University-related science parks - 'seedbeds' or 'enclaves' of ...

D. Felsensteininnovative new forms of relations with industry,based on alternative technology transfer mechanismsand synergistic relationships such as limitedpartnerships, R&D seed funds and generic researchcollaboration [31, 461. Firms are exploring newchannels for cooperation, alliances, network formationand diagonal integration in an attempt todisperse risk, cope with technological complexityand in reaction to perceived external threats [51].Faced with the magnitude of the task of innovation,appendixing to the science park the role ofinnovation ‘seedbed’ or regional development‘growth pole’ may be an unrealistic expectationfrom a project that in many instances is not muchmore than a real-estate development. Thus, ifthere is some disappointment in the fact thatscience parks are often not much more thanhigh-tech ‘islands’ with minimal interactions bothbetween themselves and with their neighbouringuniversities, it could be that hopes were pitchedtoo high in the first place.From the public policy perspective, the ‘seedbed’metaphor allows officials and policy makers tooperationalize their expectations of science parks.Therein lies its appeal. The science park is, ofcourse, just one of a collection of policy instrumentsthat aim to encourage the development of seedbedsof innovation. However, it is often uncriticallyaccepted as such - a position that this paper hassought to re-evaluate. While, for didactic purposes,we have characterized science parks in terms of aan enclave/seedbed dichotomy, in reality most ofthem probably lie somewhere along the continuumrunning between these two polar positions. Thechallenge therefore lies in the development ofpolicy tools that will encourage them to developinto more than just a ‘collection of firms’.AcknowledgementsFunding for this research was supported in partby a grant from the Israel Trustees Foundation.The work was completed while the author was avisiting scholar at the Center for Urban Affairsand Policy Research, Northwestern University,Evanston, Illinois, USA, and in receipt of a grantfrom the Lady Davis Fellowship Trust.Notes’ All these effects exist, of course, over and abovethe regular income, employment and output effects ofuniversities on local economic growth. On this issue,research has shown a particularly profound effect onlocal service sectors induced by university purchasing,staff and student expenditures [23,24]. Impact studies ofindividual universities have reached similar conclusionsalthough methodologies and consequently outputs varygreatly (see for example [25-271).2 In contrast, scientists and engineers as a percentageof the total science park labour force are reported as23% in the case of the University of Utah Researchpark, 31% for Research Triangle Park and 33% forStanford Research Park [ll].3 Braun and McHone [37] report income, output,employment and value-added multipliers for sciencepark firms located on the Central Florida ResearchPark. These lie in the range of 1~59-1~87. Interestingly,multipliers for Central Florida firms off-park are generallyhigher, ranging from 1.65 to 2.07.4 This ratio (~5~) is defined aswhere h4, = observed frequencies in each cell, andticijkj = expected frequencies in each cell.ReferencesA.C. Cooper, The role of incubator organizationsin the founding of growth-oriented firms. Journal ofBusiness Venturing, 1 (1985) 75-86.A.C. Cooper and W.C. Dunkelberg, Entrepreneurshipand paths to business ownership. StrategicManagement Journal, 7 (1986) 53-68.R.N. Cox, Lessons from 30 years of science parksin the USA. In: J.M. Gibb (ed.), Science Parks andInnovation Centres: Their Economic and SocialImpact. Elsevier Science Publications, Amsterdam,1985, pp. 17-25.R. Miller and M. Cote, Growing the next SiliconValley, Harvard Business Review, 63(4) (1985)114-123.108Technovation Vol. 14 No. 2