The science park phenomenon: development, evolution and typology

International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management

Volumn 5, Issue 1-2, 2005, Pages 138-154

  Zhang, Yuehua ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WAIKATO   (New Zealand)

Author keywords

industrial cluster; innovation centre; science technology park; technology incubator; technopole; technopolis

Indexed keywords

EID: 34548204108     PISSN: 1368275X     EISSN: 17415098     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1504/ijeim.2005.006341     Document Type: Article

References (84)

1. Akimoto, K. and Oda, K. (1992) ‘Wagakuni saiensu paaku no setsuritsu joukyou to chiiki sangyou ni okeru yakuwari’ (The status of our country’s science park establishment and its role in regional industry), Kenkyuu Kaihatsu Manejimento, Dec. 8–14.
2. Aley, J. (1997) ‘The heart of Silicon Valley’, Fortune, Vol. 136, No. 1, pp.66–74.
3. Allesch, J, and Fiedler, H. (Eds) (1985) Management of Science Parks and Innovation Centers, Germany: Braum & Weidler.
4. AURRP (2000) ‘The association of university related research parks’ [Online]. Available: http://www.aurrp.org/whatis.html [2000].
5. AURRP (The Association of University Related Research Parks) (1998) Worldwide Research & Science Park Directory 1998, The Association of University Related Research Parks, BPI Communications.
6. Bass, S.J. (1998) ‘Japanese research parks: national policy and local development’, Regional Studies, Vol. 32, No. 5, pp.391–403.
7. Broadhurst, T. (1988) ‘History of science park development and the existing patter’, in B. Worrall (Ed.) Setting up a Science Park, The Proceedings of the UK Science Park Association’s Seminar held at the University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology on 3/4th November 1988, UK Science Park Association, pp.5–12.
8. Browne, T.B. (1966) ‘The changing research park’, Industrial Research, Vol. 8, p.42.
9. Cabral, R. (1998) ‘Refining the Cabral-Dahab science park management paradigm’, Int. J. Technology Management, Vol. 16, No. 8, pp.813–818.
10. Carter, N. (1989) Science Park Development and Management, London: The Estates Gazette Limited.
11. Castells and Hall (1994) Technopoles of the World, The Making of Twenty-first-Century Industry Complexes, London and New York: Routledge.
12. Cole, R.E. (1998) ‘Introduction’, California Management Review, Vol. 40, No. 3, pp.15–21.
13. Currie, J. (1985) Science Parks in Britain: Their Role for the Late 1980s, CSP Economic Publications.
14. Danilov, V.J. (1967) ‘How successful are science parks?’ Industrial Research, May, pp.76–81.
15. Danilov, V.J. (1971) ‘Industry research’, Industry Research, May, pp.44–47.
16. Debenham, T. and Chinnocks (1983) High Tech Myths and Realities: A Review of Developments for Knowledge Based Industries, London.
17. DISUKL (Department of Industry and Shell U.K. Limited) (1982) Helping Small Firms Start up and Grow: Common Services and Technological Support, London: HMSO, pp.41–42.
18. DITC (the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce) (1989) Technology Park in Australia: A Review of State Experiences, Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.
19. Fiedler, H. (1989) ‘Innovation center in the Federal Republic of Germany – present stage of development’, in H. Sunman (Ed.) The Role of Science Park in the Promotion of Innovation and the Transfer of Technology, UK Science Park Association, pp.9–18.
20. Franco, M.R. (1985) ‘Key success factors for university-affiliated research park: a comparative analysis’, PhD Thesis, The University of Rochester, Rochester, New York.
21. Giunta, F.J. (1996) ‘The emerging paradigm of new urbanism in science park development’, Proceedings of V World Conference on Science Parks, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
22. Goldstein, H.A. and Luger, M.I. (1993) ‘Theory and practice in high-tech economic development’, in R. Bingham and R. Mier (Eds) Theories of Local Economic Development, Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, pp.147–174.
23. Grayson, L. (1993) Science Parks: An Experiment in High Technology Transfer, The British Library.
24. Gwynne, P. (1992) ‘Greenhouses for ideas’, Asian Business, Vol. 28, No. 1, pp.34–35.
25. Haxton, B.M. (2000) ‘Design analysis of United States technology incubators’, The Proceedings of IASP Millennium Conference, The UK.
26. Hennebery, J.M. (1984) ‘British and American science parks: a comparison’, Property Management, Vol. 2, No. 4, pp.301–313.
27. Herbig, P.A. and Golden, J.E. (1993) ‘The rise of innovative hot sports: Silicon Valley and Route 128’, International Marketing Review, Vol. 10, No. 3, pp.35–50.
28. IASP (2001) International Association of Science Parks [Online]. Available: http://www.iaspworld.org [2001].
29. IASP (2004) International Association of Science Parks [Online]. Available: http://www.iaspworld.org [27 July 2001].
30. IASP (International Association of Science Parks) (1998) Members of IASP – World-wide Directory, Spain.
31. Jennings, L. (1995) ‘A tale of two technopoles: Silicon Valley vs. Route 128’, Futurist, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp.60–61.
32. Joseph, R.A. (1989a) ‘Silicon Valley myth and the origins of technology parks in Australia’, Science and Policy, Vol. 16, No. 6, pp.353–365.
33. Joseph, R.A. (1989b) ‘Technology parks and their contribution to the development of technology-oriented complexes in Australia’, Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, Vol. 7, pp.173–192.
34. Joseph, R.A. (1994) ‘New way to make technology parks more relevant’, Prometheus, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp.46–61.
35. Kenward, M. (1991) ‘Where science has a home?, Director, Vol. 45, No. 2, pp.59–62.
36. Larsen, J.K. and Rogers, E.M. (1988) ‘Silicon Valley: the rise and falling off of entrepreneurial fever’, in R.W. Smilor, G. Kozmetsky and D.V. Gibson (Eds) Creating the Technopolis: Linking Technology Commercialization and Economic Development Cambridge, MA: Ballinger, pp.99–115.
37. LaValle, K.P. (1982) ‘High technology park – a marriage of higher education and industry’, A Report by the Chairman of the New York State Senate Higher Education Committee.
38. Lin, C.-Y. (1997) ‘Technopolis development: an assessment of the Hsinchu experience’, International Planning Studies, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp.257–272.
39. Lowe, J. (1985) ‘Science parks in the UK’, Lloyds Bank Review, Vol. 156, pp.31–42.
40. Luger, M.I. (1996) ‘Spontaneous technopolises and regional restructuring: the case of Research Triangle, NC, Proceedings of The International Symposium on the Technopolis, its Vision and Future, Taejon, Korea: World Technopolis Organizing Committee, pp.5–30.
41. Luger, M.I. and Goldstein, H.A. (1991) Technology in the Garden: Research Parks and Regional Economic Development, The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill & London.
42. Macdonald, S. (1987) ‘British science parks: reflections on the politics of high technology’, R&D Management, 17 Jan., pp.25–37.
43. MacDonald, S.B. (1998) ‘Transparency in Thailand’s 1997 economic crisis: the significance of disclosure’, Asian Survey, Vol. 38, No. 7, pp.688–703.
44. Marsh, P. (1996) ‘Commerce takes an interest in expanding world of science parks’, Financial Time, June 3.
45. Maruyama, M. (1985) ‘Report on a new technological community: the making of a technopolis in an international context’, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 27, pp.75–98.
46. Masuda, S. (1995) ‘The results and prospects of SPs in Japan’, Snet Japan, Vol. 2, pp.1–2.
47. Mathews, J.A. (1997) ‘A Silicon Valley of the east: creating Taiwan’s semiconductor’, California Management Review, Vol. 39, No. 4, pp.26–54.
48. McQueen, J.D and Haxton, B.M. (1998) ‘Comparison of science park planning, economic policy, and management techniques between science parks: worldwide’, Proceedings of IASP World Conference on Science & Technology Parks, pp.484–512.
49. Miller, R. and Cote, M. (1987) Growing the Next Silicon Valley, A Guide for Successful Regional Planning, Lexington Books.
50. Minshall, C.W. (1983) ‘An overview of trends in science and high technology parks’, Economic and Policy Analysis, Occasional Paper Number 37, Battelle, Columbus Division.
51. Monck, C.S.P., Porter, R.B., Quintas, P., Storey, D.J. and Wynarczyk, P. (1988) Science Parks and the Growth of High Technology Firms, Groom Helm.
52. NSF (National Science Foundation) (1982) ‘University-industry research relationships’, 14th Annual Rapport of the National Science Board, Washington, DC.
53. OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) (1987) Science Parks and Technology Complexes in Relation to Regional Development, Paris.
54. OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) (1999) Managing National Innovation Systems.
55. Orr, B.E. (1994) ‘Creation of a supportive environment for commercialization of industry relevant research and development – Technology Park Adelaide’, in K. Gonda, F. Sakauchi and T. Higgins (Eds) Proceedings of NISTEP, The International Workshop on Regional Science and Technology Policy Research, Tokyo, pp.249–263.
56. Porter, R.B. (1989) ‘Science parks – the European dimension’, in H. Sunman (Ed.) The Role of Science Park in the Promotion of Innovation and the Transfer of Technology, pp.19–24.
57. Queensland Premier’s Department (1984) Towards a Strategy for Technological Development in Queensland, Queensland Premier’s Department.
58. Quince, R. (1985) ‘Very special situation’, Management Today, July, pp.xix–xxi.
59. Rogers, E.M. and Larsen, J.K. (1984) Silicon Valley Fever: Growth of High-Technology Culture, New York: Basic Books, Inc.
60. Saxenian, A. (1985) ‘The genesis of Silicon Valley’, in P. Hall and A. Markusen (Eds) Silicon Landscapes, Boston: Allen & Unwin, pp.20–34.
61. Saxenian, A. (1994a) ‘Lessons from Silicon Valley’, Technology Review, Vol. 97, No. 5, pp.42–51.
62. Saxenian, A. (1994b) Regional Advantage: Culture and Competition in Silicon Valley and Route 128, Cambridge, MA: Harvard Innovation Press.
63. Schamp, E.W. (1987) ‘Technology parks and interregional competition in the Federal Republic of Germany’, in G.A. Van der Knaap and E. Wever (Eds) New Technology and Regional Development, London: Groom Helm, pp.119–135.
64. Shivaram, M.N. (1991) ‘Tech-park profile: science parks and global perspective’, Technical Monitor, May–June, p.20–22.
65. SQW (Segal Quince Wicksteed) (1985) The Cambridge Phenomenon: The Growth of High Technology Industry in a University Town.
66. Sunman, H. (1989) ‘Introduction: a European theme’, in H. Sunman (Ed.) The Role of Science Park in the Promotion of Innovation and the Transfer of Technology, pp.1–3.
67. Teece, D.J. (1998) ‘Research directions for knowledge management’, California Management Review, Vol. 40, No. 3, pp.288–292.
68. Van Dierdonck, D.K. and Rappa, M.A. (1991) ‘An assessment of science parks: towards a better understanding of their role in the diffusion of technological knowledge’, R&D Management, 21 Feb., pp.109–123.
69. Van Dierdonck, R. and Debackere, K. (1990) ‘Science parks and technological innovation’, Tijdschrift voor Economie en Management, Vol. XXXV, No. 3, pp.233–255.
70. Voyer, R. (1998) ‘Knowledge-based industrial clustering: international comparisons’, in J. Mothe and G. Paquet (Eds) Local and Regional System of Innovation, Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp.81–110.
71. Westhead, P. and Batstone, S. (1998) ‘Independent technology-based firms: the perceived benefits of a science park location’, Urban Studies, Vol. 35, No. 12, pp.2197–2219.
72. Williams, J.C. (1998) ‘Frederick E. Terman and the rise of Silicon Valley’, Int. J. Technology Management, Vol. 16, No. 8, pp.751–760.
73. Xue, L. (1997) ‘Promoting industrial R&D and high-tech development through science parks: The Taiwan experience and its implications for developing countries’, Int. J. Technology Management, Special Issue on R&D Management, Vol. 13, Nos. 7/8, pp.744–761.
74. Zhang, Y. (2004) ‘On clustering behaviour of industries: implications for the industrialization of developing countries’, Int. J. of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, Vol. 4, Nos. 2/3, pp.290–304.
75. The park was originally named the Stanford Industrial Park. The name was later changed to the Stanford Research Park to more accurately reflect the park’s evolution as a site primarily housing scientific research and corporate headquarters (Franco, 1985).
76. According to LaValle (1982), the Research Triangle Park was founded in 1958.
77. Disagreements exist concerning whether the ‘Silicon Valley’ is a spontaneous or planned industrial cluster. Many studies cite it as an example of spontaneous industrial cluster (see Allesch, 1985; Castells and Hall, 1994; Luger, 1996; Van Dierdonck et al., 1991). OECD (1987) regards it as an industrial complex with a high degree of spontaneity. Saxenian (1985), Monck et al. (1988), Larsen and Rogers (1988) and Broadhurst (1988) argue that it is the Stanford Research Park, the planned development, that attracted entrepreneurs setting up companies and R&D facilities, leading to the formation of the ‘Silicon Valley’. The author of the current paper defines an industrial cluster, based on a broad range of literature review, as an agglomeration or a concentration of related companies and/or institutions in a certain area (Zhang, 2004). The criterion distinguishing spontaneous and planned industrial clusters is whether a cluster formed with or without planners and/or organisers other than those clustering actors. The author agrees that the ‘Silicon Valley’ is a spontaneous cluster.
78. Nearly all the literature that the author has reviewed is in English. Information about science parks that may be reflected by literature in other languages may not be included.
79. The current paper uses the term ‘science park’ for general discussion. However, where the literature refers respectively to ‘research park’, ‘technology park’ or other names, these terms are used interchangeably.
80. See IASP launched a new definition for science parks on 6 February 2002 (IASP, 2004). The author of the current paper perceives that the previous definition provides a clearer idea than the new one.
81. IASP was established in 1984; AURRP, in 1985. The former is based in Spain; the latter, in the USA. Both have member parks all over the world. IASP also has its member leadership from different parts of the world, and has its divisions in Europe, Asia-Pacific, Latin America and North America (McQueen and Haxton, 1998). They work as a useful vehicle for professional networking and cross fertilisation, and provide a forum for science park developers and managers (Orr, 1994).
82. Science park schemes in France are called ‘technopoles’ (Sunman, 1989).
83. The following discussion focuses mainly on selected countries in North America, Europe and the Asia Pacific. The author has identified too limited an amount of literature concerning other regions to present the trend of the science park development there. One reason for this may be that nearly all the literature that the author studied is in English.
84. Other countries have fewer parks. Canada had 18 schemes by 1995. Mexico had four (Giunta, 1996).