf, 2001, 2002), and size (Lamperti et al., 2017). Löfsten and Lindelöf (2002) and Lamperti et al. (2017) argue for a negative relationship between age and sales growth, justified with the fact that younger firms have higher growth rates. The inverse relationship is confirmed by the works of Zhou and Wit (2009) in studying the determinants and dimensions of firm growth in the field of industrial economics. However, the relationship is not linear over the life of firms, considering the weight of newness as stated by Bøllingtoft and Ulhøi (2005), as well as the weight of adolescence or the weight of senescence and obsolescence (Hannan, 1998). Thus, a positive relationship is expected between the natural logarithm of the firm's age (in years) and sales growth; and a negative relationship between the natural logarithm of the firm's age squared and sales growth. Regarding the economic sector of activity, Monck et al. (1988) classify firms belonging to high-technology sectors compared to the others and conclude that those firms have substantially ARTICLES | The role of science and technology parks in the growth of sales of portuguese firms Júlio Paulo da Silva Martins | María Jesús Rodríguez-Gulías | David Rodeiro-Pazos | Raul Rios-Rodríguez 16 FGV EAESP | RAE | São Paulo | V. 63 (6) | 2023 | 1-21 | e2023-0017 eISSN 2178-938X Considering the global sample, constituted by all firms (located inside and outside STPs), we concluded that there is no statistical evidence supporting a positive relationship between location in STPs and growth. This conclusion, drawn from the results of the estimation applying the generalised method of moments, is valid for sales growth, measured by the natural logarithm of net turnover. The conclusion is ratified, when the lag of one period for sales growth is presented, verifying that this lag incorporated in the model does not affect in a statistically significant manner the results obtained. In conclusion, the evidence shows that firms do not register significantly higher growth simply because they are located in STPs. Some studies have suggested that, although STPs do not have positive effects on firms located there in general, they could have positive effects for certain types of firms, for example, those in a high-growth phase (Arauzo-Carod et al., 2018). Similarly, the existence of effects could also depend on the characteristics of each STP, for example, the type of agents involved or the services offered (Woolley & MacGregor, 2022). These explanations are consistent with the results obtained in this study. The absence of statistical evidence confirming positive effects of STPs on firm performance raises the question of the role of STPs and the effective results associated with the strong investment that governments directly or indirectly make in these infrastructures. Considering that STPs are seen as instruments for local and regional economic development, the results of a significant part of empirical studies continue to show that there is no statistical significance between the location of firms in STPs and their growth. It is necessary to further explore the effects of STPs according to the characteristics of the park and the types of firms, identifying those more likely to obtain beneficial results from locating in parks. This would allow public managers to be more restrictive in the selection of parks and firms that are supported, better targeting efforts and thus achieving greater impact on regional development. Limitations and future research The main task for future research concerning the effects of STPs on firm growth is to explore the causes of the absence of significant effects of locating in parks. In this sense, the statistical evidence of this study does not prove that there are positive effects in general; but there may be certain types of firms that benefit from locating in parks. However, little is known about the characteristics that would make a company likely to obtain such benefits, which makes necessary to further investigate this topic. Moreover, it should be noted that the data available in SABI on the different variables for each of the companies limited the size of the sample, and it is not possible to ensure that all the data collected is free from the distortions inherent in a database such as SABI. Nevertheless, considering the number of observations per variable, which results from the product of the number of years analysed by the number of companies, it is assumed that any distortion has no relevant effect on the analysis carried out. ARTICLES | The role of science and technology parks in the growth of sales of portuguese firms Júlio Paulo da Silva Martins | María Jesús Rodríguez-Gulías | David Rodeiro-Pazos | Raul Rios-Rodríguez 17 FGV EAESP | RAE | São Paulo | V. 63 (6) | 2023 | 1-21 | e2023-0017 eISSN 2178-938X REFERENCES Albahari, A., Barge-Gil, A., Pérez-Canto, S., & Landoni, P. (2022). The effect of science and technology parks on tenant firms: A literature review. The Journal of Technology Transfer, Online first, 1-43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10961-022-09949-7 Albahari, A., Klofsten, M., & Rubio-Romero, J. C. (2019). Science and technology parks: A study of value creation for park tenants. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 44, 1256-1272. http://dx.doi. org/10.1007/s10961-018-9661-9 Amezcua, A. S. (2010). Boon or boondoggle? Business incubation as entrepreneurship policy. Syracuse University. Amirahmadi, H., & Saff, G. (1993). Science parks: A critical assessment. Journal of Planning Literature, 8(2), 107-123. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/088541229300800201 Arauzo-Carod, J.-M., Segarra-Blasco, A., & Teruel, M. (2018). The role of science and technology parks as firm growth boosters: An empirical analysis in Catalonia. Regional Studies, 52(5), 645-658.: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2018.1447098 Arellano, M., & Bond, S. (1991). Some tests of specification for panel data: Monte Carlo evidence and an application to employment equations. The Review of Economics Studies, 58(2), 277-297. http:// dx.doi.org/10.2307/2297968 Becker, S. O., & Ichino, A. (2002). Estimation of average treatment effects based on propensity scores. The Stata Journal, 2(4), 358-377. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1536867X0200200403 Berbegal-Mirabent, J., Alegre, I., & Guerrero, A. (2020). Mission statements and performance: An exploratory study of science parks. Long Range Planning, 53(5), 101932. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. lrp.2019.101932 Bøllingtoft, A., & Ulhøi, J. P. (2005). The networked business incubator: Leveraging entrepreneurial agency? Journal of Business Venturing, 20(2), 265-290. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2003.12.005 Brush, C. G., & Vanderwerf, P. A. (1992). A comparison of methods and sources for obtaining estimates of new venture performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 7(2), 157-170. http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/0883-9026(92)90010-O Caliendo, M., & Kopeinig, S. (2008). Some practical guidance for the implementation of propensity score matching. Journal of Economic Surveys, 22(1), 31-72. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.14676419.2007.00527.x Chan, K.-Y. A., Oerlemans, L. A. G., & Pretorius, M. W. (2010). Knowledge exchange behaviours of science park firms: The innovation hub case. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 22(2), 207-228. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09537320903498546 Colombo, M. G., & Delmastro, M. (2002). How effective are technology incubators? Evidence from Italy. Research Policy, 31(7), 1103-1122. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(01)00178-0 Correia, A. M. M., Veiga, C. P. da, Senff, C. O., & Duclós, L. C. (2021). Analysis of the maturity level of business processes for science and technology parks. SAGE Open, 11(3), 1-15. http://dx.doi. org/10.1177/2158244021103730 ARTICLES | The role of science and technology parks in the growth of sales of portuguese firms Júlio Paulo da Silva Martins | María Jesús Rodríguez-Gulías | David Rodeiro-Pazos | Raul Rios-Rodríguez 18 FGV EAESP | RAE | São Paulo | V. 63 (6) | 2023 | 1-21 | e2023-0017 eISSN 2178-938X Corrocher, N., Lamperti, F., & Mavilia, R. (2019). Do science parks sustain or trigger innovation? Empirical evidence from Italy. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 147, 140-151. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.07.005 Cricelli, L., Gastaldi, M., & Levialdi, N. (1997). A system of science and technology parks for the Rome area. International Journal of Technology Management, 13(2), 140-152. http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/ IJTM.1997.001653 Dehejia, R. H., & Wahba, S. (2002). Propensity score-matching methods for nonexperimental causal studies. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 84(1), 151-161. http://dx.doi. org/10.1162/003465302317331982 Delmar, F., Davidsson, P., & Gartner, W. B. (2003). Arriving at the high-growth firm. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(2), 189-216. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0883-9026(02)00080-0 Díez-Vial, I., & Fernández-Olmos, M. (2017a). The effect of science and technology parks on a firm’s performance: A dynamic approach over time. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 27(3), 413-434. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00191-016-0481-5 Díez-Vial, I., & Fernández-Olmos, M. (2017b). The effect of science and technology parks on firms’ performance: How can firms benefit most under economic downturns? Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 29(10), 1153-1166. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2016.1274390 European Commission. (2013). Setting up, managing and evaluating EU science and technology parks: An advice and guidance report on good practice. Publications Office of the European Union. https:// ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/studies/pdf/stp_report_en.pdf Eurostat. (2020). Annex 3: High-tech aggregation by NACE Rev.2. Eurostat indicators on high-tech industry and knowledge: Intensive services. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/cache/metadata/Annexes/ htec_esms_an3.pdf Ferguson, R., & Olofsson, C. (2004). Science parks and the development of NTBFs: Location, survival and growth. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 29, 5-17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/ B:JOTT.0000011178.44095.cd Fikirkoca, A., & Saritas, O. (2012). Foresight for science parks: The case of Ankara University. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 24(10), 1071-1085. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2012.72 3688 Hallin, D. C. (1987). The relationship between firm size and firm growth in the US manufacturing sector. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 35(4), 583-606. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2098589 Hannan, M. T. (1998). Rethinking age dependence in organizational mortality: Logical formalizations. American Journal of Sociology, 104(1), 126-164. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/210004 Hansen, J. A. (1998). Innovation, firm size, and firm age. Small Business Economics, 4(1), 37-44. doi? Hobbs, K. G., Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2017). Science and technology parks: An annotated and analytical literature review. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 42, 957-976. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ s10961-016-9522-3 ARTICLES | The role of science and technology parks in the growth of sales of portuguese firms Júlio Paulo da Silva Martins | María Jesús Rodríguez-Gulías | David Rodeiro-Pazos | Raul Rios-Rodríguez 19 FGV EAESP | RAE | São Paulo | V. 63 (6) | 2023 | 1-21 | e2023-0017 eISSN 2178-938X Hobbs, K. G., Link, A. N., & Shelton, T. L. (2020). The regional economic impacts of university research and science parks. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 11, 42-56. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ s13132-018-0566-5 Howard, E. S., & Link, A. N. (2019). An oasis of knowledge: The early history of Gateway University Research Park. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 10, 1037-1063. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13132017-0513-x Instituto Nacional de Estatística. (2012, maio 12). Sociedades em setores de alta e média-alta tecnologia: Qual a sua importância relativa? Instituto Nacional de Estatística—Statistics Portugal. https://www.ine.pt/xportal/xmain?xpid=INE&xpgid=ine_destaques&DESTAQUESdest_ boui=216873952&DESTAQUESmodo=2 International Association of Science Parks. (2016). IASP General Survey: Science and technology parks and areas of innovation throughout the world. International Association of Science Parks and Areas of Innovation. Kim, H.-Y., & Jung, C. M. (2010). Does a technology incubator work in the regional economy? Evidence from South Korea. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 136(3), 273-284. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)UP.1943-5444.0000019 Lamperti, F., Mavilia, R., & Castellini, S. (2017). The role of science parks: A puzzle of growth, innovation and R&D investments. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 42, 158-183. http://dx.doi. org/10.1007/s10961-015-9455-2 Lecluyse, L., Knockaert, M., & Spithoven, A. (2019). The contribution of science parks: A literature review and future research agenda. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 44(2), 559-595. http://dx.doi. org/10.1007/s10961-018-09712-x Liberati, D., Marinucci, M., & Tanzi, G. M. (2016). Science and technology parks in Italy: Main features and analysis of their effects on the firms hosted. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 41, 694729. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10961-015-9397-8 Lindelöf, P., & Löfsten, H. (2002). Growth, management and financing of new technology-based firms: Assessing value-added contributions of firms located on and off science parks. Omega, 30(3), 143-154. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0305-0483(02)00023-3 Löfsten, H., & Lindelöf, P. (2001). Science parks in Sweden: Industrial renewal and development? R&D Management, 31(3), 309-322. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9310.00219 Löfsten, H., & Lindelöf, P. (2002). Science parks and the growth of new technology-based firms: Academic-industry links, innovation and markets. Research Policy, 31(6), 859-876. http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/S0048-7333(01)00153-6 Löfsten, H., & Lindelöf, P. (2003). Determinants for an entrepreneurial milieu: Science parks and business policy in growing firms. Technovation, 23(1), 51-64. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S01664972(01)00086-4 Meseguer-Martinez, A., Popa, S., & Soto-Acosta, P. (2021). The instrumentation of science parks: An integrative framework of enabling factors. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 22(1), 24-56. http://dx.doi. org/10.1108/JIC-11-2019-0264 ARTICLES | The role of science and technology parks in the growth of sales of portuguese firms Júlio Paulo da Silva Martins | María Jesús Rodríguez-Gulías | David Rodeiro-Pazos | Raul Rios-Rodríguez 20 FGV EAESP | RAE | São Paulo | V. 63 (6) | 2023 | 1-21 | e2023-0017 eISSN 2178-938X Ministério da Ciência, Tecnologia e Inovações. (2021). Parques tecnológicos do Brasil. https://anprotec. org.br/site/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/ParquesTecnologicosBrasil-2021-Final-vr.pdf Monck, C. S. P., Porter, R. B., Quintas, P. R., Storey, D. J., & Wynarczyk, P. (1988). Science parks and the growth of high technology firms. Croom Helm. Penrose, E. (1959). The theory of the growth of the firm (4th ed.). Oxford University Press. Ribeiro, J. de A., Ladeira, M. B., Faria, A. F. de, & Barbosa, M. W. (2021). A reference model for science and technology parks strategic performance management: An emerging economy perspective. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 59, 101612. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. jengtecman.2021.101612 Roodman, D. (2009). How to do xtabond2: An introduction to difference and system GMM in Stata. The Stata Journal, 9(1), 86-136. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1536867X0900900106 Rosenbaum, P. R., & Rubin, D. B. (1983). The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrics, 70(1), 41-55. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2335942 Silva, S. E., Venâncio, A., Silva, J. R., & Gonçalves, C. A. (2020). Open innovation in science parks: The role of public policies. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 151, 119844. http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.119844 Spithoven, A., & Knockaert, M. (2011). The role of business centres in firms’ networking capabilities and performance. Science and Public Policy, 38(7), 569-580. http://dx.doi.org/10.3152/03023421 1X13070021633125 Stokan, E., Thompson, L., & Mahu, R. J. (2015). Testing the differential effect of business incubators on firm growth. Economic Development Quarterly, 29(4), 317-327. http://dx.doi. org/10.1177/0891242415597065 Vásquez-Urriago, Á. R., Barge-Gil, A., & Modrego-Rico, A. (2016). Science and technology parks and cooperation for innovation: Empirical evidence from Spain. Research Policy, 45(1), 137-147. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2015.07.006 Westhead, P., & Storey, D. J. (1994). An assessment of firms located on and off science parks in the United Kingdom. HMSO. Woolley, J. L., & MacGregor. (2022). The influence of incubator and accelerator participation on nanotechnology venture success. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 46(6), 1717-1755. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1177/10422587211024510 Xue, C., & Zhao, Y. (2023). Peer effects in R&D investments: Evidence from China’s science and technology parks programs. Applied Economics Letters, 30(1), 43-50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1350 4851.2021.1971616 Yan, M.-R., Yan, H., Zhan, L., Yan, X., & Xu, M. (2020). Evaluation of technological innovations and the industrial ecosystem of science parks in Shanghai: An empirical study. Science, Technology and Society, 25(3), 482-504. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0971721820912906 Zhou, H., & Wit, G. de. (2009). Determinants and dimensions of firm growth. Scales EIM Research Reports (H200903). http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1443897 ARTICLES | The role of science and technology parks in the growth of sales of portuguese firms Júlio Paulo da Silva Martins | María Jesús Rodríguez-Gulías | David Rodeiro-Pazos | Raul Rios-Rodríguez 21 FGV EAESP | RAE | São Paulo | V. 63 (6) | 2023 | 1-21 | e2023-0017 eISSN 2178-938X CONFLICTS OF INTEREST The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. AUTHORS' CONTRIBUTION Júlio Paulo da Silva Martins: Conceptualisation, data curation, formal analysis; Research; Methodology; Visualisation; Writing - original draft. María Jesús Rodríguez-Gulías: Conceptualisation, data curation, formal analysis; Research; Methodology; Supervision; Validation. David Rodeiro-Pazos: Conceptualisation, data curation, formal analysis; Research; Methodology; Project management; Resources; Programmes; Supervision; Validation; Writing - revision and editing. Raul Rios-Rodríguez: Research; Supervision; Validation; Writing - original draft; Writing - revision and editing.