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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

D. Felsensteinare not fully exploited. This is because innovationis related to the seedbed environment, which ishypothesized to be an unknown quantity at theearly stages of firm development.3. Science parks as seedbedsEvidence exists suggesting that, in spatial termsat least, universities do have a seedbed effect ontheir local economies. A series of aggregateanalyses on the effects of universities on metropolitanareas or regions in the United States hasshown this effect to be wide ranging. ThusJaffe [18] has found a relationship between firminnovation rates (measured by patents) and thelevel of local university research. This suggests theexistence of technological ‘spillovers’ that benefitfirms in proximity to universities. Further evidenceof this aggregate spillover effect comes from Bania,Eberts and Fogarty [19], who attribute higherlevels of .new firm formation rates to those placeswith concentrations of highly skilled universitylabour, and from Beeson and Montgomery [20],who suggest that this spillover effect can alsoaffect occupational composition. They show thatthe level of R&D funding at a local universityincreases the odds of being employed locally as ascientist or engineer or being employed in a localhigh-technology industry. This seedbed functionalso serves to entrench future rounds of growthas evidenced by universities’ ability to attractscientific infrastructure. For metropolitan areas, ithas been shown that industrial R&D labs tend toconcentrate in those areas where levels of universityresearch are highest [21]. This relationship hasalso been found on the basis of case-study analysis[22].1It should be noted, however, that evidence fromoutside the US is more equivocal. In the case ofJapan, for example, Eto and Fujita [28] reject thehypothesis that universities are instrumental ingenerating high-tech firm growth. They find strongevidence of the self-entrenching effects of hightechgrowth and that scientific-industrial agglomerationswill tend to reproduce themselves. This canoften take place in proximity to leading universities,although they find no real causality in this process.Similarly, Florax and Folmer [29] show that, inthe case of Holland, the diffusion of knowledgeis not necessarily a function of spatial clusteringaround universities. This seems to imply littlespillover effect, in small countries at least.Overall, however, the claims for a significantuniversity seeding effect on the local economy,with respect to innovation level, new firm startuprates, occupational composition and so on,seem to be well founded. Evidence attributing asimilar role to science parks, however, is rathermore mixed. In terms of new firm formation,Massey et al. [6] find mixed evidence for Britishscience parks. On the one hand, new start-upsform a clear minority (less than 30%) of firms onscience parks and in much celebrated seedbeds,such as Cambridge, this figure is less than 10%.On the other hand, new start-ups on science parkshave a much lower mortality rate than that of newfirms in general (less than 2.5% a year). Thiscould however reflect a screening process forscience park entry that selects only firms withgood survival chances. In the US, case studyevidence shows great variation. On the ResearchTriangle Park, for example, over 70% of firms arepart of multi-plant organizations whose existencecannot be attributed to the park. The Universityof Utah Research Park, on the other hand, haslocal, single-plant organizations comprising morethan half the park population [ll].Science park-based spin-offs that trace their rootsto the university are another seedbed characteristic.While much attention traditionally has beenfocused on existing firms spawning new firms [30],spin-offs emanating from a university environmenthave received much less attention [31]. Nevertheless,accounts of locally based company genealogiesnearly always put the local university or sciencepark at the apex of any ‘family tree’ account ofseedbed growth.Survey evidence from firms located on Dutchand Belgian science parks indicates that only 37%of firms in the former and 16% in the latterattribute their origins to universities [32]. In the96 Technovation Vol. 14 No. 2
Science parks - seedbeds or enclaves of innovation?US, again the variation across individual parks isvery great. Thus, Luger and Goldstein [II] havefound that over 120 spin-off companies in thevicinity of the Stanford Research Park haveuniversity antecedents whereas for the ResearchTriangle Park the number of university spin-offsis virtually nil. Massey et al. [6] show that, forUK science parks, on aggregate 25% of firms mayhave their beginnings in academia although someof these are likely to be analytic service units ortechnical troubleshooting operations that, prior tothe establishment of the science park, were locatedwithin the university. Even at the level of theindividual park unit, while a location such as theCambridge Science Park is much heralded as aspin-off incubator and (in 1987) nearly 400 localfirms owed their ultimate origin to the localuniversity in one way or another, direct universityinvolvement in their establishment was much morecircumspect. Segal Quince Wicksteed [33] reportsthat less than 20% of new companies were formedby direct university entrants.If the science park functions as an effectiveseedbed, it is assumed that the level of R&Dconducted by firms located on science parks isgenerally higher than that of off-park firms andthat this reflects the level of (close) interactionpresumed to exist between science park firms andthe local university. The science park is thusperceived as an important conduit in technologytransfer out of the university and into the localeconomy.Van Dierdonck et al. [32] present a ratherdifferent picture based on science parks in Belgiumand Holland. They show rather low levels ofinteraction performance between park tenants andlocal universities, with the overall level of R&Dactivity performed on the park being lower thanpopularly anticipated. Only 32% of Dutch firmsand 57% of Belgian firms surveyed reported inhouseR&D, and little R&D interaction wasreported with either local (science park) firms orthe local university. In fact, for many science parkfirms, external research linkages were not locallydefined and were conducted on an internationalscale, pointing to the existence of research networksunconstrained by national boundaries. Similarly,Massey et al. [6] find science park tenant firms inthe UK less ‘leading edge’ than generally imagined.On the inputs side, over 40% of employees onparks were scientists and engineers2 and R&Dexpenditures in relation to sales were very high.On the outputs side, despite a greater propensityto patent amongst on-park than off-park firms,most firms were found to be engaged in modificationof existing technologies rather than thedevelopment and production of totally new innovations.Complementing this picture is the evidencepointing to the generally low level of links betweenscience park firms and local universities. Mostaccessing of academic resources relates to lowlevelcontacts based on recruiting university graduates,or informal contacts [6]. Joint research orsubcontracting relations are much less profuse.For UK science parks only 14% of companiesreported such links, and a survey of two majorparks in Israel reported a similar figure [34]. Firmson US science parks have also indicated thatrecruitment of graduates and use of universityfacilities form their main points of contact withuniversities. Thus, for both the Research TrianglePark and the University of Utah Research Park,technology transfer to local firms (both on- andoff-park) was low [ll]. For these firms the localuniversity was not a particularly important sourceof R&D inputs or innovations. Even for theStanford Research Park, generally accredited withbeing an archetypal ‘seedbed’, local firms did notreport a significant seeding effect. Thus, while80% of on-park firms reported links with Stanford,over 70% of off-park firms said they had noconnection.These observed levels of university-science parkinteraction have led to suggestions that hightechnologyfirms are more dependent on linkagesand information flows from other similar firmsthan on interaction with universities [35]. If thisis the case, there should be evidence of sciencepark firms seeding the local economy throughtheir material input-output patterns. However,examining the external purchase and sales linkagesTechnovation Vol. 14 No. 2
Page 2 and 3: 0. Felsensteina supportive environm
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

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

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

Delete template?

Save as template?