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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
Science parks - seedbeds or enclaves of innovation?5 R.A. Joseph, Silicon Valley myth and the origins of REI Working Papers Series, Center for Regionaltechnology parks in Australia. Science and Public Economic Issues, Case Western University, Cleve-Policy, 16 (1989) 353-365. land, OH, 1990.6 D. Massey, P. Quintas and D. Wield, High TechFantasies: Science Parks in Society, Science andSpace. Routledge, London, 1992.7 R. Struyk and F. James, Intra-Metropolitan IndustrialLocation. Lexington Books, Lexington, MA, 1975.8 I.G. Begg and G.C. Cameron, High technologylocation and the urban areas of Great Britain. UrbanStudies, 25 (1988) 361-379.9 E.J. Davelaar and P. Nijkamp, The role of themetropolitan milieu as an incubation centre fortechnological innovations: a Dutch case-study. UrbanStudies, 26 (1989) 517-525.10 M.T. Peddle, An empirical investigation of therelationship between community characteristics andthe presence of industrial parks. Regional SciencePerspectives, 18(2) (1988) 14-28.11 M.I. Luger and H.A. Goldstein, Technology in theGarden, Research Parks and Regional EconomicDevelopment. University of North Carolina Press,Chapel Hill, NC, 1991.12 A.J. Scott and M. Storper, High technology industryand regional development: a theoretical critique andreconstruction. International Social Science Journal,112 (1987) 215-233.13 P. Aydalot and D. Keeble, High Technology Industryand Innovative Environments: The European Experience.Routledge, London, 1988.14 R. Camagni, Local ‘milieu’, uncertainty and innovationnetworks: towards a new dynamic theory ofeconomic space. In: R. Camagni (ed.), InnovationNetworks; Spatial Perspectives. Belhaven, London,1991, pp. 121-144.15 Z.J. Acs and D.B. Audretsch, Innovation and SmallFirms, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1990.16 S. Birley, The role of networks in the entrepreneurialprocess. Journal of Business Venturing, 1 (1985)107-117.17 S.J. Appold, The location process of industrialresearch laboratories. Annals of Regional Science,25 (1991) 137-144.18 A. Jaffe, Technological opportunity and spilloversof R&D: evidence from firms’ patents, profits andmarket value. American Economic Review, 76 (1986)984-1001..19 N. Bania, R. Eberts and M.S. Fogarty, Universitiesand rhe Start-Up of New Companies: Can weGeneralize from Route 128 and Silicon Valley?20 P. Beeson and E. Montgomery, The Effects ofColleges and Universities on Local Labor Markets.NBER Working Paper No. 3280, Cambridge, MA,1990.21 N. Bania, L.N. Calkins and D.R. Dalenberg, Theeffects of regional science and technology policy onthe geographical distribution of industrial R&Dlaboratories. Journal of Regional Science, 32(2)(1992) 209-228.22 N. Bania, M.S. Fogarty and S. Kaufman, AnAssessment of Cleveland’s Scientific and EngineeringBase and its Role in the Economy. Center forRegional Economic Issues, Case Western ReserveUniversity, Cleveland, OH, 1987.23 D. Steinnes, On understanding and evaluating theuniversity’s evolving economic development policy.Economic Development Quarterly, l(2) (1987)214-223.24 D.W. Hedrick, S.E. Henson and R.S. Mack, Theeffects of universities on local retail, service andFIRE employment: some cross-sectional evidence.Growth and Change, 21(3) (1990) 9-20.25 M. Brownrigg, The economic impact of a newuniversity. Scottish Journal of Political Economy,20(20) (1974) 1234-1239.26 H.A. Goldstein, Estimating the regional economicimpact of universities: an application of input-outputanalysis. Planning for Higher Education, 18(l)(1989-90) 51-63.27 M.F. Bleaney, M.R. Binks, D. Greenaway, G.V.Reed and D.K. Whynes, What does a universityadd to its local economy? Applied Economics, 24(1992) 305-311.28 H. Eto and M. Fujita, Regularities in the growth ofhigh technology industries in regions. ResearchPolicy, 18 (1989) 135-153.29 R. Florax and H. Folmer, Knowledge impacts ofuniversities on industry: an aggregate simultaneousinvestment model. Journal of Regional Science, 32(4)(1992) 437-466.30 D.A. Garvin, Spin-offs and the new firm formationprocess. California Management Review, 25(2) (1983)3-20.31 A.M. Brett, D.V. Gibson and R.W. Smilor (eds.),University Spin-Off Companies: Economic Development,Faculty Entrepreneurs and Technology Transfer.Rowan and Littlefield, Savage, MA, 1991.Technovation Vol. 14 No. 2 109
Page 2 and 3: 0. Felsensteina supportive environm
Page 4 and 5: D. Felsensteinare not fully exploit
Page 6 and 7: D. Felsensteinthat science park fir
Page 8 and 9: 0. Felsensteinpark in that city and
Page 11 and 12: Science parks - seedbeds or enclave
Page 13 and 14: Science parks - seedbeds or enclave
Page 15: Science parks - seedbeds or enclave

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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?