科技园区创业生态系统特征与企业行动调节机制研究
|
摘要
我国的科技园区在经过了三十多年的发展之后,已经取得了丰富的成果,对于国家经济的崛起和科技的繁荣起到重要的作用。目前我国科技园区的发展特色和功能定位都日趋成熟,从最初的地区产业集聚中心和招商引资平台渐渐转变为战略新兴产业发展和自主创新突破的攻坚之地。我国科技园区的进一步提升需要在以往的发展基础上创新发展模式,构建健康的创业创新生态系统。科技园区向创业生态系统的转型升级也促使企业自身进行行动变革,而竞合行动正在成为科技园区内企业进一步发展的一个重要方向和策略。科技园区创业生态系统与企业的互动影响机制研究成为一个重要的命题。基于中国科技园区这一特定情境对创业行动进行研究,有助于该领域理论的深化和实践的引领。
本文在梳理和总结以往科技园区企业发展等相关研究的基础上,基于创业生态系统理论和行动理论共同构成的多层理论框架,就科技园区创业企业成长过程中不同发展阶段的创业行动的调节机制展开研究,主要期望解决四个问题：第一,科技园区创业生态系统特征维度的模型构建和测量工具开发(研究一)；第二,企业在进入科技园区创业生态系统时的适应选择机制(研究二)；第三,科技园区创业生态系统内企业的竞合行动机制(研究三)；第四,科技园区创业生态系统内企业的嵌入发展机制(研究四)。具体来说,由以下四个方面的研究构成：
研究一开发了科技园区创业生态系统的特征量表并进行了验证。首先,运用多案例分析的研究方法,对科技园区创业生态系统的特征结构作出细致描述与分析,研究基于复杂适应系统理论的五维基本分析框架,对四个典型的科技园区开展跨案例比较,在分析科技园区向创业生态系统转型升级的背景特征的基础上,得出科技园区创业生态系统由基础支持性、网络互动性、知识密集性、生态多样性、系统开放性等五个维度的特征要素构成。然后,采用访谈方法和问卷研究方法相结合的研究模式,在多案例分析和以往学者相关量表开发文献的基础上,通过问卷研究数据的收集和分析,开发并验证了科技园区创业生态系统特征模型的测量工具。研究对15家科技园区117个企业样本进行了探索性因素分析,得到了五维度共21个题项的科技园区创业生态系统特征量表。对另外17家科技园区141个企业样本的验证性因素分析检验并证明了所开发的量表,对量表的信度和效度指标的进一步分析表明本研究开发的量表是可用于未来的相关研究的。
研究二分析了企业在进入科技园区创业生态系统时的适应选择行为机制。该部分研究从资产互补匹配理论视角出发,采用情景模拟实验分析和讨论企业在进入科技园区时,企业的创业资源对企业选择科技园区的影响。136个不同类型的被试样本参加了被试内和被试间结合的情景任务模拟并对科技园区选址做出决策。结果表明,在科技园区选址决策中,创业企业的商业能力、研发能力、社会资本和财务资本与园区生态系统的不同特征之间存在不同的匹配效应。企业的创业资源与科技园区创业生态系统特征存在互补式匹配和增强式匹配的双重匹配框架,企业的园区选址过程受到不同入园发展动机的中介作用,这些入园发展动机包括了研发合作、市场拓展和政策获取三种不同动机,共同决定了企业的科技园区选址决策过程。
研究三阐述了企业进入科技园区创业生态系统后,企业的竞合行动机制。研究通过跨层次的分析方法对科技园区系统特征如何影响和调节企业竞合导向与行动策略之间的关系进行了细致的分析和讨论。研究样本来自32家科技园区的258个企业样本,由于研究的数据和构思是多层的,本文采用多层次线性模型来分析研究假设中的多种效应。本文将创业行动策略分为创造型、生产型、协作型和稳健型四种策略,研究结果显示园区的知识密集性削弱了竞合导向对创造型策略的正向影响,网络互动性和知识密集性增强了竞合导向对生产型策略的负向影响,园区的基础支持性、知识密集性和系统开放性增强了竞合导向对稳健性策略的正向影响。这些结果表明了当园区的生态系统不成熟,知识密集性、网络互动性等特征较弱时,拥有高竞合导向的企业在园区中的合作行为不多,可能转向园区外部寻求合作机会。
研究四考察了科技园区创业生态系统内企业的嵌入发展机制。研究通过对研究三的企业样本的追踪研究,在6个月之后获取了187个有效的科技园区企业创业绩效回访样本,并以此检验在科技园区创业生态系统中不同的企业行动策略如何影响企业的财务绩效和创新绩效。研究验证了科技园区创业生态系统特征对企业创业绩效的影响,研究结果也表明了创业生态系统和企业的系统嵌入是相互作用,共同促进的。聚焦系统网络嵌入的中介效应的研究结果表明创造型策略直接促进财务绩效和创新绩效；生产型策略直接促进了企业的财务绩效；协作型策略通过网络嵌入中的信任、共享和合作问题解决三个机制共同促进企业的创新绩效；而稳健型策略通过网络嵌入中的信任和共享机制促进企业的财务绩效。
基于上述各项实证研究分析,本文的主要结论为以下五点：(1)科技园区创业生态系统特征模型由基础支持性、网络互动性、知识密集性、生态多样性、系统开放性等五个维度的特征要素构成；(2)企业在科技园区选址决策中,创业资源与科技园区创业生态系统特征存在互补式匹配和增强式匹配,并受到研发合作、市场拓展和政策获取三种入园发展动机的不同中介作用；(3)科技园区创业生态系统的五个特征对企业竞合导向与行动策略之间的关系具有不同的调节作用；(4)科技园区生态系统中企业的行动策略通过系统网络嵌入的不同中介效应促进了财务绩效和创新绩效；(5)适应选择机制、竞合行动机制和嵌入发展机制三个阶段的行动机制共同组成了科技园区创业生态系统中企业的行动调节机制。
本文在全面剖析科技园区创业生态系统特征与企业行动调节机制的基础上,取得了以下四个方面的理论创新：(1)基于复杂适应系统框架,开发了科技园区创业生态系统特征模型；(2)基于双重匹配框架,丰富了企业科技园选择决策机制的理论视角；(3)基于情境特征视角,深化了生态系统中企业的竞合行动机制研究；(4)基于系统嵌入视角,揭示了生态系统中企业的多重绩效实现机制。最后,我们提出了本文对于科技园区发展和企业行动实践方面的指导意义,并分析了研究中还存在的缺陷和该领域下一步的研究方向。
After thirty years of continuous development, our country's science parks have gradually improved functional role and highlighted developmental feature. Science parks have changed from traditional investment promotion and local industry development platforms into gathering places for all kinds of innovation reform and experiment. Upgrading of industrial structure and building a healthy entrepreneurial ecosystem is becoming the focus of the future direction of science park development. The upgrading of Science Park into entrepreneurial ecosystem also encourages the action change of companies in it and the coopetition action is becoming an important change strategy for these companies. The interaction mechanism between science park entrepreneurial ecosystem and companies in it has become an important research topic.
On the basis of previous research on Science Park, a company's action regulation model in science park entrepreneurial ecosystem was conducted. With this framework, I discuss how Science Park and firms influence each other. Four theoretical issues were identified:(1) developing and validating the multi-dimensional construct of Science Park entrepreneurial ecosystem characteristics model;(2) examing the Science Park location decision making mechanism of companies;(3) exploring the coopetition action making mechanism of companies in Science Park entrepreneurial ecosystem;(4) investigating the embedded developing mechanism of companies in Science Park entrepreneurial ecosystem.
Study1developed a new way to measure Science Park entrepreneurial ecosystem characteristics model. Applying qualitative cross-case study method, I explored specific entrepreneurial ecosystem representation in science parks. Adopting a five-dimensional complex adaptive system framework, five characteristic dimensions of Science Park entrepreneurial ecosystem were identified, being infrastructure supporting, network interactivity, knowledge intensiveness, ecological diversity and system openness. After that, I tested empirically the Science Park entrepreneurial ecosystem characteristics model. In this study, interview and empirical questionnaire methods were combined. Based on previous literature review and qualitative results from cross-case study, a21-item Science Park entrepreneurial ecosystem scale with five dimensions (i.e. infrastructure supporting, network interactivity, knowledge intensiveness and ecological diversity and system openness) was developed and validated. All of these five dimensions had significant impact on company's entrepreneurship orientation.
Study2analyzed the science park location decision making mechanism. Building on an asset complementarity perspective, human capital, social capital and financial capital measures were used to examine the Science Park location decisions. A scenario-simulated method was conducted to examine the location decision making mechanism. Data were collected from136diffrent kinds of subjects. Results showed that entrepreneurial resource had a dual-fit mechanism with Science Park entrepreneurial ecosystem characteristics. The motivation of entering Science Park was constituted by technology motivation, market motivation and policy motivation, each dimension showed different mediating effect in the location process.
Study3examined the coopetition action making mechanism of companies in Science Park entrepreneurial ecosystem. Data were collected from258firms in32science parks which. As the multilevel structure of our framework and data, a cross-level interaction model was adopted to test the moderating effects of Science Park entrepreneurial ecosystem characteristics in coopetition orientation and four kinds of action strategies (creativity strategy, productivity strategy, interoperability strategy and robustness strategy). Results showed that different dimension of Science Park entrepreneurial ecosystem characteristics had different kinds of moderating effects.
Study4investigated the firm development mechanism in science park ecosystem. This section conducted a follow-up study to explore how company's action strategy promoted financial performance and innovation performance. Data were collected from187firms within the firms survey set of Study3.Results showed that creativity strategy had a direct impact on financial performance and innovative performance; productivity strategy had a direct impact on financial performance; network embeddedness (trust, information sharing and joint problem solving) mediated the relation between interoperability strategy and innovative performance; network embeddedness (trust and information sharing) mediated the relation between robustness strategy and financial performance
The main research findings of this study were summarized at the end. There were five main conclusions:(1) Science Park entrepreneurial ecosystem characteristics model had five dimensions, being infrastructure supporting, network interactivity, knowledge intensiveness, ecological diversity and system openness;(2) Entrepreneurial resource had a dual-fit (complementary fit and supplementary fit) mechanism with Science Park entrepreneurial ecosystem characteristics and was mediated by three kinds of motivation of entering Science Park;(3) Science Park entrepreneurial ecosystem characteristics had different kinds of moderating effects on coopetition orientation and four kinds of action strategies;(4) System network embededness had different mediating effects in the process of company's action strategies promoted financial performance and innovation performance;(5) Adaptive selection, coopetitive action and embedded development, these three stages of action machanisms formed the enterprises' action regulatory mechanism in Science Park entrepreneurial ecosystem.
There were four theoretical advances in this dissertation:(1) based on the complex adaptive system framework, we developed a new Science Park entrepreneurial ecosystem characteristics model;(2) Based on a dual-fit framework, we enriched the theoretical perspective of Science Park lacation decision making mechanism;(3) Based on the situational characteristics perspective, we deepened the research of enterprises' coopetition action mechanism in entrepreneurial ecosystem;(4) Based on the system embeddedness perspective, we revealed the enterprises' various performance implementation mechanism in entrepreneurial ecosystem.
The implications for effectively developing Science Park and companies in it were discussed. After that, we pointed out the limitations of the study and future research directions.
本文在梳理和总结以往科技园区企业发展等相关研究的基础上,基于创业生态系统理论和行动理论共同构成的多层理论框架,就科技园区创业企业成长过程中不同发展阶段的创业行动的调节机制展开研究,主要期望解决四个问题：第一,科技园区创业生态系统特征维度的模型构建和测量工具开发(研究一)；第二,企业在进入科技园区创业生态系统时的适应选择机制(研究二)；第三,科技园区创业生态系统内企业的竞合行动机制(研究三)；第四,科技园区创业生态系统内企业的嵌入发展机制(研究四)。具体来说,由以下四个方面的研究构成：
研究一开发了科技园区创业生态系统的特征量表并进行了验证。首先,运用多案例分析的研究方法,对科技园区创业生态系统的特征结构作出细致描述与分析,研究基于复杂适应系统理论的五维基本分析框架,对四个典型的科技园区开展跨案例比较,在分析科技园区向创业生态系统转型升级的背景特征的基础上,得出科技园区创业生态系统由基础支持性、网络互动性、知识密集性、生态多样性、系统开放性等五个维度的特征要素构成。然后,采用访谈方法和问卷研究方法相结合的研究模式,在多案例分析和以往学者相关量表开发文献的基础上,通过问卷研究数据的收集和分析,开发并验证了科技园区创业生态系统特征模型的测量工具。研究对15家科技园区117个企业样本进行了探索性因素分析,得到了五维度共21个题项的科技园区创业生态系统特征量表。对另外17家科技园区141个企业样本的验证性因素分析检验并证明了所开发的量表,对量表的信度和效度指标的进一步分析表明本研究开发的量表是可用于未来的相关研究的。
研究二分析了企业在进入科技园区创业生态系统时的适应选择行为机制。该部分研究从资产互补匹配理论视角出发,采用情景模拟实验分析和讨论企业在进入科技园区时,企业的创业资源对企业选择科技园区的影响。136个不同类型的被试样本参加了被试内和被试间结合的情景任务模拟并对科技园区选址做出决策。结果表明,在科技园区选址决策中,创业企业的商业能力、研发能力、社会资本和财务资本与园区生态系统的不同特征之间存在不同的匹配效应。企业的创业资源与科技园区创业生态系统特征存在互补式匹配和增强式匹配的双重匹配框架,企业的园区选址过程受到不同入园发展动机的中介作用,这些入园发展动机包括了研发合作、市场拓展和政策获取三种不同动机,共同决定了企业的科技园区选址决策过程。
研究三阐述了企业进入科技园区创业生态系统后,企业的竞合行动机制。研究通过跨层次的分析方法对科技园区系统特征如何影响和调节企业竞合导向与行动策略之间的关系进行了细致的分析和讨论。研究样本来自32家科技园区的258个企业样本,由于研究的数据和构思是多层的,本文采用多层次线性模型来分析研究假设中的多种效应。本文将创业行动策略分为创造型、生产型、协作型和稳健型四种策略,研究结果显示园区的知识密集性削弱了竞合导向对创造型策略的正向影响,网络互动性和知识密集性增强了竞合导向对生产型策略的负向影响,园区的基础支持性、知识密集性和系统开放性增强了竞合导向对稳健性策略的正向影响。这些结果表明了当园区的生态系统不成熟,知识密集性、网络互动性等特征较弱时,拥有高竞合导向的企业在园区中的合作行为不多,可能转向园区外部寻求合作机会。
研究四考察了科技园区创业生态系统内企业的嵌入发展机制。研究通过对研究三的企业样本的追踪研究,在6个月之后获取了187个有效的科技园区企业创业绩效回访样本,并以此检验在科技园区创业生态系统中不同的企业行动策略如何影响企业的财务绩效和创新绩效。研究验证了科技园区创业生态系统特征对企业创业绩效的影响,研究结果也表明了创业生态系统和企业的系统嵌入是相互作用,共同促进的。聚焦系统网络嵌入的中介效应的研究结果表明创造型策略直接促进财务绩效和创新绩效；生产型策略直接促进了企业的财务绩效；协作型策略通过网络嵌入中的信任、共享和合作问题解决三个机制共同促进企业的创新绩效；而稳健型策略通过网络嵌入中的信任和共享机制促进企业的财务绩效。
基于上述各项实证研究分析,本文的主要结论为以下五点：(1)科技园区创业生态系统特征模型由基础支持性、网络互动性、知识密集性、生态多样性、系统开放性等五个维度的特征要素构成；(2)企业在科技园区选址决策中,创业资源与科技园区创业生态系统特征存在互补式匹配和增强式匹配,并受到研发合作、市场拓展和政策获取三种入园发展动机的不同中介作用；(3)科技园区创业生态系统的五个特征对企业竞合导向与行动策略之间的关系具有不同的调节作用；(4)科技园区生态系统中企业的行动策略通过系统网络嵌入的不同中介效应促进了财务绩效和创新绩效；(5)适应选择机制、竞合行动机制和嵌入发展机制三个阶段的行动机制共同组成了科技园区创业生态系统中企业的行动调节机制。
本文在全面剖析科技园区创业生态系统特征与企业行动调节机制的基础上,取得了以下四个方面的理论创新：(1)基于复杂适应系统框架,开发了科技园区创业生态系统特征模型；(2)基于双重匹配框架,丰富了企业科技园选择决策机制的理论视角；(3)基于情境特征视角,深化了生态系统中企业的竞合行动机制研究；(4)基于系统嵌入视角,揭示了生态系统中企业的多重绩效实现机制。最后,我们提出了本文对于科技园区发展和企业行动实践方面的指导意义,并分析了研究中还存在的缺陷和该领域下一步的研究方向。
After thirty years of continuous development, our country's science parks have gradually improved functional role and highlighted developmental feature. Science parks have changed from traditional investment promotion and local industry development platforms into gathering places for all kinds of innovation reform and experiment. Upgrading of industrial structure and building a healthy entrepreneurial ecosystem is becoming the focus of the future direction of science park development. The upgrading of Science Park into entrepreneurial ecosystem also encourages the action change of companies in it and the coopetition action is becoming an important change strategy for these companies. The interaction mechanism between science park entrepreneurial ecosystem and companies in it has become an important research topic.
On the basis of previous research on Science Park, a company's action regulation model in science park entrepreneurial ecosystem was conducted. With this framework, I discuss how Science Park and firms influence each other. Four theoretical issues were identified:(1) developing and validating the multi-dimensional construct of Science Park entrepreneurial ecosystem characteristics model;(2) examing the Science Park location decision making mechanism of companies;(3) exploring the coopetition action making mechanism of companies in Science Park entrepreneurial ecosystem;(4) investigating the embedded developing mechanism of companies in Science Park entrepreneurial ecosystem.
Study1developed a new way to measure Science Park entrepreneurial ecosystem characteristics model. Applying qualitative cross-case study method, I explored specific entrepreneurial ecosystem representation in science parks. Adopting a five-dimensional complex adaptive system framework, five characteristic dimensions of Science Park entrepreneurial ecosystem were identified, being infrastructure supporting, network interactivity, knowledge intensiveness, ecological diversity and system openness. After that, I tested empirically the Science Park entrepreneurial ecosystem characteristics model. In this study, interview and empirical questionnaire methods were combined. Based on previous literature review and qualitative results from cross-case study, a21-item Science Park entrepreneurial ecosystem scale with five dimensions (i.e. infrastructure supporting, network interactivity, knowledge intensiveness and ecological diversity and system openness) was developed and validated. All of these five dimensions had significant impact on company's entrepreneurship orientation.
Study2analyzed the science park location decision making mechanism. Building on an asset complementarity perspective, human capital, social capital and financial capital measures were used to examine the Science Park location decisions. A scenario-simulated method was conducted to examine the location decision making mechanism. Data were collected from136diffrent kinds of subjects. Results showed that entrepreneurial resource had a dual-fit mechanism with Science Park entrepreneurial ecosystem characteristics. The motivation of entering Science Park was constituted by technology motivation, market motivation and policy motivation, each dimension showed different mediating effect in the location process.
Study3examined the coopetition action making mechanism of companies in Science Park entrepreneurial ecosystem. Data were collected from258firms in32science parks which. As the multilevel structure of our framework and data, a cross-level interaction model was adopted to test the moderating effects of Science Park entrepreneurial ecosystem characteristics in coopetition orientation and four kinds of action strategies (creativity strategy, productivity strategy, interoperability strategy and robustness strategy). Results showed that different dimension of Science Park entrepreneurial ecosystem characteristics had different kinds of moderating effects.
Study4investigated the firm development mechanism in science park ecosystem. This section conducted a follow-up study to explore how company's action strategy promoted financial performance and innovation performance. Data were collected from187firms within the firms survey set of Study3.Results showed that creativity strategy had a direct impact on financial performance and innovative performance; productivity strategy had a direct impact on financial performance; network embeddedness (trust, information sharing and joint problem solving) mediated the relation between interoperability strategy and innovative performance; network embeddedness (trust and information sharing) mediated the relation between robustness strategy and financial performance
The main research findings of this study were summarized at the end. There were five main conclusions:(1) Science Park entrepreneurial ecosystem characteristics model had five dimensions, being infrastructure supporting, network interactivity, knowledge intensiveness, ecological diversity and system openness;(2) Entrepreneurial resource had a dual-fit (complementary fit and supplementary fit) mechanism with Science Park entrepreneurial ecosystem characteristics and was mediated by three kinds of motivation of entering Science Park;(3) Science Park entrepreneurial ecosystem characteristics had different kinds of moderating effects on coopetition orientation and four kinds of action strategies;(4) System network embededness had different mediating effects in the process of company's action strategies promoted financial performance and innovation performance;(5) Adaptive selection, coopetitive action and embedded development, these three stages of action machanisms formed the enterprises' action regulatory mechanism in Science Park entrepreneurial ecosystem.
There were four theoretical advances in this dissertation:(1) based on the complex adaptive system framework, we developed a new Science Park entrepreneurial ecosystem characteristics model;(2) Based on a dual-fit framework, we enriched the theoretical perspective of Science Park lacation decision making mechanism;(3) Based on the situational characteristics perspective, we deepened the research of enterprises' coopetition action mechanism in entrepreneurial ecosystem;(4) Based on the system embeddedness perspective, we revealed the enterprises' various performance implementation mechanism in entrepreneurial ecosystem.
The implications for effectively developing Science Park and companies in it were discussed. After that, we pointed out the limitations of the study and future research directions.
引文
[1]Aaboen, L., Lindelof, P.,& Lofsten, H. Incubator performance:an efficiency frontier analysis. International Journal of Business Innovation and Research, 2008,2(4),354-380.
[2]Acs Z. J. The global entrepreneurship and development index across stages of development. Entrepreneurial Knowledge, Technology and the Transformation of Regions,2013,2(1),19-31.
[3]Acs Z. J., Desai S., Klapper L. F. What does "entrepreneurship" data really show? Small Business Economics,2008,31(3),265-281.
[4]Acs Z. J., Szerb L. The Global Entrepreneurship and Development Index (GEDI). Opening Up Innovation:Strategy, Organization and Technology", Imperial College, London,2010.
[5]Adler, P. S.,& Kwon, S.-W. Social capital:Prospects for a new concept. Academy of Management Review,2002,27(1),17-40.
[6]Alvarez C., Urbano D., Amoros J. E., et al. The GEM research:achievements and challenges. Small Business Economics,2014(forthcoming).
[7]Alvarez, S. A.,& Busenitz, L. W. The entrepreneurship of resource-based theory. Journal of Management,2001,27(6),755-775.
[8]Amoros J. E., Bosma N., Levie J. Ten years of Global Entrepreneurship Monitor:accomplishments and prospects. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Venturing,2013,5(2),120-152.
[9]Anggraeni E., et al. Business ecosystem as a perspective for studying the relations between firms and their business networks. Paper presented at the ECCON 2007 annual meeting,2007.
[10]Arrunada B. How doing business jeopardises institutional reform. European Business Organization Law Review,2009,10(04),555-574.
[11]Arthur, W. B.'Silicon Valley'locational clusters:when do increasing returns imply monopoly? Mathematical social sciences,1990,19(3),235-251.
[12]Atuahene-Gima, K.,& Ko, A. An empirical investigation of the effect of market orientation and entrepreneurship orientation alignment on product innovation. Organization science,2001,12(1),54-74.
[13]Audretsch, D.,& Keilbach, M. Entrepreneurship capital and economic performance. Regional studies,2004,38(8),949-959.
[14]Auh, S.,& Menguc, B. Balancing exploration and exploitation:The moderating role of competitive intensity. Journal of Business Research,2005,58(12), 1652-1661.
[15]Autio E. Global Entrepreneurship and Development Index 2013. Edward Elgar Publishing,2013.
[16]Ayres R. U. On the life cycle metaphor:Where ecology and economics diverge. Ecological Economics,2004,48(4),425-438.
[17]Bakouros, Y. L., Mardas, D. C.,& Varsakelis, N. C. Science park, a high tech fantasy?:an analysis of the science parks of Greece. Technovation,2002,22(2), 123-128.
[18]Baron, R. A.,& Markman, G. D. Beyond social capital:How social skills can enhance entrepreneurs' success. The Academy of Management Executive,2000, 14(1),106-116.
[19]Baron, R. M.,& Kenny, D. A. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research:Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,1986,51(6), 1173-1182.
[20]Baum, J. R., Frese, M.,& Baron, R. A. The psychology of entrepreneurship:L. Erlbaum Associates.2007.
[21]Bengtsson, M.,& Kock, S. "Coopetition" in business Networks—to cooperate and compete simultaneously. Industrial marketing management,2000,29(5), 411-426.
[22]Berg J., Cazes S. The Doing Business Indicators:Measurement Issues and Political Implications. Internat.Labour Office,2007.
[23]Bergek, A.,& Norrman, C. Incubator best practice:A framework. Technovation, 2008,28(1),20-28.
[24]Bergmann H., Mueller S., Schrettle T. The use of Global Entrepreneurship Monitor data in academic research:a critical inventory and future potentials. International Journal of Entrepreneurship Venturing,2014(forthcoming).
[25]Blackburn R. The Keystone Advantage:What the New Dynamics of Business Ecosystems Mean for Strategy, Innovation, and Sustainability. Personnel Psychology,2005,58(4),1074.
[26]Borgatti S. P. and Foster P. C. The network paradigm in organizational research: A review and typology. Journal of Management,2003,29(6),991-1013.
[27]Boschma, R. A.,& Ter Wal, A. L. Knowledge networks and innovative performance in an industrial district:the case of a footwear district in the South of Italy. Industry and Innovation,2007,14(2),177-199.
[28]Bosma N. S. The Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) and Its Impact on Entrepreneurship Research. Working paper,2013.
[29]Bosma, N., van Praag, M., Thurik, R.,& deWit, G. The value of human and social capital investments for the business performance of startups. Small Business Economics,2004,23(2),227-236.
[30]Bouncken, R. B.,& Fredrich, V. Coopetition:performance implications and management antecedents. International Journal of Innovation Management, 2012,16(05),1-28
[31]Brose U. and Berlow E. L, et al. Scaling up keystone effects from simple to complex ecological networks. Ecology Letters,2005,8(12),1317-1325.
[32]Browne, M. W.,& Cudeck, R. Single sample cross-validation indices for covariance structures. Multivariate Behavioral Research,1989,24(4),445-455.
[33]Buckley, W. F. Society--a Complex Adaptive System:Essays in Social Theory. Taylor & Francis.1998.
[34]Bygrave W., Camp S., Hey M., et al. Global Entrepreneurship Monitor. Babson College, Babson Park, MA,1998.
[35]Cable, D. M.,& Edwards, J. R. Complementary and supplementary fit:a theoretical and empirical integration. Journal of Applied Psychology,2004, 89(5),822-835.
[36]Campbell N., Mitchell D. T., Rogers T. M. Multiple measures of US entrepreneurial activity and classical liberal institutions. Journal of Entrepreneurship and Public Policy,2013,2(1),4-20.
[37]Casero C. D., Gonzalez M. A., Escobedo C. S., et al. Institutional variables, entrepreneurial activity and economic development.Management Decision, 2013,51(2),281-305.
[38]Casson, M.,& Della Giusta, M. Entrepreneurship and Social Capital Analysing the Impact of Social Networks on Entrepreneurial Activity from a Rational Action Perspective. International Small Business Journal,2007,25(3), 220-244.
[39]Chan, K.,& Lau, T. Assessing technology incubator programs in the science park:the good, the bad and the ugly. Technovation,2005,25(10),1215-1228.
[40]Chang, E. P., Memili, E., Chrisman, J. J., Kellermanns, F. W.,& Chua, J. H. Family Social Capital, Venture Preparedness, and Start-Up Decisions A Study of Hispanic Entrepreneurs in New England. Family Business Review,2009, 22(3),279-292.
[41]Chattopadhyay, P., Glick, W. H.& Huber, G. P. Organizational actions in response to threats and opportunities. Academy of Management Journal,2001, 44(5),937-955.
[42]Chen, C.-J., Wu, H.-L.,& Lin, B.-W. Evaluating the development of high-tech industries:Taiwan's science park. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 2006,73(4),452-465.
[43]Chesbrough, H.& Crowther, A. K. Beyond high tech:early adopters of open innovation in other industries. R&D Management,2006,36(3),229-236.
[44]Chin, K.-S., Chan, B. L.,& Lam, P.-K. Identifying and prioritizing critical success factors for coopetition strategy. Industrial Management & Data Systems,2008,108(4),437-454.
[45]Choi T. Y and Dooley K. J, et al. Supply networks and complex adaptive systems:Control versus emergence. Journal of Operations Management,2001, 19(3),351-366.
[46]Choi, Y. R.,& Shepherd, D. A. Entrepreneurs' decisions to exploit opportunities. Journal of Management,2004,30(3),377-395.
[47]Chung, L. H.,& Gibbons, P. T. Corporate Entrepreneurship The Roles of Ideology and Social Capital. Group & Organization Management,1997,22(1), 10-30.
[48]Churchill Jr, G A. A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. Journal of marketing research,1979,16(1),64-73.
[49]Ciavarella, M. A. The adoption of high-involvement practices and processes in emergent and developing firms:A descriptive and prescriptive approach. Human Resource Management,2004,42(4),337-356.
[50]Coduras A., Autio E. Comparing subjective and objective indicators to describe the national entrepreneurial context:the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor and the Global Competitiveness Index contributions. Investigaciones Regionales, 2013 (26),47-74.
[51]Cohen B. Sustainable valley entrepreneurial ecosystems. Business Strategy and the Environment,2006,15(1),1-14.
[52]Colombo, M. G, Delmastro, M.,& Grilli, L. Entrepreneurs'human capital and the start-up size of new technology-based firms. International Journal of Industrial Organization,2004,22(8),1183-1211.
[53]Cook Jr, V. J. Marketing strategy and differential advantage. The Journal of Marketing,1983,47(2),68-75.
[54]Cooper, A. C. The role of incubator organizations in the founding of growth-oriented firms. Journal of business venturing,1986,1(1),75-86.
[55]Cope, J., Jack, S.,& Rose, M. B. Social Capital and Entrepreneurship An Introduction. International Small Business Journal,2007,25(3),213-219.
[56]Covin, J. G,& Slevin, D. P. Strategic management of small firms in hostile and benign environments. Strategic Management Journal,1989,10(1),75-87.
[57]Covin, J. G,& Slevin, D. P. The development and testing of an organizational-level entrepreneurship scale. Frontiers of entrepreneurship research,1986,1(1986),626-639.
[58]Dagnino, G B.,& Rocco, E. Co-Opetition Strategy:Routledge.2009.
[59]Davidsson, P.& Honig, B. The role of social and human capital among nascent entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing,2003,18(3),301-331.
[60]de Oliveira Wilk, E.,& Fensterseifer, J. E. Use of resource-based view in industrial cluster strategic analysis. International Journal of Operations & Production Management,2003,23(9),995-1009.
[61]Den Hartigh E., et al. The health measurement of a business ecosystem. Paper presented at the ECCON 2006 annual meeting,2006.
[62]Dettwiler, P., Lindelof, P.,& Lofsten, H. Utility of location:A comparative survey between small new technology-based firms located on and off Science Parks—Implications for facilities management. Technovation,2006,26(4), 506-517.
[63]Dutton, J. E.& Jackson, S. E. Categorizing strategic issues:Links to organizational action. The Academy of Management Review,1987,12(1), 76-90.
[64]Etemad, H. International entrepreneurship as a dynamic adaptive system: towards a grounded theory. Journal of international entrepreneurship,2004, 2(1-2),5-59.
[65]Eun, J., Lee, K.,& Wu, G. Explaining the "university-run enterprises" in China: A theoretical framework for university-industry relationship in developing countries and its application to China. Research Policy,2006,35(9), 1329-1346.
[66]Fairlie R. W. Kauffman Index of Entrepreneurial Activity (1996-2011). Kauffman Foundation, Kansas City.2012.
[67]Feld, B. Startup communities:Building an entrepreneurial ecosystem in your city. John Wiley & Sons.2012.
[68]Felsenstein, D. University-related science parks—'seedbeds' or 'enclaves' of innovation? Technovation,1994,14(2),93-110.
[69]Ferguson, R.,& Olofsson, C. Science parks and the development of NTBFs—location, survival and growth. The journal of technology transfer, 2004,29(1),5-17.
[70]Fetters, M., Greene, P. G,& Rice, M. P. The development of university-based entrepreneurship ecosystems:global practices:Edward Elgar Publishing.2010.
[71]Fleming, L.,& Sorenson, O. Technology as a complex adaptive system: evidence from patent data. Research Policy,2001,30(7),1019-1039.
[72]Florin, J., Lubatkin, M.,& Schulze, W. A social capital model of high-growth ventures. Academy of Management Journal,2003,46(3),374-384.
[73]Fornell, C.& Cha, J. Partial least squares, in Bagozzi, R. P. Advanced methods of marketing research, Blackwell, Cambridge, MA.1994.
[74]Foster J. The analytical foundations of evolutionary economics:From biological analogy to economic self-organization. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics,1997,8(4),427-451.
[75]Frese, M. The psychological actions and entrepreneurial success:an action theory approach. The psychology of entrepreneurship,2007,1,151-187.
[76]Frese. M. Toward a psychology of entrepreneurship:An action theory perspective. Now Publishers Inc.2009.
[77]Frese, M.,& Zapf, D. Action as the core of work psychology:A German approach. Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology,1994,4, 271-340.
[78]Frese, M., Krauss, S. I., Keith, N., Escher, S., Grabarkiewicz, R., Luneng, S. T., Friedrich, C. Business owners' action planning and its relationship to business success in three African countries. Journal of Applied Psychology,2007,92(6), 1481-1505.
[79]Frese, M., Van Gelderen, M.,& Ombach, M. How to plan as a small scale business owner:Psychological process characteristics of action strategies and success.2000.
[80]Fuller, T.,& Moran, P. Small enterprises as complex adaptive systems:a methodological question? Entrepreneurship & Regional Development,2001, 13(1),47-63.
[81]Gans, J.& Stern, S. The product market and the market for ideas: Commercialization strategies for technology entrepreneurs. Research Policy, 2003,12(4),361-384.
[82]Garnsey E. and Leong Y. Combining resource-based and evolutionary theory to explain the genesis of bio-networks. Industry and Innovation,2008,15(6), 669-686.
[83]Ghisi F. A. and Martinelli D. P. Systemic view of interorganisational relationships:An analysis of business networks. Systemic Practice and Action Research,2006,19(5),461-473.
[84]Gnyawali, D. R.,& Park, B. J. R. Co-opetition and Technological Innovation in Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises:A Multilevel Conceptual Model. Journal of Small Business Management,2009,47(3),308-330.
[85]Gnyawali, D. R.,& Park, B.-J. R. Co-opetition between giants:Collaboration with competitors for technological innovation. Research Policy,2011,40(5), 650-663.
[86]Goetz S. J. State entrepreneurial climate estimates:An update based on the Kauffman index. Available at SSRN 1265243.2008.
[87]Gossain S. and Kandiah G. Reinventing value:The new business ecosystem. Strategy & Leadership,1998,26(5),28-56.
[88]Greene, P. G., Rice, M. P.,& Fetters, M. L. University-based entrepreneurship ecosystems:framing the discussion. The Development of University-Based Entrepreneurship Ecosystems. Northampton, MA:Edward Elgar Publishing, 2010,1-11.
[89]Hakansson H. and Snehota I. No business is an island:The network concept of business strategy. Scandinavian Journal of Management,2006,22(3),256-270.
[90]Hamel, G. Bringing Silicon Valley inside. Harvard business review,1998,77(5), 70-84,183.
[91]Hannan M. T. and Freeman J. H. The population ecology of organizations. American Journal of Sociology,1977,82(5),929-964.
[92]Hannon B. The use of analogy in biology and economics:From biology to economics, and back. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics,1997,8(4), 471-488.
[93]He, Z. L.& Wong, P. K. Exploration vs. Exploitation:An Empirical Test of the Ambidexterity Hypothesis. Organization Science,2004,15(4),481-494.
[94]Herriott, R. E.,& Firestone, W. A. Multisite qualitative policy research: optimizing description and generalizability. Educational Researcher,1983,12, 14-19.
[95]Hoang, H.& Antoncic, B. Network based research in entrepreneurship:A critical review. Journal of Business Venturing,2003,18(2),165-187.
[96]Holland, J. H. Complex adaptive systems. Daedalus,1992,22(2),17-30.
[97]Holland, J. H. Studying complex adaptive systems. Journal of Systems Science and Complexity,2006,19(1),1-8.
[98]Holmqvist, M. A dynamic model of intra-and interorganizational learning. Organization Studies,2003,24(1),95-123.
[99]Iansiti M. and Levien R. Keystones and dominators:Framing the operational dynamics of business ecosystem. Boston:Estados Unidos,2002.
[100]Iansiti M. and Levien R. Strategy as Ecology. Harvard Business Review, 2004a,82(3),68-87.
[101]Iansiti M. and Levien R. The Keystone Advantage:What the New Dynamics of Business Ecosystem Mean for Strategy, Innovation, and Sustainability. Boston:Massachusetts, Harvard Business School Press,2004b:59-62.
[102]Irwin D. Doing Business:using ratings to drive reform. Journal of International Development,2013,3(1),1-43.
[103]Isenberg, D. J. How to start an entrepreneurial revolution. Harvard business review,2010,88(6),40-50.
[104]Isenberg, D. The entrepreneurship ecosystem strategy as a new paradigm for economic policy:principles for cultivating entrepreneurship. Institute of International European Affairs, Dublin, Ireland.2011.
[105]James, L. R., Demaree, R. G.& Wolf., G. Estimating within-team interrater reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology,1984, 69(1),85-98.
[106]Jayasuriya D. Improvements in the World Bank's ease of doing business rankings:do they translate into greater foreign direct investment inflows? World Bank Policy Research Working Paper,2011.
[107]Kenney, M. Understanding Silicon Valley:The anatomy of an entrepreneurial region. Stanford University Press.2000.
[108]Kim H., et al. The role of IT in business ecosystems. Communications of the ACM,2010,53(5),151-156.
[109]Kim K., et al. The healthiness of business ecosystem and its effect on SMEs performance. International Council for Small Business (ICSB),2010:1-17.
[110]Kohtamaki M. and Vesalainen J, et al. The governance of partnerships and a strategic network:Supplier actors' experiences in the governance by the customers. Management Decision,2006,44(8),1031-1051.
[111]Korhonen J. and Malmborg F. V., et al. Management and Policy Aspect of Industrial Ecology:An Emerging Research Agenda. Business Strategy and the Environment,2004,13(3),289-305.
[112]Korhonen J. Do we really need the debate on the natural ecosystem metaphor in technology management and sustainable development literature. Clean Technology and Environmental Policy,2005,7(1),33-41.
[113]Kotzab, H.,& Teller, C. Value-adding partnerships and co-opetition models in the grocery industry. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management,2003,33(3),268-281.
[114]Kreft, I. G. G.,& de Leeuw, J. Introducing multilevel modeling. London: Sage Publications.1998.
[115]Kristof, A. L. Person-organization fit:An integrative review of its conceptualizations, measurement, and implications. Personnel psychology, 1996,49(1),1-49.
[116]Kristof-Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D.,& Johnson, E. C. Consequences of individuals'fit at work:a meta-analysis of person-job, person-organization, person-group, and person-supervisor fit. Personnel psychology,2005,58(2), 281-342.
[117]Kuan, K. K.,& Chau, P. Y. A perception-based model for EDI adoption in small businesses using a technology-organization-environment framework. Information & Management,2001,38(8),507-521.
[118]Lai, H.-C.,& Shyu, J. Z. A comparison of innovation capacity at science parks across the Taiwan Strait:the case of Zhangjiang High-Tech Park and Hsinchu Science-based Industrial Park. Technovation,2005,25(7),805-813.
[119]Lawless, M. W.,& Finch, L. K. Choice and determinism:A test of Hrebiniak and Joyce's framework on strategy-environment fit. Strategic Management Journal,1989,10(4),351-365.
[120]Lee, W.-H.,& Yang, W.-T. The cradle of Taiwan high technology industry development—Hsinchu Science park (HSP). Technovation,2000,20(1),55-59.
[121]Lepoutre J., Justo R., Terjesen S., et al. Designing a global standardized methodology for measuring social entrepreneurship activity:the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor social entrepreneurship study. Small Business Economics,2013,40(3),693-714.
[122]Levie J., Autio E., Acs Z., et al. Global entrepreneurship and institutions:an introduction. Small Business Economics,2013,33(1),1-8.
[123]Levin, S. A. Ecosystems and the biosphere as complex adaptive systems. Ecosystems,1998,1(5),431-436.
[124]Levy, M., Loebbecke, C.,& Powell, P. SMEs, co-opetition and knowledge sharing:the role of information systemsl.European Journal of Information Systems,2003,12(1),3-17.
[125]Li, Y., Liu, Y.,& Liu, H. Co-opetition, distributor's entrepreneurial orientation and manufacturer's knowledge acquisition:Evidence from China. Journal of Operations Management,2011,29(1),128-142.
[126]Liao, J.,& Welsch, H. Social capital and entrepreneurial growth aspiration:a comparison of technology-and non-technology-based nascent entrepreneurs. The Journal of high technology management research,2003,14(1),149-170.
[127]Lichtenthaler, U.& Lichtenthaler, E. A Capability-Based Framework for Open Innovation:Complementing Absorptive Capacity. Journal of Management Studies,2009,46(8),1315-1338.
[128]Lichtenthaler, U. Integrated roadmaps for open innovation. Research-Technology Management,2008,51(3),45-49.
[129]Lifian, F.,& Santos, F. J. Does social capital affect entrepreneurial intentions? International Advances in Economic Research,2007,13(4),443-453.
[130]Lindelof, P.,& Lofsten, H. Academic versus corporate new technology-based firms in Swedish science parks:an analysis of performance, business networks and financing. International Journal of Technology Management,2005,31(3), 334-357.
[131]Lindelof, P.,& Lofsten, H. Environmental Hostility and Firm Behavior—An Empirical Examination of New Technology-Based Firms on Science Parks. Journal of Small Business Management,2006,44(3),386-406.
[132]Lindelof, P.,& Lofsten, H. Growth, management and financing of new technology-based firms—assessing value-added contributions of firms located on and off Science Parks. Omega,2002,30(3),143-154.
[133]Lindelof, P.,& Lofsten, H. Proximity as a resource base for competitive advantage:University-industry links for technology transfer. The journal of technology transfer,2004,29(3-4),311-326.
[134]Lindelof, P.,& Ldfsten, H. Science park location and new technology-based firms in Sweden-implications for strategy and performance. Small Business Economics,2003,20(3),245-258.
[135]Lindelof, P.,& Lofsten, H. Science park location and new technology-based firms in Sweden-implications for strategy and performance. Small Business Economics,2003,20(3),245-258.
[136]Link, A. N.,& Scott, J. T. US science parks:the diffusion of an innovation and its effects on the academic missions of universities. International Journal of Industrial Organization,2003,21(9),1323-1356.
[137]Liu, L., Shi, G,& Chen, X. A Study on the Entrepreneurship Ecosystem of MIT. Comparative Education Review,2009,7(1),100-105.
[138]Liu, L., Xia, Q.,& Zhou, L. On entrepreneurship ecosystem of entrepreneurial university:a case study of MIT. Journal of Higher Education, 2009,3(2),100-107.
[139]Loebecke, C., Van Fenema, P. C.,& Powell, P. Co-opetition and knowledge transfer. ACM SIGMIS Database,1999,30(2),14-25.
[140]Lofsten, H.,& Lindelof, P. R&D networks and product innovation patterns—academic and non-academic new technology-based firms on Science Parks. Technovation,2005,25(9),1025-1037.
[141]Lofsten, H.,& Lindelof, P. Science Parks and the growth of new technology-based firms-academic-industry links, innovation and markets. Research Policy,2002,31(6),859-876.
[142]Lofsten, H.,& Lindelof, P. Science parks in Sweden-industrial renewal and development? R&D Management,2001,31(3),309-322.
[143]Lumpkin, G T.,& Dess, G. G. Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking it to performance. Academy of Management Review, 1996,21(1),135-172.
[144]Lumpkin, G. T.,& Dess, G. G. Linking two dimensions of entrepreneurial orientation to firm performance:The moderating role of environment and industry life cycle. Journal of business venturing,2001,16(5),429-451.
[145]Luo, X., Slotegraaf, R. J.,& Pan, X. Cross-functional "coopetition":The simultaneous role of cooperation and competition within firms. Journal of Marketing,2006,70(2),67-80.
[146]Luo, Y. A coopetition perspective of global competition. Journal of World Business,2007,42(2),129-144.
[147]Luo, Y. Toward coopetition within a multinational enterprise:a perspective from foreign subsidiaries. Journal of World Business,2005,40(1),71-90.
[148]Macdonald, S. British science parks:reflections on the politics of high technology. R&D Management,1987,17(1),25-37.
[149]March, J. G Continuity and change in theories of organizational action. Administrative Science Quarterly,1996,41(2),87-102.
[150]March, J. G. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization science,1991,2(1),71-87.
[151]Marcotte C. Measuring entrepreneurship at the country level:A review and research agenda. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development,2013,25(3-4), 174-194.
[152]Mariani, M. M. Coopetition as an emergent strategy:Empirical evidence from an Italian consortium of opera houses. International Studies of Management and Organization,2007,37(2),97-126.
[153]McAdam, M.,& McAdam, R. High tech start-ups in University Science Park incubators:The relationship between the start-up's lifecycle progression and use of the incubator's resources. Technovation,2008,28(5),277-290.
[154]McEvily, B.,& Marcus, A. Embedded ties and the acquisition of competitive capabilities. Strategic Management Journal,2005,26(11),1033-1055.
[155]Mention, A.-L. Co-operation and co-opetition as open innovation practices in the service sector:which influence on innovation novelty? Technovation,2011, 31(1),44-53.
[156]Mian, S. A. Assessing and managing the university technology business incubator:an integrative framework. Journal of business venturing,1997,12(4), 251-285.
[157]Minniti M. The Dynamics of Entrepreneurship:Evidence from Global Entrepreneurship Monitor Data. Oxford University Press.2013.
[158]Moore J. F. Business ecosystems and the view from the firm. Antitrust Bulletin,2006,51(1),31-33.
[159]Moore J. F. Predators and prey:a new ecology of competition. Harvard Business Review,1993,71(3),75-86.
[160]Moore J. F. The death of competition:Leadership and strategy in the age of business ecosystem. Boston:John Wiley & Sons Ltd.1996,76-77.
[161]Moore J. F. The Rise of a New Corporate Form. Washington Quarterly,1998, 21(1),167-181.
[162]Mosey, S.& Wright, M. From human capital to social capital:A longitudinal study of technologybased academic entrepreneurs. Paper presented at the Technology Transfer Society Conference, Atlanta,2006.
[163]Muchinsky, P. M.,& Monahan, C. J. What is person-environment congruence? Supplementary versus complementary models of fit. Journal of Vocational Behavior,1987,31(3),268-277.
[164]Nahapiet, J.,& Ghoshal, S. Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review,1998,23(2), 242-266.
[165]Nalebuff, B. J.,& Brandenburger, A. M. Co-opetition:Competitive and cooperative business strategies for the digital economy. Strategy & leadership, 1997,25(6),28-35.
[166]Nalebuff, B. J., Brandenburger, A.,& Maulana, A. Co-opetition. Harper Collins Business.1996.
[167]Naman, J.L.& Slevin, D.P. Entrepreneurship and the concept of fit:A model and empirical tests. Strategic Management Journal,1993,14,137-153.
[168]Nikolaev B., Hall J. C., Pulito J. M., et al. The effect of personal and economic freedom on entrepreneurial activity:Evidence from a new state level freedom index. American Journal of Entrepreneurship,2013 (1),88-103.
[169]Oh, I. S., Guay, R. P., Kim, K., Harold, C. M., Lee, J. H., Heo, C. G,& Shin, K. H. Fit Happens Globally:A Meta-Analytic Comparison of the Relationships of Person-Environment Fit Dimensions With Work Attitudes and Performance Across East Asia, Europe, and North America. Personnel psychology,2013, 26(3),127-144.
[170]Oliveira J. Z., Alves R. P. The Ease of Doing Business Index as a tool for investment location decisions. Gabinete de Estrategia e Estudos, Ministerio da Economia e da Inovacao,2010.
[171]Padmore, T.,& Gibson, H. Modelling systems of innovation::Ⅱ. A framework for industrial cluster analysis in regions. Research Policy,1998, 26(6),625-641.
[172]Padula, G.,& Dagnino, G. B. Untangling the rise of coopetition:the intrusion of competition in a cooperative game structure. International Studies of Management and Organization,2007,37(2),32-52.
[173]Pan, J. How entrepreneurs choose science parks:An experimental research. International Journal of Psychology,2012,47(1),514-514.
[174]Pan, J., Wang, Z. M., Segelod, E.,Bogg, L. Differential effect of multi-level science parks on motives and performance of high-tech firms under change in China. International Journal of Psychology,2012,47(1),515-515.
[175]Parnell, J. A., Wright, P.,& Tu, H. S. Beyond the strategy-performance linkage:The impact of the strategy-organization-environment fit on business performance. American Business Review,1996,14(2),41-50.
[176]Pathak, S. D., Day, J. M., Nair, A., Sawaya, W. J.,& Kristal, M. M. Complexity and Adaptivity in Supply Networks:Building Supply Network Theory Using a Complex Adaptive Systems Perspective. Decision Sciences, 2007,38(4),547-580.
[177]Peltoniemi M. and Vuori E. K. Business Ecosystem as the New Approach to Complex Adaptive Business Environments. Frontier of e-business research, Tampere, Findland,2004:1-34.
[178]Peltoniemi M. Cluster, Value Network and Business Ecosystem:Knowledge and Innovation Approach. Organisations, Innovation and Complexity. New Perspectives on the Knowledge Economy conference,2004:1-20.
[179]Peltoniemi M. Preliminary Theoretical Framework for the Study of Business Ecosystem. Management:Strategy, Innovation & Change Sesion, Tampere, Finland,2005:1-32
[180]Peltoniemi M., et al. Business ecosystem as a tool for the conceptualisation of the external diversity of an organization. Proceedings of the Complexity, Science and Society Conference,2005:11-14.
[181]Pfeffer, J. Size, composition, and function of hospital boards of directors:a study of organization-environment linkage. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1973,18(3),86-102.
[182]Phan, P. H., Siegel, D. S.,& Wright, M. Science parks and incubators: observations, synthesis and future research. Journal of business venturing,2005, 20(2),165-182.
[183]Pitelis, C. Clusters, entrepreneurial ecosystem co-creation, and appropriability:a conceptual framework. Industrial and Corporate Change, 2012,21(6),1359-1388.
[184]Polidoro, F., Ahuja, G.,& Mitchell, W. When the social structure overshadows competitive incentives:The effects of network embeddedness on joint venture dissolution. Academy of Management Journal,2011,54(1), 203-223.
[185]Power M. E. and Mills L. S. The Keystone cops meet in Hilo. Trends in Ecology and Evolution,1995,10(5),182-184.
[186]Power M. E. and Tilman D., et al. Challenges in the quest for keystones: Identifying keystone species is difficult-but essential to understanding how loss of species will affect ecosystems. BioScience,1996,46(8),609-620.
[187]Quaadgras A. Who joins the platform? The case of the RFID business ecosystem. Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences,2005,1-15.
[188]Quintas, P., Wield, D.,& Massey, D. Academic-industry links and innovation: questioning the science park model. Technovation,1992,12(3),161-175.
[189]Rai, R. K. A Co-opetition-Based Approach to Value Creation in Interfirm Alliances Construction of a Measure and Examination of Its Psychometric Properties. Journal of Management,2013,30(2),231-243.
[190]Rauch, A.,& Frese, M. Psychological approaches to entrepreneurial success: A general model and an overview of findings. International review of industrial and organizational psychology,2000,15(2),101-142.
[191]Raudenbush, S. W.,& Bryk, A. S. Hierarchical linear models:Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage Publications. 2002.
[192]Ritter T. and Gemunden H. G. Interorganizational relationships and networks: An overview. Journal of Business Research,2003,56(9),691-697.
[193]Roham M., Gabrielyan A. R., Archer N. P. Fuzzy linguistic modeling of ease of doing business indicators. International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems,2009,17(04),531-557.
[194]Rusko, R. Exploring the concept of coopetition:A typology for the strategic moves of the Finnish forest industry. Industrial marketing management,2011, 40(2),311-320.
[195]Saxenian, A. Inside-out:regional networks and industrial adaptation in Silicon Valley and Route 128. Cityscape,1996,41-60.
[196]Saxenian, A. Regional advantage:Culture and competition in Silicon Valley and Route 128. Harvard University Press.1996.
[197]Schriesheim, C. A., Cogliser, C. C., Scandura, T. A., Lankau, M. J.,& Powers, K. J. An empirical comparison of approaches for quantitatively assessing the content adequacy of paper-and-pencil measurement instruments. Organizational Research Methods,1999,2(2),140-156.
[198]Schumacker, R. E.& Lomax, R. C. A beginner's guide to structural equation modeling. NJ:Erlbaum:Hillsdale,1998.
[199]Schwenk, C. R. Strategic decision making. Journal of Management,1995, 21(3),471-493.
[200]Scillitoe, J. L.,& Chakrabarti, A. K. The role of incubator interactions in assisting new ventures. Technovation,2010,30(3),155-167.
[201]Sequeira, J.,& Rasheed, A. The role of social and human capital in the start-up and growth of immigrant businesses. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign's Academy for Entrepreneurial Leadership Historical Research Reference in Entrepreneurship,2004.
[202]Siegel, D., Westhead, P.,& Wright, M. (2003). Assessing the impact of science parks on the researchproductivity of firms:Exploratory evidence from the UK. International Journal of Industrial Organization,21(9),1357-1369.
[203]Simsek, Z. Entrepreneurial opportunity recognition:Building and testing an information asymmetries model. Phd Dissertation, University of Connecticut, 2002.
[204]Sitkin, S. B.& Pablo, A. L. Reconceptualizing the determinants of risk behavior. Academy of management review,1992,17(1),9-38.
[205]Slater, S. F.& Narver, J. C. Market orientation and the learning organization. The Journal of Marketing,1995,59(3),63-74.
[206]Slater, S. F.& Olson, E. M. Strategy type and performance:the influence of sales forces management. Strategic Management Journal,2000,21(8),813-829.
[207]Sohn S. Y, Lee A. S. Bayesian network analysis for the dynamic prediction of early stage entrepreneurial activity index. Expert Systems with Applications, 2013.
[208]Steels, L. Language as a complex adaptive system. Paper presented at the Parallel Problem Solving from Nature.2000
[209]Steffens, P., Davidsson, P.& Fitzsimmons, J. Performance Configurations over Time:Implications for Growth-and Profit-Oriented Strategies. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,2008,33(1),125-148.
[210]Stenholm P., Acs Z. J., Wuebker R. Exploring country-level institutional arrangements on the rate and type of entrepreneurial activity. Journal of Business Venturing,2013,28(1),176-193.
[211]Suarez, F. F.& Oliva, R. Environmental change and organizational transformation. Industrial and corporate change,2005,14(6),1017-1041.
[212]Suresh, J.,& Ramraj, R. Entrepreneurial Ecosystem:Case Study on the Influence of Environmental Factors on Entrepreneurial Success. European Journal of Business and Management,2012,4(16),95-101.
[213]Szerb L., Aidis R., Acs Z. J. The Comparison of the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor and the Global Entrepreneurship and Development Index Methodologies. Now Publishers Inc.2013.
[214]Tan, J. Growth of industry clusters and innovation:Lessons from Beijing Zhongguancun Science Park. Journal of business venturing,2006,21(6), 827-850.
[215]Teece, D.J. Profiting from technological innovation:implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy. In D. Teece (Ed.), The competitive challenge (pp.185-219). Cambridge, MA:Ballinger Publishing. 1987.
[216]Teece, D.J. Profiting from technological innovation:Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy. Research Policy,1986, 15,285-305.
[217]Tian, et al. BEAM:A framework for business ecosystem analysis and modeling. IBM Systems Journal,2008,47(1),101-114.
[218]Tsai, W. Social structure of "coopetition" within a multiunit organization: Coordination, competition, and intraorganizational knowledge sharing. Organization science,2002,13(2),179-190.
[219]Tversky, A.& Kahneman, D. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science,1981,211(4481),453-458.
[220]Ucbasaran, D., Westhead, P.& Wright, M. Opportunity identification and pursuit:does an entrepreneur's human capital matter?. Small Business Economics,2008,30(2),153-173.
[221]Ucbasaran, D., Westhead, P.& Wright, M. The extent and nature of opportunity identification by experienced entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing,2009,24(2),99-115.
[222]Uhlaner L., Thurik R. Postmaterialism influencing total entrepreneurial activity across nations. Journal of Evolutionary Economics,2007,17(2), 161-185.
[223]Uotila, J., Maula, M., Keil, T,& Zahra, S. A. Exploration, exploitation, and financial performance:analysis of S&P 500 corporations. Strategic Management Journal,2009,30(2),221-231.
[224]Van Stel A., Carree M., Thurik R. The effect of entrepreneurial activity on national economic growth. Small Business Economics,2005,24(3),311-321.
[225]VanMetre B. J., Hall J. C. How friendly to entrepreneurs are" business friendly" policies? Some preliminary results. Journal of Business and Economic Perspectives,2011,37(1),105-113.
[226]Vedovello, C. Science parks and university-industry interaction:geographical proximity between the agents as a driving force. Technovation,1997,17(9), 491-531.
[227]Venkataraman, S.& Sarasvathy, S. D. Strategy and entrepreneurship: Outlines of an untold story. LandstromSexton. Handbook of Entrepreneurship. Oxford, UK:Blackwell Publishers,2001.
[228]Venkatraman, N.,& Camillus, J. C. Exploring the concept of "fit" in strategic management. Academy of Management Review,1984,9(3),513-525.
[229]Voelker, T. A. Entrepreneurial ecosystems:evolutionary paths or differentiated systems? Business Studies Journal,2012,4(1),27-35.
[230]Vuori E. K. Knowledge-intensive service organizations as agents in a business ecosystem.2005 International Conference on Services Systems and Services Management,2005.
[231]Walker G. and Kogut B., et al. Social Capital, Structural Holes and the Formation of an Industry Network. Organization Science,1997,8(2),109-125.
[232]Walley, K. Coopetition:An introduction to the subject and an agenda for research. International Studies of Management and Organization,2007,37(2), 11-31.
[233]Wang, Z. M. Developing global roles for Chinese leadership:An ASD theory of organizational change. In W. H. Mobley, Y. Wang,& M. Li (Eds.), Advances in Global Leadership (vol.7, pp.375-388). Bingley, UK:Emerald Group Publishing Limited.2012.
[234]Weber R., Powell B. Economic freedom and entrepreneurship:a panel study of the United States. American Journal of Entrepreneurship,2013 (1),67-87.
[235]Weber, R. P. Basic content analysis. Sage Publications, Inc,1996.
[236]Wessner, C. W. Entrepreneurship and the innovation ecosystem policy lessons from the United States Local Heroes in the Global Village. Springer. 2005,67-89
[237]Westhead, P.,& Batstone, S. Independent technology-based firms:the perceived benefits of a science park location. Urban Studies,1998,35(12), 2197-2219.
[238]Westhead, P.,& Batstone, S. Perceived benefits of a managed science park location. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development,1999,11(2),129-154.
[239]Wiklund, J.,& Shepherd, D. Entrepreneurial orientation and small business performance:a configurational approach. Journal of business venturing,2005, 20(1),71-91.
[240]Wiklund, J.,& Shepherd, D. Knowledge-based resources, entrepreneurial orientation, and the performance of small and medium-sized businesses. Strategic Management Journal,2003,24(13),1307-1314.
[241]Winterfeldt, D.& Edwards, W. Decision analysis and behavioral research. 1986.
[242]Wright, M., Liu, X., Buck, T.,& Filatotchev, I. Returnee Entrepreneurs, Science Park Location Choice and Performance:An Analysis of High-Technology SMEs in China. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,2008,32(1), 131-155.
[243]Xavier S. R., Kelley D., Kew J., et al. Global Entrepreneurship Monitor. 2012 Global Report. Babson College, Babson Park, MA,2013.
[244]Xinchun, L. Entrepreneurial Governance in Cluster of Enterprises:An Analysis of Cluster Economy in Pearl River Delta [J]. Nankai Business Review, 2002,3,49-55.
[245]Yami, S., Castaldo, S., Dagnino, B.,& Le Roy, F. Coopetition:winning strategies for the 21st century:Edward Elgar Publishing.2010.
[246]Yan, H. D.& Hu, M. C. Strategic entrepreneurship and the growth of the firm:the case of Taiwan's bicycle industry. Global Business and Economics Review,2008,10(1),11-34.
[247]Yin, R. K. Case study research:design and methods. Beverly Hills, CA:Sage, 1994.
[248]Yin, X. L.& Shanley, M. Industry determinants of the "merger versus alliance" decision. Academy of Management Journal,2008,33(2),473-491.
[249]Yli-Renko, H., Autio, E.,& Sapienza, H. J. Social capital, knowledge acquisition, and knowledge exploitation in young technology-based firms. Strategic Management Journal,2001,22(6-7),587-613.
[250]Zahra, S. A. Entrepreneurial Risk Taking in Family Firms. Family Business Review,2005,18(1),23-40.
[251]Zahra, S. A.,& Nambisan, S. Entrepreneurship and strategic thinking in business ecosystems. Business Horizons,2012,55(3),219-229.
[252]Zhang J. and Liang X. Business ecosystem strategies of mobile network operators in the 3G era:The case of China Mobile. Telecommunications Policy, 2011,35(2),156-171.
[253]Zhang, Y.,& Li, H. Innovation search of new ventures in a technology cluster: the role of ties with service intermediaries. Strategic Management Journal, 2010,31(1),88-109.
[254]Zineldin, M. Co-opetition:the organisation of the future. Marketing Intelligence & Planning,2004,22(7),780-790.
[255]包彦明.从复杂适应系统理论的角度探讨高新技术园区生命周期的演化.科学决策,2006,13(04),58-60.
[256]陈晓萍,徐淑英,范景立.组织与管理研究的实证方法.北京,北京大学出版社,2008.
[257]戴维奇,林巧,魏江.集群内外网络嵌入与公司创业——基于浙江省四个产业集群的实证研究.科学学研究,2011,29(04),571-581.
[258]杜海东.基于动态系统模型的科技园区创新能力影响因素分析.科学管理研究,2012,32(02),9-12.
[259]冯米,路江涌,林道谧.战略与结构匹配的影响因素——以我国台湾地区企业集团为例.管理世界,2012,28(02),73-81+147+188.
[260]傅首清.区域创新网络与科技产业生态环境互动机制研究——以中关村海淀科技园区为例.管理世界,2010,26(06),8-13+27.
[261]高长元,杜鹏.高技术虚拟产业集群成员企业合作竞争与知识创新的关系研究.管理学报,2010,7(02),212-217.
[262]龚艳萍,陈艳丽.企业创新网络的复杂适应系统特征分析.研究与发展管理,2010,22(01),68-74.
[263]何云景,武杰.构建复杂适应的创业支持系统.系统科学学报,2007,15(03),42-46.
[264]侯杰泰,温忠麟和成子娟.结构方程模型及其应用.北京,教育科学出版社,2004.
[265]胡恩华,刘洪.基于复杂适应系统的企业集群创新行为研究.中国科技论坛,2007,23(01),65-68+72.
[266]李健,金占明.战略联盟内部企业竞合关系研究.科学学与科学技术管理,2008,29(06),129-134.
[267]李凯,任晓艳,向涛.产业集群效应对技术创新能力的贡献——基于国家高新区的实证研究.科学学研究,2007,25(03),448-452.
[268]李良贤.基于竞合关系的中小企业成长过程中的共生行为研究.博士学 位论文,江西财经大学,2011.
[269]李世清,龙勇.互补型竞合关系中合作结构选择偏好的实证研究.软科学,2010,24(12),7-12.
[270]林嵩.创业生态系统,概念发展与运行机制.中央财经大学学报,2011,25(04),58-62.
[271]刘美芳,王晶莹.中关村科技园区效率评价及其影响因素分行业研究.科学管理研究,2012,32(05),69-72.
[272]刘雯雯,杨震宁,王以华.科技园管理创新、战略动机和企业创新绩效,—个整合模型.科学学研究,2009,27(05),783-792.
[273]刘雪锋.网络嵌入性影响企业绩效的机制案例研究.管理世界,2009,25(S1),3-12+129-130.
[274]卢文岱.SPSS统计分析(第4版).北京,电子工业出版社,2010.
[275]陆园园,薛镭.基于复杂适应系统理论的企业创新网络研究.中国科技论坛,2007,23(12),76-80.
[276]吕萍,杨震宁,王以华.高新技术企业价值提升,科技园的温床效应.科学学研究,2007,25(06),1122-1128.
[277]潘剑英,王重鸣.创业指数研究述评与展望.管理现代化,2014,34(03),123-125.
[278]潘剑英,王重鸣.商业生态系统理论模型回顾与研究展望.外国经济与管理,2012,34(09),51-58.
[279]潘剑英,王重鸣.生态系统隐喻在组织研究中的应用与展望.自然辩证法研究,2014,30(03),65-69.
[280]彭伟,符正平.高新技术企业创业导向、联盟能力与联盟绩效关系研究.科研管理,2012,33(12),78-85.
[281]荣泰生.AMOS与研究方法.重庆,重庆大学出版社,2010.
[282]沈漪文,卢智健.创业生态系统概念辨析.商业经济,2013,20(16),93-94.
[283]王兆华,于江.“中关村指数”评价体系及其对我国科技园区发展的启示.科学学与科学技术管理,2007,28(02),114-119.
[284]王重鸣.基于人与组织匹配的组织变革行为与战略决策机制研究.国家自然科学基金重点项目,2008.
[285]王重鸣.基于并行分布策略的中国企业组织变革与文化融合机制研究.国家自然科学基金重点项目,2013.
[286]王重鸣.心理学研究方法.北京：人民教育出版杜,2001.
[287]魏江,曹建萍,焦豪.基于竞合理论的集群企业技术能力整合机理研究.科 学学与科学技术管理,2008,29(06),135-141.
[288]温忠麟,张雷,侯杰泰.有中介的调节变量和有调节的中介变量.心理学报,2006,38(3),448-452.
[289]吴兰贞.基于生态系统视角的科技园区培育机制与发展模式研究.博士学位论文,吉林大学,2013.
[290]吴明隆.结构方程模型—AMOS的操作与应用(第2版).重庆：重庆大学出版社,2010.
[291]吴旭云,贺小刚,郝影利.创业导向、网络嵌入与创业型企业成长关系研究.科技进步与对策,2013,30(05),78-84.
[292]肖勇军. 基于生态理论的科技园区创业环境对创业绩效影响的实证研究.博士学位论文,中南大学,2012.
[293]徐二明,徐凯.资源互补对机会主义和战略联盟绩效的影响研究.管理世界,2012,28(01),93-100+102+101+103+187-188.
[294]徐亮,张宗益,龙勇,周旭.竞合战略与技术创新绩效的实证研究.科研管理,2009,30(01),87-96.
[295]杨震宁,吕萍,王以华.积极的战略动机是否带来高绩效,科技园的环境调节效应.科学学研究,2008,26(05),979-986.
[296]杨震宁,吕萍,王以华.企业入驻科技园的动机及影响因素模型研究.科学学研究,2008,26(01),137-143+198.
[297]杨震宁,吴杰.不同功能分类科技园的资源供给差异研究.科研管理,2011,32(09),35-43.
[298]易朝辉.网络嵌入、创业导向与新创企业绩效关系研究.科研管理,2012,33(11),105-115.
[299]张金萍,周游.基于商业生态系统的企业竞争战略.管理世界,2005,21(06),159-160.
[300]张荣祥,刘景江.高技术企业创业社会网络嵌入,机制要素与案例分析.科学学研究,2009,27(06),904-909.
[301]张卫国,青雪梅.竞合战略趋势、稳定性机理与中国企业选择.改革,2012,30(07),34-45.
[302]张骁,胡丽娜.创业导向对企业绩效影响关系的边界条件研究——基于元分析技术的探索.管理世界,2013,29(06),99-110+188.
[303]张永安,李晨光.复杂适应系统应用领域研究展望.管理评论,2010,22(05),121-128.
[304]张玉利,曲阳,云乐鑫.基于中国情境的管理学研究与创业研究主题总结.外国经济与管理,2014,36(1),65-72
[305]赵岑,姜彦福.中国企业战略联盟伙伴特征匹配标准实证研究.科学学研究,2010,28(04),558-565.
[306]赵剑波,杨震宁,王以华.政府的引导作用对于集群中企业创新绩效的影响,基于国内科技园区数据的实证研究.科研管理,2012,33(02),11-17+78.
[307]赵涛,刘文光,边伟军.区域科技创业生态系统的结构模式与功能机制研究.科技管理研究,2011,31(24),78-82.
[308]周勇,万迪昉.实物期权视角下集群效应对企业进入科技园区时机选择的决策模型.管理学报,2010,7(08),1185-1190.
[309]朱亮.复杂适应系统理论视角的区域创新系统研究.博士学位论文,中国科学技术大学,2009.
[2]Acs Z. J. The global entrepreneurship and development index across stages of development. Entrepreneurial Knowledge, Technology and the Transformation of Regions,2013,2(1),19-31.
[3]Acs Z. J., Desai S., Klapper L. F. What does "entrepreneurship" data really show? Small Business Economics,2008,31(3),265-281.
[4]Acs Z. J., Szerb L. The Global Entrepreneurship and Development Index (GEDI). Opening Up Innovation:Strategy, Organization and Technology", Imperial College, London,2010.
[5]Adler, P. S.,& Kwon, S.-W. Social capital:Prospects for a new concept. Academy of Management Review,2002,27(1),17-40.
[6]Alvarez C., Urbano D., Amoros J. E., et al. The GEM research:achievements and challenges. Small Business Economics,2014(forthcoming).
[7]Alvarez, S. A.,& Busenitz, L. W. The entrepreneurship of resource-based theory. Journal of Management,2001,27(6),755-775.
[8]Amoros J. E., Bosma N., Levie J. Ten years of Global Entrepreneurship Monitor:accomplishments and prospects. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Venturing,2013,5(2),120-152.
[9]Anggraeni E., et al. Business ecosystem as a perspective for studying the relations between firms and their business networks. Paper presented at the ECCON 2007 annual meeting,2007.
[10]Arrunada B. How doing business jeopardises institutional reform. European Business Organization Law Review,2009,10(04),555-574.
[11]Arthur, W. B.'Silicon Valley'locational clusters:when do increasing returns imply monopoly? Mathematical social sciences,1990,19(3),235-251.
[12]Atuahene-Gima, K.,& Ko, A. An empirical investigation of the effect of market orientation and entrepreneurship orientation alignment on product innovation. Organization science,2001,12(1),54-74.
[13]Audretsch, D.,& Keilbach, M. Entrepreneurship capital and economic performance. Regional studies,2004,38(8),949-959.
[14]Auh, S.,& Menguc, B. Balancing exploration and exploitation:The moderating role of competitive intensity. Journal of Business Research,2005,58(12), 1652-1661.
[15]Autio E. Global Entrepreneurship and Development Index 2013. Edward Elgar Publishing,2013.
[16]Ayres R. U. On the life cycle metaphor:Where ecology and economics diverge. Ecological Economics,2004,48(4),425-438.
[17]Bakouros, Y. L., Mardas, D. C.,& Varsakelis, N. C. Science park, a high tech fantasy?:an analysis of the science parks of Greece. Technovation,2002,22(2), 123-128.
[18]Baron, R. A.,& Markman, G. D. Beyond social capital:How social skills can enhance entrepreneurs' success. The Academy of Management Executive,2000, 14(1),106-116.
[19]Baron, R. M.,& Kenny, D. A. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research:Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,1986,51(6), 1173-1182.
[20]Baum, J. R., Frese, M.,& Baron, R. A. The psychology of entrepreneurship:L. Erlbaum Associates.2007.
[21]Bengtsson, M.,& Kock, S. "Coopetition" in business Networks—to cooperate and compete simultaneously. Industrial marketing management,2000,29(5), 411-426.
[22]Berg J., Cazes S. The Doing Business Indicators:Measurement Issues and Political Implications. Internat.Labour Office,2007.
[23]Bergek, A.,& Norrman, C. Incubator best practice:A framework. Technovation, 2008,28(1),20-28.
[24]Bergmann H., Mueller S., Schrettle T. The use of Global Entrepreneurship Monitor data in academic research:a critical inventory and future potentials. International Journal of Entrepreneurship Venturing,2014(forthcoming).
[25]Blackburn R. The Keystone Advantage:What the New Dynamics of Business Ecosystems Mean for Strategy, Innovation, and Sustainability. Personnel Psychology,2005,58(4),1074.
[26]Borgatti S. P. and Foster P. C. The network paradigm in organizational research: A review and typology. Journal of Management,2003,29(6),991-1013.
[27]Boschma, R. A.,& Ter Wal, A. L. Knowledge networks and innovative performance in an industrial district:the case of a footwear district in the South of Italy. Industry and Innovation,2007,14(2),177-199.
[28]Bosma N. S. The Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) and Its Impact on Entrepreneurship Research. Working paper,2013.
[29]Bosma, N., van Praag, M., Thurik, R.,& deWit, G. The value of human and social capital investments for the business performance of startups. Small Business Economics,2004,23(2),227-236.
[30]Bouncken, R. B.,& Fredrich, V. Coopetition:performance implications and management antecedents. International Journal of Innovation Management, 2012,16(05),1-28
[31]Brose U. and Berlow E. L, et al. Scaling up keystone effects from simple to complex ecological networks. Ecology Letters,2005,8(12),1317-1325.
[32]Browne, M. W.,& Cudeck, R. Single sample cross-validation indices for covariance structures. Multivariate Behavioral Research,1989,24(4),445-455.
[33]Buckley, W. F. Society--a Complex Adaptive System:Essays in Social Theory. Taylor & Francis.1998.
[34]Bygrave W., Camp S., Hey M., et al. Global Entrepreneurship Monitor. Babson College, Babson Park, MA,1998.
[35]Cable, D. M.,& Edwards, J. R. Complementary and supplementary fit:a theoretical and empirical integration. Journal of Applied Psychology,2004, 89(5),822-835.
[36]Campbell N., Mitchell D. T., Rogers T. M. Multiple measures of US entrepreneurial activity and classical liberal institutions. Journal of Entrepreneurship and Public Policy,2013,2(1),4-20.
[37]Casero C. D., Gonzalez M. A., Escobedo C. S., et al. Institutional variables, entrepreneurial activity and economic development.Management Decision, 2013,51(2),281-305.
[38]Casson, M.,& Della Giusta, M. Entrepreneurship and Social Capital Analysing the Impact of Social Networks on Entrepreneurial Activity from a Rational Action Perspective. International Small Business Journal,2007,25(3), 220-244.
[39]Chan, K.,& Lau, T. Assessing technology incubator programs in the science park:the good, the bad and the ugly. Technovation,2005,25(10),1215-1228.
[40]Chang, E. P., Memili, E., Chrisman, J. J., Kellermanns, F. W.,& Chua, J. H. Family Social Capital, Venture Preparedness, and Start-Up Decisions A Study of Hispanic Entrepreneurs in New England. Family Business Review,2009, 22(3),279-292.
[41]Chattopadhyay, P., Glick, W. H.& Huber, G. P. Organizational actions in response to threats and opportunities. Academy of Management Journal,2001, 44(5),937-955.
[42]Chen, C.-J., Wu, H.-L.,& Lin, B.-W. Evaluating the development of high-tech industries:Taiwan's science park. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 2006,73(4),452-465.
[43]Chesbrough, H.& Crowther, A. K. Beyond high tech:early adopters of open innovation in other industries. R&D Management,2006,36(3),229-236.
[44]Chin, K.-S., Chan, B. L.,& Lam, P.-K. Identifying and prioritizing critical success factors for coopetition strategy. Industrial Management & Data Systems,2008,108(4),437-454.
[45]Choi T. Y and Dooley K. J, et al. Supply networks and complex adaptive systems:Control versus emergence. Journal of Operations Management,2001, 19(3),351-366.
[46]Choi, Y. R.,& Shepherd, D. A. Entrepreneurs' decisions to exploit opportunities. Journal of Management,2004,30(3),377-395.
[47]Chung, L. H.,& Gibbons, P. T. Corporate Entrepreneurship The Roles of Ideology and Social Capital. Group & Organization Management,1997,22(1), 10-30.
[48]Churchill Jr, G A. A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. Journal of marketing research,1979,16(1),64-73.
[49]Ciavarella, M. A. The adoption of high-involvement practices and processes in emergent and developing firms:A descriptive and prescriptive approach. Human Resource Management,2004,42(4),337-356.
[50]Coduras A., Autio E. Comparing subjective and objective indicators to describe the national entrepreneurial context:the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor and the Global Competitiveness Index contributions. Investigaciones Regionales, 2013 (26),47-74.
[51]Cohen B. Sustainable valley entrepreneurial ecosystems. Business Strategy and the Environment,2006,15(1),1-14.
[52]Colombo, M. G, Delmastro, M.,& Grilli, L. Entrepreneurs'human capital and the start-up size of new technology-based firms. International Journal of Industrial Organization,2004,22(8),1183-1211.
[53]Cook Jr, V. J. Marketing strategy and differential advantage. The Journal of Marketing,1983,47(2),68-75.
[54]Cooper, A. C. The role of incubator organizations in the founding of growth-oriented firms. Journal of business venturing,1986,1(1),75-86.
[55]Cope, J., Jack, S.,& Rose, M. B. Social Capital and Entrepreneurship An Introduction. International Small Business Journal,2007,25(3),213-219.
[56]Covin, J. G,& Slevin, D. P. Strategic management of small firms in hostile and benign environments. Strategic Management Journal,1989,10(1),75-87.
[57]Covin, J. G,& Slevin, D. P. The development and testing of an organizational-level entrepreneurship scale. Frontiers of entrepreneurship research,1986,1(1986),626-639.
[58]Dagnino, G B.,& Rocco, E. Co-Opetition Strategy:Routledge.2009.
[59]Davidsson, P.& Honig, B. The role of social and human capital among nascent entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing,2003,18(3),301-331.
[60]de Oliveira Wilk, E.,& Fensterseifer, J. E. Use of resource-based view in industrial cluster strategic analysis. International Journal of Operations & Production Management,2003,23(9),995-1009.
[61]Den Hartigh E., et al. The health measurement of a business ecosystem. Paper presented at the ECCON 2006 annual meeting,2006.
[62]Dettwiler, P., Lindelof, P.,& Lofsten, H. Utility of location:A comparative survey between small new technology-based firms located on and off Science Parks—Implications for facilities management. Technovation,2006,26(4), 506-517.
[63]Dutton, J. E.& Jackson, S. E. Categorizing strategic issues:Links to organizational action. The Academy of Management Review,1987,12(1), 76-90.
[64]Etemad, H. International entrepreneurship as a dynamic adaptive system: towards a grounded theory. Journal of international entrepreneurship,2004, 2(1-2),5-59.
[65]Eun, J., Lee, K.,& Wu, G. Explaining the "university-run enterprises" in China: A theoretical framework for university-industry relationship in developing countries and its application to China. Research Policy,2006,35(9), 1329-1346.
[66]Fairlie R. W. Kauffman Index of Entrepreneurial Activity (1996-2011). Kauffman Foundation, Kansas City.2012.
[67]Feld, B. Startup communities:Building an entrepreneurial ecosystem in your city. John Wiley & Sons.2012.
[68]Felsenstein, D. University-related science parks—'seedbeds' or 'enclaves' of innovation? Technovation,1994,14(2),93-110.
[69]Ferguson, R.,& Olofsson, C. Science parks and the development of NTBFs—location, survival and growth. The journal of technology transfer, 2004,29(1),5-17.
[70]Fetters, M., Greene, P. G,& Rice, M. P. The development of university-based entrepreneurship ecosystems:global practices:Edward Elgar Publishing.2010.
[71]Fleming, L.,& Sorenson, O. Technology as a complex adaptive system: evidence from patent data. Research Policy,2001,30(7),1019-1039.
[72]Florin, J., Lubatkin, M.,& Schulze, W. A social capital model of high-growth ventures. Academy of Management Journal,2003,46(3),374-384.
[73]Fornell, C.& Cha, J. Partial least squares, in Bagozzi, R. P. Advanced methods of marketing research, Blackwell, Cambridge, MA.1994.
[74]Foster J. The analytical foundations of evolutionary economics:From biological analogy to economic self-organization. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics,1997,8(4),427-451.
[75]Frese, M. The psychological actions and entrepreneurial success:an action theory approach. The psychology of entrepreneurship,2007,1,151-187.
[76]Frese. M. Toward a psychology of entrepreneurship:An action theory perspective. Now Publishers Inc.2009.
[77]Frese, M.,& Zapf, D. Action as the core of work psychology:A German approach. Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology,1994,4, 271-340.
[78]Frese, M., Krauss, S. I., Keith, N., Escher, S., Grabarkiewicz, R., Luneng, S. T., Friedrich, C. Business owners' action planning and its relationship to business success in three African countries. Journal of Applied Psychology,2007,92(6), 1481-1505.
[79]Frese, M., Van Gelderen, M.,& Ombach, M. How to plan as a small scale business owner:Psychological process characteristics of action strategies and success.2000.
[80]Fuller, T.,& Moran, P. Small enterprises as complex adaptive systems:a methodological question? Entrepreneurship & Regional Development,2001, 13(1),47-63.
[81]Gans, J.& Stern, S. The product market and the market for ideas: Commercialization strategies for technology entrepreneurs. Research Policy, 2003,12(4),361-384.
[82]Garnsey E. and Leong Y. Combining resource-based and evolutionary theory to explain the genesis of bio-networks. Industry and Innovation,2008,15(6), 669-686.
[83]Ghisi F. A. and Martinelli D. P. Systemic view of interorganisational relationships:An analysis of business networks. Systemic Practice and Action Research,2006,19(5),461-473.
[84]Gnyawali, D. R.,& Park, B. J. R. Co-opetition and Technological Innovation in Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises:A Multilevel Conceptual Model. Journal of Small Business Management,2009,47(3),308-330.
[85]Gnyawali, D. R.,& Park, B.-J. R. Co-opetition between giants:Collaboration with competitors for technological innovation. Research Policy,2011,40(5), 650-663.
[86]Goetz S. J. State entrepreneurial climate estimates:An update based on the Kauffman index. Available at SSRN 1265243.2008.
[87]Gossain S. and Kandiah G. Reinventing value:The new business ecosystem. Strategy & Leadership,1998,26(5),28-56.
[88]Greene, P. G., Rice, M. P.,& Fetters, M. L. University-based entrepreneurship ecosystems:framing the discussion. The Development of University-Based Entrepreneurship Ecosystems. Northampton, MA:Edward Elgar Publishing, 2010,1-11.
[89]Hakansson H. and Snehota I. No business is an island:The network concept of business strategy. Scandinavian Journal of Management,2006,22(3),256-270.
[90]Hamel, G. Bringing Silicon Valley inside. Harvard business review,1998,77(5), 70-84,183.
[91]Hannan M. T. and Freeman J. H. The population ecology of organizations. American Journal of Sociology,1977,82(5),929-964.
[92]Hannon B. The use of analogy in biology and economics:From biology to economics, and back. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics,1997,8(4), 471-488.
[93]He, Z. L.& Wong, P. K. Exploration vs. Exploitation:An Empirical Test of the Ambidexterity Hypothesis. Organization Science,2004,15(4),481-494.
[94]Herriott, R. E.,& Firestone, W. A. Multisite qualitative policy research: optimizing description and generalizability. Educational Researcher,1983,12, 14-19.
[95]Hoang, H.& Antoncic, B. Network based research in entrepreneurship:A critical review. Journal of Business Venturing,2003,18(2),165-187.
[96]Holland, J. H. Complex adaptive systems. Daedalus,1992,22(2),17-30.
[97]Holland, J. H. Studying complex adaptive systems. Journal of Systems Science and Complexity,2006,19(1),1-8.
[98]Holmqvist, M. A dynamic model of intra-and interorganizational learning. Organization Studies,2003,24(1),95-123.
[99]Iansiti M. and Levien R. Keystones and dominators:Framing the operational dynamics of business ecosystem. Boston:Estados Unidos,2002.
[100]Iansiti M. and Levien R. Strategy as Ecology. Harvard Business Review, 2004a,82(3),68-87.
[101]Iansiti M. and Levien R. The Keystone Advantage:What the New Dynamics of Business Ecosystem Mean for Strategy, Innovation, and Sustainability. Boston:Massachusetts, Harvard Business School Press,2004b:59-62.
[102]Irwin D. Doing Business:using ratings to drive reform. Journal of International Development,2013,3(1),1-43.
[103]Isenberg, D. J. How to start an entrepreneurial revolution. Harvard business review,2010,88(6),40-50.
[104]Isenberg, D. The entrepreneurship ecosystem strategy as a new paradigm for economic policy:principles for cultivating entrepreneurship. Institute of International European Affairs, Dublin, Ireland.2011.
[105]James, L. R., Demaree, R. G.& Wolf., G. Estimating within-team interrater reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology,1984, 69(1),85-98.
[106]Jayasuriya D. Improvements in the World Bank's ease of doing business rankings:do they translate into greater foreign direct investment inflows? World Bank Policy Research Working Paper,2011.
[107]Kenney, M. Understanding Silicon Valley:The anatomy of an entrepreneurial region. Stanford University Press.2000.
[108]Kim H., et al. The role of IT in business ecosystems. Communications of the ACM,2010,53(5),151-156.
[109]Kim K., et al. The healthiness of business ecosystem and its effect on SMEs performance. International Council for Small Business (ICSB),2010:1-17.
[110]Kohtamaki M. and Vesalainen J, et al. The governance of partnerships and a strategic network:Supplier actors' experiences in the governance by the customers. Management Decision,2006,44(8),1031-1051.
[111]Korhonen J. and Malmborg F. V., et al. Management and Policy Aspect of Industrial Ecology:An Emerging Research Agenda. Business Strategy and the Environment,2004,13(3),289-305.
[112]Korhonen J. Do we really need the debate on the natural ecosystem metaphor in technology management and sustainable development literature. Clean Technology and Environmental Policy,2005,7(1),33-41.
[113]Kotzab, H.,& Teller, C. Value-adding partnerships and co-opetition models in the grocery industry. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management,2003,33(3),268-281.
[114]Kreft, I. G. G.,& de Leeuw, J. Introducing multilevel modeling. London: Sage Publications.1998.
[115]Kristof, A. L. Person-organization fit:An integrative review of its conceptualizations, measurement, and implications. Personnel psychology, 1996,49(1),1-49.
[116]Kristof-Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D.,& Johnson, E. C. Consequences of individuals'fit at work:a meta-analysis of person-job, person-organization, person-group, and person-supervisor fit. Personnel psychology,2005,58(2), 281-342.
[117]Kuan, K. K.,& Chau, P. Y. A perception-based model for EDI adoption in small businesses using a technology-organization-environment framework. Information & Management,2001,38(8),507-521.
[118]Lai, H.-C.,& Shyu, J. Z. A comparison of innovation capacity at science parks across the Taiwan Strait:the case of Zhangjiang High-Tech Park and Hsinchu Science-based Industrial Park. Technovation,2005,25(7),805-813.
[119]Lawless, M. W.,& Finch, L. K. Choice and determinism:A test of Hrebiniak and Joyce's framework on strategy-environment fit. Strategic Management Journal,1989,10(4),351-365.
[120]Lee, W.-H.,& Yang, W.-T. The cradle of Taiwan high technology industry development—Hsinchu Science park (HSP). Technovation,2000,20(1),55-59.
[121]Lepoutre J., Justo R., Terjesen S., et al. Designing a global standardized methodology for measuring social entrepreneurship activity:the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor social entrepreneurship study. Small Business Economics,2013,40(3),693-714.
[122]Levie J., Autio E., Acs Z., et al. Global entrepreneurship and institutions:an introduction. Small Business Economics,2013,33(1),1-8.
[123]Levin, S. A. Ecosystems and the biosphere as complex adaptive systems. Ecosystems,1998,1(5),431-436.
[124]Levy, M., Loebbecke, C.,& Powell, P. SMEs, co-opetition and knowledge sharing:the role of information systemsl.European Journal of Information Systems,2003,12(1),3-17.
[125]Li, Y., Liu, Y.,& Liu, H. Co-opetition, distributor's entrepreneurial orientation and manufacturer's knowledge acquisition:Evidence from China. Journal of Operations Management,2011,29(1),128-142.
[126]Liao, J.,& Welsch, H. Social capital and entrepreneurial growth aspiration:a comparison of technology-and non-technology-based nascent entrepreneurs. The Journal of high technology management research,2003,14(1),149-170.
[127]Lichtenthaler, U.& Lichtenthaler, E. A Capability-Based Framework for Open Innovation:Complementing Absorptive Capacity. Journal of Management Studies,2009,46(8),1315-1338.
[128]Lichtenthaler, U. Integrated roadmaps for open innovation. Research-Technology Management,2008,51(3),45-49.
[129]Lifian, F.,& Santos, F. J. Does social capital affect entrepreneurial intentions? International Advances in Economic Research,2007,13(4),443-453.
[130]Lindelof, P.,& Lofsten, H. Academic versus corporate new technology-based firms in Swedish science parks:an analysis of performance, business networks and financing. International Journal of Technology Management,2005,31(3), 334-357.
[131]Lindelof, P.,& Lofsten, H. Environmental Hostility and Firm Behavior—An Empirical Examination of New Technology-Based Firms on Science Parks. Journal of Small Business Management,2006,44(3),386-406.
[132]Lindelof, P.,& Lofsten, H. Growth, management and financing of new technology-based firms—assessing value-added contributions of firms located on and off Science Parks. Omega,2002,30(3),143-154.
[133]Lindelof, P.,& Lofsten, H. Proximity as a resource base for competitive advantage:University-industry links for technology transfer. The journal of technology transfer,2004,29(3-4),311-326.
[134]Lindelof, P.,& Ldfsten, H. Science park location and new technology-based firms in Sweden-implications for strategy and performance. Small Business Economics,2003,20(3),245-258.
[135]Lindelof, P.,& Lofsten, H. Science park location and new technology-based firms in Sweden-implications for strategy and performance. Small Business Economics,2003,20(3),245-258.
[136]Link, A. N.,& Scott, J. T. US science parks:the diffusion of an innovation and its effects on the academic missions of universities. International Journal of Industrial Organization,2003,21(9),1323-1356.
[137]Liu, L., Shi, G,& Chen, X. A Study on the Entrepreneurship Ecosystem of MIT. Comparative Education Review,2009,7(1),100-105.
[138]Liu, L., Xia, Q.,& Zhou, L. On entrepreneurship ecosystem of entrepreneurial university:a case study of MIT. Journal of Higher Education, 2009,3(2),100-107.
[139]Loebecke, C., Van Fenema, P. C.,& Powell, P. Co-opetition and knowledge transfer. ACM SIGMIS Database,1999,30(2),14-25.
[140]Lofsten, H.,& Lindelof, P. R&D networks and product innovation patterns—academic and non-academic new technology-based firms on Science Parks. Technovation,2005,25(9),1025-1037.
[141]Lofsten, H.,& Lindelof, P. Science Parks and the growth of new technology-based firms-academic-industry links, innovation and markets. Research Policy,2002,31(6),859-876.
[142]Lofsten, H.,& Lindelof, P. Science parks in Sweden-industrial renewal and development? R&D Management,2001,31(3),309-322.
[143]Lumpkin, G T.,& Dess, G. G. Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking it to performance. Academy of Management Review, 1996,21(1),135-172.
[144]Lumpkin, G. T.,& Dess, G. G. Linking two dimensions of entrepreneurial orientation to firm performance:The moderating role of environment and industry life cycle. Journal of business venturing,2001,16(5),429-451.
[145]Luo, X., Slotegraaf, R. J.,& Pan, X. Cross-functional "coopetition":The simultaneous role of cooperation and competition within firms. Journal of Marketing,2006,70(2),67-80.
[146]Luo, Y. A coopetition perspective of global competition. Journal of World Business,2007,42(2),129-144.
[147]Luo, Y. Toward coopetition within a multinational enterprise:a perspective from foreign subsidiaries. Journal of World Business,2005,40(1),71-90.
[148]Macdonald, S. British science parks:reflections on the politics of high technology. R&D Management,1987,17(1),25-37.
[149]March, J. G Continuity and change in theories of organizational action. Administrative Science Quarterly,1996,41(2),87-102.
[150]March, J. G. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization science,1991,2(1),71-87.
[151]Marcotte C. Measuring entrepreneurship at the country level:A review and research agenda. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development,2013,25(3-4), 174-194.
[152]Mariani, M. M. Coopetition as an emergent strategy:Empirical evidence from an Italian consortium of opera houses. International Studies of Management and Organization,2007,37(2),97-126.
[153]McAdam, M.,& McAdam, R. High tech start-ups in University Science Park incubators:The relationship between the start-up's lifecycle progression and use of the incubator's resources. Technovation,2008,28(5),277-290.
[154]McEvily, B.,& Marcus, A. Embedded ties and the acquisition of competitive capabilities. Strategic Management Journal,2005,26(11),1033-1055.
[155]Mention, A.-L. Co-operation and co-opetition as open innovation practices in the service sector:which influence on innovation novelty? Technovation,2011, 31(1),44-53.
[156]Mian, S. A. Assessing and managing the university technology business incubator:an integrative framework. Journal of business venturing,1997,12(4), 251-285.
[157]Minniti M. The Dynamics of Entrepreneurship:Evidence from Global Entrepreneurship Monitor Data. Oxford University Press.2013.
[158]Moore J. F. Business ecosystems and the view from the firm. Antitrust Bulletin,2006,51(1),31-33.
[159]Moore J. F. Predators and prey:a new ecology of competition. Harvard Business Review,1993,71(3),75-86.
[160]Moore J. F. The death of competition:Leadership and strategy in the age of business ecosystem. Boston:John Wiley & Sons Ltd.1996,76-77.
[161]Moore J. F. The Rise of a New Corporate Form. Washington Quarterly,1998, 21(1),167-181.
[162]Mosey, S.& Wright, M. From human capital to social capital:A longitudinal study of technologybased academic entrepreneurs. Paper presented at the Technology Transfer Society Conference, Atlanta,2006.
[163]Muchinsky, P. M.,& Monahan, C. J. What is person-environment congruence? Supplementary versus complementary models of fit. Journal of Vocational Behavior,1987,31(3),268-277.
[164]Nahapiet, J.,& Ghoshal, S. Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review,1998,23(2), 242-266.
[165]Nalebuff, B. J.,& Brandenburger, A. M. Co-opetition:Competitive and cooperative business strategies for the digital economy. Strategy & leadership, 1997,25(6),28-35.
[166]Nalebuff, B. J., Brandenburger, A.,& Maulana, A. Co-opetition. Harper Collins Business.1996.
[167]Naman, J.L.& Slevin, D.P. Entrepreneurship and the concept of fit:A model and empirical tests. Strategic Management Journal,1993,14,137-153.
[168]Nikolaev B., Hall J. C., Pulito J. M., et al. The effect of personal and economic freedom on entrepreneurial activity:Evidence from a new state level freedom index. American Journal of Entrepreneurship,2013 (1),88-103.
[169]Oh, I. S., Guay, R. P., Kim, K., Harold, C. M., Lee, J. H., Heo, C. G,& Shin, K. H. Fit Happens Globally:A Meta-Analytic Comparison of the Relationships of Person-Environment Fit Dimensions With Work Attitudes and Performance Across East Asia, Europe, and North America. Personnel psychology,2013, 26(3),127-144.
[170]Oliveira J. Z., Alves R. P. The Ease of Doing Business Index as a tool for investment location decisions. Gabinete de Estrategia e Estudos, Ministerio da Economia e da Inovacao,2010.
[171]Padmore, T.,& Gibson, H. Modelling systems of innovation::Ⅱ. A framework for industrial cluster analysis in regions. Research Policy,1998, 26(6),625-641.
[172]Padula, G.,& Dagnino, G. B. Untangling the rise of coopetition:the intrusion of competition in a cooperative game structure. International Studies of Management and Organization,2007,37(2),32-52.
[173]Pan, J. How entrepreneurs choose science parks:An experimental research. International Journal of Psychology,2012,47(1),514-514.
[174]Pan, J., Wang, Z. M., Segelod, E.,Bogg, L. Differential effect of multi-level science parks on motives and performance of high-tech firms under change in China. International Journal of Psychology,2012,47(1),515-515.
[175]Parnell, J. A., Wright, P.,& Tu, H. S. Beyond the strategy-performance linkage:The impact of the strategy-organization-environment fit on business performance. American Business Review,1996,14(2),41-50.
[176]Pathak, S. D., Day, J. M., Nair, A., Sawaya, W. J.,& Kristal, M. M. Complexity and Adaptivity in Supply Networks:Building Supply Network Theory Using a Complex Adaptive Systems Perspective. Decision Sciences, 2007,38(4),547-580.
[177]Peltoniemi M. and Vuori E. K. Business Ecosystem as the New Approach to Complex Adaptive Business Environments. Frontier of e-business research, Tampere, Findland,2004:1-34.
[178]Peltoniemi M. Cluster, Value Network and Business Ecosystem:Knowledge and Innovation Approach. Organisations, Innovation and Complexity. New Perspectives on the Knowledge Economy conference,2004:1-20.
[179]Peltoniemi M. Preliminary Theoretical Framework for the Study of Business Ecosystem. Management:Strategy, Innovation & Change Sesion, Tampere, Finland,2005:1-32
[180]Peltoniemi M., et al. Business ecosystem as a tool for the conceptualisation of the external diversity of an organization. Proceedings of the Complexity, Science and Society Conference,2005:11-14.
[181]Pfeffer, J. Size, composition, and function of hospital boards of directors:a study of organization-environment linkage. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1973,18(3),86-102.
[182]Phan, P. H., Siegel, D. S.,& Wright, M. Science parks and incubators: observations, synthesis and future research. Journal of business venturing,2005, 20(2),165-182.
[183]Pitelis, C. Clusters, entrepreneurial ecosystem co-creation, and appropriability:a conceptual framework. Industrial and Corporate Change, 2012,21(6),1359-1388.
[184]Polidoro, F., Ahuja, G.,& Mitchell, W. When the social structure overshadows competitive incentives:The effects of network embeddedness on joint venture dissolution. Academy of Management Journal,2011,54(1), 203-223.
[185]Power M. E. and Mills L. S. The Keystone cops meet in Hilo. Trends in Ecology and Evolution,1995,10(5),182-184.
[186]Power M. E. and Tilman D., et al. Challenges in the quest for keystones: Identifying keystone species is difficult-but essential to understanding how loss of species will affect ecosystems. BioScience,1996,46(8),609-620.
[187]Quaadgras A. Who joins the platform? The case of the RFID business ecosystem. Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences,2005,1-15.
[188]Quintas, P., Wield, D.,& Massey, D. Academic-industry links and innovation: questioning the science park model. Technovation,1992,12(3),161-175.
[189]Rai, R. K. A Co-opetition-Based Approach to Value Creation in Interfirm Alliances Construction of a Measure and Examination of Its Psychometric Properties. Journal of Management,2013,30(2),231-243.
[190]Rauch, A.,& Frese, M. Psychological approaches to entrepreneurial success: A general model and an overview of findings. International review of industrial and organizational psychology,2000,15(2),101-142.
[191]Raudenbush, S. W.,& Bryk, A. S. Hierarchical linear models:Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage Publications. 2002.
[192]Ritter T. and Gemunden H. G. Interorganizational relationships and networks: An overview. Journal of Business Research,2003,56(9),691-697.
[193]Roham M., Gabrielyan A. R., Archer N. P. Fuzzy linguistic modeling of ease of doing business indicators. International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems,2009,17(04),531-557.
[194]Rusko, R. Exploring the concept of coopetition:A typology for the strategic moves of the Finnish forest industry. Industrial marketing management,2011, 40(2),311-320.
[195]Saxenian, A. Inside-out:regional networks and industrial adaptation in Silicon Valley and Route 128. Cityscape,1996,41-60.
[196]Saxenian, A. Regional advantage:Culture and competition in Silicon Valley and Route 128. Harvard University Press.1996.
[197]Schriesheim, C. A., Cogliser, C. C., Scandura, T. A., Lankau, M. J.,& Powers, K. J. An empirical comparison of approaches for quantitatively assessing the content adequacy of paper-and-pencil measurement instruments. Organizational Research Methods,1999,2(2),140-156.
[198]Schumacker, R. E.& Lomax, R. C. A beginner's guide to structural equation modeling. NJ:Erlbaum:Hillsdale,1998.
[199]Schwenk, C. R. Strategic decision making. Journal of Management,1995, 21(3),471-493.
[200]Scillitoe, J. L.,& Chakrabarti, A. K. The role of incubator interactions in assisting new ventures. Technovation,2010,30(3),155-167.
[201]Sequeira, J.,& Rasheed, A. The role of social and human capital in the start-up and growth of immigrant businesses. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign's Academy for Entrepreneurial Leadership Historical Research Reference in Entrepreneurship,2004.
[202]Siegel, D., Westhead, P.,& Wright, M. (2003). Assessing the impact of science parks on the researchproductivity of firms:Exploratory evidence from the UK. International Journal of Industrial Organization,21(9),1357-1369.
[203]Simsek, Z. Entrepreneurial opportunity recognition:Building and testing an information asymmetries model. Phd Dissertation, University of Connecticut, 2002.
[204]Sitkin, S. B.& Pablo, A. L. Reconceptualizing the determinants of risk behavior. Academy of management review,1992,17(1),9-38.
[205]Slater, S. F.& Narver, J. C. Market orientation and the learning organization. The Journal of Marketing,1995,59(3),63-74.
[206]Slater, S. F.& Olson, E. M. Strategy type and performance:the influence of sales forces management. Strategic Management Journal,2000,21(8),813-829.
[207]Sohn S. Y, Lee A. S. Bayesian network analysis for the dynamic prediction of early stage entrepreneurial activity index. Expert Systems with Applications, 2013.
[208]Steels, L. Language as a complex adaptive system. Paper presented at the Parallel Problem Solving from Nature.2000
[209]Steffens, P., Davidsson, P.& Fitzsimmons, J. Performance Configurations over Time:Implications for Growth-and Profit-Oriented Strategies. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,2008,33(1),125-148.
[210]Stenholm P., Acs Z. J., Wuebker R. Exploring country-level institutional arrangements on the rate and type of entrepreneurial activity. Journal of Business Venturing,2013,28(1),176-193.
[211]Suarez, F. F.& Oliva, R. Environmental change and organizational transformation. Industrial and corporate change,2005,14(6),1017-1041.
[212]Suresh, J.,& Ramraj, R. Entrepreneurial Ecosystem:Case Study on the Influence of Environmental Factors on Entrepreneurial Success. European Journal of Business and Management,2012,4(16),95-101.
[213]Szerb L., Aidis R., Acs Z. J. The Comparison of the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor and the Global Entrepreneurship and Development Index Methodologies. Now Publishers Inc.2013.
[214]Tan, J. Growth of industry clusters and innovation:Lessons from Beijing Zhongguancun Science Park. Journal of business venturing,2006,21(6), 827-850.
[215]Teece, D.J. Profiting from technological innovation:implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy. In D. Teece (Ed.), The competitive challenge (pp.185-219). Cambridge, MA:Ballinger Publishing. 1987.
[216]Teece, D.J. Profiting from technological innovation:Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy. Research Policy,1986, 15,285-305.
[217]Tian, et al. BEAM:A framework for business ecosystem analysis and modeling. IBM Systems Journal,2008,47(1),101-114.
[218]Tsai, W. Social structure of "coopetition" within a multiunit organization: Coordination, competition, and intraorganizational knowledge sharing. Organization science,2002,13(2),179-190.
[219]Tversky, A.& Kahneman, D. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science,1981,211(4481),453-458.
[220]Ucbasaran, D., Westhead, P.& Wright, M. Opportunity identification and pursuit:does an entrepreneur's human capital matter?. Small Business Economics,2008,30(2),153-173.
[221]Ucbasaran, D., Westhead, P.& Wright, M. The extent and nature of opportunity identification by experienced entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing,2009,24(2),99-115.
[222]Uhlaner L., Thurik R. Postmaterialism influencing total entrepreneurial activity across nations. Journal of Evolutionary Economics,2007,17(2), 161-185.
[223]Uotila, J., Maula, M., Keil, T,& Zahra, S. A. Exploration, exploitation, and financial performance:analysis of S&P 500 corporations. Strategic Management Journal,2009,30(2),221-231.
[224]Van Stel A., Carree M., Thurik R. The effect of entrepreneurial activity on national economic growth. Small Business Economics,2005,24(3),311-321.
[225]VanMetre B. J., Hall J. C. How friendly to entrepreneurs are" business friendly" policies? Some preliminary results. Journal of Business and Economic Perspectives,2011,37(1),105-113.
[226]Vedovello, C. Science parks and university-industry interaction:geographical proximity between the agents as a driving force. Technovation,1997,17(9), 491-531.
[227]Venkataraman, S.& Sarasvathy, S. D. Strategy and entrepreneurship: Outlines of an untold story. LandstromSexton. Handbook of Entrepreneurship. Oxford, UK:Blackwell Publishers,2001.
[228]Venkatraman, N.,& Camillus, J. C. Exploring the concept of "fit" in strategic management. Academy of Management Review,1984,9(3),513-525.
[229]Voelker, T. A. Entrepreneurial ecosystems:evolutionary paths or differentiated systems? Business Studies Journal,2012,4(1),27-35.
[230]Vuori E. K. Knowledge-intensive service organizations as agents in a business ecosystem.2005 International Conference on Services Systems and Services Management,2005.
[231]Walker G. and Kogut B., et al. Social Capital, Structural Holes and the Formation of an Industry Network. Organization Science,1997,8(2),109-125.
[232]Walley, K. Coopetition:An introduction to the subject and an agenda for research. International Studies of Management and Organization,2007,37(2), 11-31.
[233]Wang, Z. M. Developing global roles for Chinese leadership:An ASD theory of organizational change. In W. H. Mobley, Y. Wang,& M. Li (Eds.), Advances in Global Leadership (vol.7, pp.375-388). Bingley, UK:Emerald Group Publishing Limited.2012.
[234]Weber R., Powell B. Economic freedom and entrepreneurship:a panel study of the United States. American Journal of Entrepreneurship,2013 (1),67-87.
[235]Weber, R. P. Basic content analysis. Sage Publications, Inc,1996.
[236]Wessner, C. W. Entrepreneurship and the innovation ecosystem policy lessons from the United States Local Heroes in the Global Village. Springer. 2005,67-89
[237]Westhead, P.,& Batstone, S. Independent technology-based firms:the perceived benefits of a science park location. Urban Studies,1998,35(12), 2197-2219.
[238]Westhead, P.,& Batstone, S. Perceived benefits of a managed science park location. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development,1999,11(2),129-154.
[239]Wiklund, J.,& Shepherd, D. Entrepreneurial orientation and small business performance:a configurational approach. Journal of business venturing,2005, 20(1),71-91.
[240]Wiklund, J.,& Shepherd, D. Knowledge-based resources, entrepreneurial orientation, and the performance of small and medium-sized businesses. Strategic Management Journal,2003,24(13),1307-1314.
[241]Winterfeldt, D.& Edwards, W. Decision analysis and behavioral research. 1986.
[242]Wright, M., Liu, X., Buck, T.,& Filatotchev, I. Returnee Entrepreneurs, Science Park Location Choice and Performance:An Analysis of High-Technology SMEs in China. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,2008,32(1), 131-155.
[243]Xavier S. R., Kelley D., Kew J., et al. Global Entrepreneurship Monitor. 2012 Global Report. Babson College, Babson Park, MA,2013.
[244]Xinchun, L. Entrepreneurial Governance in Cluster of Enterprises:An Analysis of Cluster Economy in Pearl River Delta [J]. Nankai Business Review, 2002,3,49-55.
[245]Yami, S., Castaldo, S., Dagnino, B.,& Le Roy, F. Coopetition:winning strategies for the 21st century:Edward Elgar Publishing.2010.
[246]Yan, H. D.& Hu, M. C. Strategic entrepreneurship and the growth of the firm:the case of Taiwan's bicycle industry. Global Business and Economics Review,2008,10(1),11-34.
[247]Yin, R. K. Case study research:design and methods. Beverly Hills, CA:Sage, 1994.
[248]Yin, X. L.& Shanley, M. Industry determinants of the "merger versus alliance" decision. Academy of Management Journal,2008,33(2),473-491.
[249]Yli-Renko, H., Autio, E.,& Sapienza, H. J. Social capital, knowledge acquisition, and knowledge exploitation in young technology-based firms. Strategic Management Journal,2001,22(6-7),587-613.
[250]Zahra, S. A. Entrepreneurial Risk Taking in Family Firms. Family Business Review,2005,18(1),23-40.
[251]Zahra, S. A.,& Nambisan, S. Entrepreneurship and strategic thinking in business ecosystems. Business Horizons,2012,55(3),219-229.
[252]Zhang J. and Liang X. Business ecosystem strategies of mobile network operators in the 3G era:The case of China Mobile. Telecommunications Policy, 2011,35(2),156-171.
[253]Zhang, Y.,& Li, H. Innovation search of new ventures in a technology cluster: the role of ties with service intermediaries. Strategic Management Journal, 2010,31(1),88-109.
[254]Zineldin, M. Co-opetition:the organisation of the future. Marketing Intelligence & Planning,2004,22(7),780-790.
[255]包彦明.从复杂适应系统理论的角度探讨高新技术园区生命周期的演化.科学决策,2006,13(04),58-60.
[256]陈晓萍,徐淑英,范景立.组织与管理研究的实证方法.北京,北京大学出版社,2008.
[257]戴维奇,林巧,魏江.集群内外网络嵌入与公司创业——基于浙江省四个产业集群的实证研究.科学学研究,2011,29(04),571-581.
[258]杜海东.基于动态系统模型的科技园区创新能力影响因素分析.科学管理研究,2012,32(02),9-12.
[259]冯米,路江涌,林道谧.战略与结构匹配的影响因素——以我国台湾地区企业集团为例.管理世界,2012,28(02),73-81+147+188.
[260]傅首清.区域创新网络与科技产业生态环境互动机制研究——以中关村海淀科技园区为例.管理世界,2010,26(06),8-13+27.
[261]高长元,杜鹏.高技术虚拟产业集群成员企业合作竞争与知识创新的关系研究.管理学报,2010,7(02),212-217.
[262]龚艳萍,陈艳丽.企业创新网络的复杂适应系统特征分析.研究与发展管理,2010,22(01),68-74.
[263]何云景,武杰.构建复杂适应的创业支持系统.系统科学学报,2007,15(03),42-46.
[264]侯杰泰,温忠麟和成子娟.结构方程模型及其应用.北京,教育科学出版社,2004.
[265]胡恩华,刘洪.基于复杂适应系统的企业集群创新行为研究.中国科技论坛,2007,23(01),65-68+72.
[266]李健,金占明.战略联盟内部企业竞合关系研究.科学学与科学技术管理,2008,29(06),129-134.
[267]李凯,任晓艳,向涛.产业集群效应对技术创新能力的贡献——基于国家高新区的实证研究.科学学研究,2007,25(03),448-452.
[268]李良贤.基于竞合关系的中小企业成长过程中的共生行为研究.博士学 位论文,江西财经大学,2011.
[269]李世清,龙勇.互补型竞合关系中合作结构选择偏好的实证研究.软科学,2010,24(12),7-12.
[270]林嵩.创业生态系统,概念发展与运行机制.中央财经大学学报,2011,25(04),58-62.
[271]刘美芳,王晶莹.中关村科技园区效率评价及其影响因素分行业研究.科学管理研究,2012,32(05),69-72.
[272]刘雯雯,杨震宁,王以华.科技园管理创新、战略动机和企业创新绩效,—个整合模型.科学学研究,2009,27(05),783-792.
[273]刘雪锋.网络嵌入性影响企业绩效的机制案例研究.管理世界,2009,25(S1),3-12+129-130.
[274]卢文岱.SPSS统计分析(第4版).北京,电子工业出版社,2010.
[275]陆园园,薛镭.基于复杂适应系统理论的企业创新网络研究.中国科技论坛,2007,23(12),76-80.
[276]吕萍,杨震宁,王以华.高新技术企业价值提升,科技园的温床效应.科学学研究,2007,25(06),1122-1128.
[277]潘剑英,王重鸣.创业指数研究述评与展望.管理现代化,2014,34(03),123-125.
[278]潘剑英,王重鸣.商业生态系统理论模型回顾与研究展望.外国经济与管理,2012,34(09),51-58.
[279]潘剑英,王重鸣.生态系统隐喻在组织研究中的应用与展望.自然辩证法研究,2014,30(03),65-69.
[280]彭伟,符正平.高新技术企业创业导向、联盟能力与联盟绩效关系研究.科研管理,2012,33(12),78-85.
[281]荣泰生.AMOS与研究方法.重庆,重庆大学出版社,2010.
[282]沈漪文,卢智健.创业生态系统概念辨析.商业经济,2013,20(16),93-94.
[283]王兆华,于江.“中关村指数”评价体系及其对我国科技园区发展的启示.科学学与科学技术管理,2007,28(02),114-119.
[284]王重鸣.基于人与组织匹配的组织变革行为与战略决策机制研究.国家自然科学基金重点项目,2008.
[285]王重鸣.基于并行分布策略的中国企业组织变革与文化融合机制研究.国家自然科学基金重点项目,2013.
[286]王重鸣.心理学研究方法.北京：人民教育出版杜,2001.
[287]魏江,曹建萍,焦豪.基于竞合理论的集群企业技术能力整合机理研究.科 学学与科学技术管理,2008,29(06),135-141.
[288]温忠麟,张雷,侯杰泰.有中介的调节变量和有调节的中介变量.心理学报,2006,38(3),448-452.
[289]吴兰贞.基于生态系统视角的科技园区培育机制与发展模式研究.博士学位论文,吉林大学,2013.
[290]吴明隆.结构方程模型—AMOS的操作与应用(第2版).重庆：重庆大学出版社,2010.
[291]吴旭云,贺小刚,郝影利.创业导向、网络嵌入与创业型企业成长关系研究.科技进步与对策,2013,30(05),78-84.
[292]肖勇军. 基于生态理论的科技园区创业环境对创业绩效影响的实证研究.博士学位论文,中南大学,2012.
[293]徐二明,徐凯.资源互补对机会主义和战略联盟绩效的影响研究.管理世界,2012,28(01),93-100+102+101+103+187-188.
[294]徐亮,张宗益,龙勇,周旭.竞合战略与技术创新绩效的实证研究.科研管理,2009,30(01),87-96.
[295]杨震宁,吕萍,王以华.积极的战略动机是否带来高绩效,科技园的环境调节效应.科学学研究,2008,26(05),979-986.
[296]杨震宁,吕萍,王以华.企业入驻科技园的动机及影响因素模型研究.科学学研究,2008,26(01),137-143+198.
[297]杨震宁,吴杰.不同功能分类科技园的资源供给差异研究.科研管理,2011,32(09),35-43.
[298]易朝辉.网络嵌入、创业导向与新创企业绩效关系研究.科研管理,2012,33(11),105-115.
[299]张金萍,周游.基于商业生态系统的企业竞争战略.管理世界,2005,21(06),159-160.
[300]张荣祥,刘景江.高技术企业创业社会网络嵌入,机制要素与案例分析.科学学研究,2009,27(06),904-909.
[301]张卫国,青雪梅.竞合战略趋势、稳定性机理与中国企业选择.改革,2012,30(07),34-45.
[302]张骁,胡丽娜.创业导向对企业绩效影响关系的边界条件研究——基于元分析技术的探索.管理世界,2013,29(06),99-110+188.
[303]张永安,李晨光.复杂适应系统应用领域研究展望.管理评论,2010,22(05),121-128.
[304]张玉利,曲阳,云乐鑫.基于中国情境的管理学研究与创业研究主题总结.外国经济与管理,2014,36(1),65-72
[305]赵岑,姜彦福.中国企业战略联盟伙伴特征匹配标准实证研究.科学学研究,2010,28(04),558-565.
[306]赵剑波,杨震宁,王以华.政府的引导作用对于集群中企业创新绩效的影响,基于国内科技园区数据的实证研究.科研管理,2012,33(02),11-17+78.
[307]赵涛,刘文光,边伟军.区域科技创业生态系统的结构模式与功能机制研究.科技管理研究,2011,31(24),78-82.
[308]周勇,万迪昉.实物期权视角下集群效应对企业进入科技园区时机选择的决策模型.管理学报,2010,7(08),1185-1190.
[309]朱亮.复杂适应系统理论视角的区域创新系统研究.博士学位论文,中国科学技术大学,2009.
© 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号 地址：北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编：100083 电话：办公室：(+86 10)66554848；文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新：66554700 |