Technology centres in Germany: Economic justification, effectiveness and impact on high-tech regions

International Journal of Technology Management

Volumn 28, Issue 3-6, 2004, Pages 444-469

  Sternberg, Rolf ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF COLOGNE   (Germany)

Author keywords

Entrepreneurship; Germany; High tech regions; Munich; Start ups; Technological competitiveness; Technology centres

Indexed keywords

COMPETITION; ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL EFFECTS; INDUSTRIAL ECONOMICS; PUBLIC POLICY; SOCIAL ASPECTS; STATISTICAL METHODS;

ENTREPRENEURSHIP; GERMANY, EUROPE; HIGH-TECH REGIONS; MUNICH, GERMANY; START-UPS; TECHNOLOGICAL COMPETITIVENESS; TECHNOLOGY CENTERS;

TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER;

EID: 5444252293     PISSN: 02675730     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1504/ijtm.2004.005298     Document Type: Review

References (64)

1. Bundesministerium für Forschung und Technologie (BMBF) (2003) Zur technologischen Leistungsfähigkeit Deutschlands 2002, BMBF, Bonn.
2. The empirical findings of Section 2 of this paper are based upon four comprehensive surveys in German technology centres over a period of about nine years (sample size: 1,021 start-ups in 108 technology centres). These data sources are described in English language in Sternberg R. (1996) 'Evaluation of science parks: ex post and ex ante approaches', in K. Guy (Ed.) The Science Park Evaluation Handbook, Brighton, Technopolis, pp.52-65. The main results are presented in a book available in the 2nd edition: Sternberg, R., Behrendt, H., Seeger, H. and Tamásy, C. (1997) Bilanz eines Booms - Wirkungsanalyse von Technologie - und Gründerzentren in Deutschland, Dortmund (2nd edition), Dortmunder Vertrieb für Bau - und Planungsliteratur. It is important to know that not only founders of the start-ups have been interviewed but also the technology centre management and, especially important for the mid- and long-term effectiveness of the technology centres, firms formerly located in such a centre but now located offside and thus having experienced a certain growth.
3. The empirical findings of Section 2 of this paper are based upon four comprehensive surveys in German technology centres over a period of about nine years (sample size: 1,021 start-ups in 108 technology centres). These data sources are described in English language in Sternberg R. (1996) 'Evaluation of science parks: ex post and ex ante approaches', in K. Guy (Ed.) The Science Park Evaluation Handbook, Brighton, Technopolis, pp.52-65. The main results are presented in a book available in the 2nd edition: Sternberg, R., Behrendt, H., Seeger, H. and Tamásy, C. (1997) Bilanz eines Booms - Wirkungsanalyse von Technologie - und Gründerzentren in Deutschland, Dortmund (2nd edition), Dortmunder Vertrieb für Bau - und Planungsliteratur. It is important to know that not only founders of the start-ups have been interviewed but also the technology centre management and, especially important for the mid- and long-term effectiveness of the technology centres, firms formerly located in such a centre but now located offside and thus having experienced a certain growth.
4. This corresponds to the definition given by the EU 'Sprint' programme to its expression 'Science parks and associated structures'; see Alderman, N., Bruhat, T., Escorsa, P. and Sternberg, R. (1995) 'Etude comparative des parcs scientifiques en Europe: enjeux pour une politique communautaire d'innovation', Paris. Final draft on behalf of the European Commission (SPRINT-Program).
5. Sternberg, R. (1995) 'Assessment of innovation centers - methodological aspects and empirical evidence from western and eastern Germany', Preliminary results from a survey in 103 innovation centres, European Planning Studies, Vol. 3, pp.85-97.
6. Baranowski, G., Dressel, B. and Heukeroth, U. (Eds.) (2002) Innovationszentren in Deutschland 2002/03, Weidler, Berlin.
7. Dohse, D. (2003) Taking regions seriously: recent innovations in German technology policy', in J. Bröcker, D. Dohse and R. Soltwedel (Eds.) Innovation Clusters and Interregional Competition, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, Springer, pp.372-394.
8. Ministry of Economic Affairs, Technology and Transport in North Rhine Westphalia (1998) Technologiezentren in Nordrhein Westfalen, MWTV, Düsseldorf.
9. (1997) Cf. Sternberg et al., see 2.
10. Sections 3 and 4 are based upon a work of the author on behalf of the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) within a project on the 'Assessment of business incubators as economic development tools in developing countries'.
11. For the following comments see Arnold, E., Bianchi, A., Bruhat, T., Escorsa, P., Guy, K., Quintas, P., Sternberg, R., Stroyan, J., Tsipouri, L. and Vails, J. (1995) Evaluation of the Science Park Consultancy Scheme. Final Draft on Behalf of the European Commission (GD XIII), Brighton.
12. Lessat, V. (1999) Beteiligungskapital und Technologieorientierte Unternehmensgründungen: Markt - Finanzierung - Rahmenbedingungen, Gabler, Wiesbaden.
13. Siegel, D., Westhead, P. and Wright, M. (2002) 'Support for technology-based firms: the role played by property-based science parks', in A. Quadrio Curzio and M. Fortis (Eds.) Complexity and Industrial Clusters, Physica, Heidelberg, pp.249-265. See also Westhead, P. and Batstone, S. (1999) 'Perceived benefits of a managed science parks location for independent technology-based firms', Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, Vol. 11, pp.129-154.
14. Siegel, D., Westhead, P. and Wright, M. (2002) 'Support for technology-based firms: the role played by property-based science parks', in A. Quadrio Curzio and M. Fortis (Eds.) Complexity and Industrial Clusters, Physica, Heidelberg, pp.249-265. See also Westhead, P. and Batstone, S. (1999) 'Perceived benefits of a managed science parks location for independent technology-based firms', Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, Vol. 11, pp.129-154.
15. For such a comparison in the UK see Westhead, P. and Storey, D.J. (1994) An Assessment of Firms Located On and Off Science Parks in The UK, HMSO, London. For Sweden see Lindelöf, P. and Löfsten, H. (2003) 'Science park location and new technology-based firms in Sweden - implications for strategy and performance', Small Business Economics, Vol. 20, pp.245-258.
16. For such a comparison in the UK see Westhead, P. and Storey, D.J. (1994) An Assessment of Firms Located On and Off Science Parks in The UK, HMSO, London. For Sweden see Lindelöf, P. and Löfsten, H. (2003) 'Science park location and new technology-based firms in Sweden - implications for strategy and performance', Small Business Economics, Vol. 20, pp.245-258.
17. For a discussion on the role of the region for entrepreneurial activities see Wagner, J. and Sternberg, R. (2004) 'Start-up activities, individual characteristics, and the regional milieu: lessons for entrepreneurship support policies from German micro data', Annals of Regional Science, Vol. 38, pp.219-240. In fact, there are significant interregional differences in start-up activities in Germany as the 2002 GEM country report Germany shows, cf. Sternberg, R. and Bergmann, H. (2003) Global Entrepreneurship Monitor: Country Report Germany 2002, Department of Economic and Social Geography, University of Cologne.
18. For a discussion on the role of the region for entrepreneurial activities see Wagner, J. and Sternberg, R. (2004) 'Start-up activities, individual characteristics, and the regional milieu: lessons for entrepreneurship support policies from German micro data', Annals of Regional Science, Vol. 38, pp.219-240. In fact, there are significant interregional differences in start-up activities in Germany as the 2002 GEM country report Germany shows, cf. Sternberg, R. and Bergmann, H. (2003) Global Entrepreneurship Monitor: Country Report Germany 2002, Department of Economic and Social Geography, University of Cologne.
19. For Italian technology incubators see Colombo, M.G. and Delmastro, M. (2002) 'How effective are technology incubators? Evidence from Italy', Research Policy, Vol. 31, pp.1103-1122. Authors show that such facilities could play a more important role in a country characterised by a rather weak national innovation system.
20. See the 5 GEM country reports for Germany now available from www.gemconsortium.org
21. Similar to the situation in Sweden, where firms located on science parks were significantly more likely to have a link with a local university than off-park firms, see Löfsten, H. and Lindelöf, P. (2002) 'Science parks and the growth of new technology-based firms - academic-industry links, innovation and markets', Research Policy, Vol. 31, pp.859-876.
22. See [8].
23. Sternberg, R. (1990) The impact of innovation centers on small technology-based firms: the example of the Federal Republic of Germany', Small Business Economics, Vol. 2, pp.105-118.
24. Westhead, P. and Storey, D.J. (1994) An Assessment of Firms Located On and Off Science Parks in the UK, HMSO, London.
25. Sternberg, R. and Tamásy, C. (1999) 'Success factors of young technology-based firms', Working Papers, Department of Economic and Social Geography, University of Cologne, No. 3.
26. Seeger, H. (1997) Ex-Post-Bewertung der Technologie - und Gründerzentren durch die erfolgreich ausgezogenen Unternehmen und Analyse der einzel - und regionalwirtschaftlichen Effekte, Lit, Münster, Hamburg.
27. There are still no official statistics on start-ups in Germany and its regions, although progress has occured, see Fritsch, M., Grotz, R., Brixy, U., Niese, M. and Otto, A. (2002) 'Gründungen in Deutschland: Datenquellen, Niveau und räumlich-sektorale Struktur', in J. Schmude and R. Leiner (Eds.) Unternehmensgründungen. Interdisziplinäre Beiträge zum Entrepreneurship Research, Physica, Heidelberg, pp.1-32.
28. See [5], data corrected by the author.
29. Studies in the USA and in Israel also show that employment creation should not be considered the most important aim of technology centres; see Sherman, H. (1999) 'Assessing the intervention effectiveness of business incubation programmes on new business start-ups', Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, Vol. 4, pp.26-33 and Roper, S. (1999) 'Israel's technology incubators: repeatable success or costly failure?', Regional Studies, Vol. 33, pp. 175-180. See also Barrow, C. (2001) Incubators. A Realist's Guide to the World's New Business Accelerations, Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
30. Studies in the USA and in Israel also show that employment creation should not be considered the most important aim of technology centres; see Sherman, H. (1999) 'Assessing the intervention effectiveness of business incubation programmes on new business start-ups', Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, Vol. 4, pp.26-33 and Roper, S. (1999) 'Israel's technology incubators: repeatable success or costly failure?', Regional Studies, Vol. 33, pp. 175-180. See also Barrow, C. (2001) Incubators. A Realist's Guide to the World's New Business Accelerations, Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
31. Studies in the USA and in Israel also show that employment creation should not be considered the most important aim of technology centres; see Sherman, H. (1999) 'Assessing the intervention effectiveness of business incubation programmes on new business start-ups', Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, Vol. 4, pp.26-33 and Roper, S. (1999) 'Israel's technology incubators: repeatable success or costly failure?', Regional Studies, Vol. 33, pp. 175-180. See also Barrow, C. (2001) Incubators. A Realist's Guide to the World's New Business Accelerations, Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
32. Sternberg, R. (1990) 'Innovation centers in West Germany: transferring technology from universities to enterprises', Industry and Higher Education, Vol. 4, pp.23-31.
33. However, as Benko has argued with respect to French technopoles, their potential as regional development tools is proportional to the extent to which it can diminish socially based barriers - and these barriers are more obvious in peripheral regional economies, see Benko, G. (2000) 'Technopoles, high-tech industries and regional development: a critical review', GeoJournal, Vol. 51, pp.157-167.
34. See [5].
35. See [8].
36. An international comparison of business incubators in five countries, including Germany, revealed that the cost of public support per job created in a technology centre can compare favourably with other public job creation programmes, see OECD (1999) Business Incubators. International Case Studies, Paris: OECD.
37. Proff, H. (2000) 'Möglichkeiten einer effizienten Förderong von Technologie - und Gründerzentren - eine wirtschaftspolitische Analyse', Jahrbuch für Regionalwissenschaft, Vol. 20, pp.149-172.
38. Sternberg, R. and Tamásy, C. (1999) 'Munich as Germany's no. 1 high technology region empirical evidence, theoretical explanations and the role of small firm/large firm relationships', Regional Studies, Vol. 33, pp.367-377.
39. Sternberg, R. (1996) 'Reasons for the genesis of high-tech regions - theoretical explanation and empirical evidence', Geoforum, Vol. 27, pp.205-224.
40. See [33].
41. Source: with several modications adapted from [33].
42. In countries other than those examined here, there also appears predominantly to be no link between the opening of a technology centre/science centre and employment growth in high-tech sectors, for Canada see Shearmur, R. and Doloreux, D. (2000) 'Science parks: actors or reactors? Canadian science parks in their urban context', Environment and Planning A, Vol. 32, pp. 1065-1082.
43. Jong, M.W. de (1987) New Economic Activities and Regional Dynamics, Economisch-Geografisch Instituut, Amsterdam, see also Link, A.N. and Scott, J.T. (2003) "The growth of Research Triangle Park', Small Business Economics, Vol. 20, pp.167-175.
44. Jong, M.W. de (1987) New Economic Activities and Regional Dynamics, Economisch-Geografisch Instituut, Amsterdam, see also Link, A.N. and Scott, J.T. (2003) "The growth of Research Triangle Park', Small Business Economics, Vol. 20, pp.167-175.
45. Aydalot, P. (1986) Milieux Innovateurs en Europe, Paris: GREMI (privately printed).
46. Castells, M. and Hall, P. (1994) Technopoles of the World, London, New York: Roufledge.
47. Wicksteed, S.A. (2000) The Cambridge Phenomenon Revisited, Part 1 and 2, Cambridge, the original book was written by Segal Quince & Partners (1985) The Cambridge Phenomenon: The Growth of High-Technology Industries in a University Town, Cambridge, see also Crang, P. and Martin, R. (1991) 'Mrs Thatcher's vision of the "New Britain" and the other sides of the "Cambridge Phenomenon", Environment and Planning D, Vol. 9, pp.91-116.
48. Wicksteed, S.A. (2000) The Cambridge Phenomenon Revisited, Part 1 and 2, Cambridge, the original book was written by Segal Quince & Partners (1985) The Cambridge Phenomenon: The Growth of High-Technology Industries in a University Town, Cambridge, see also Crang, P. and Martin, R. (1991) 'Mrs Thatcher's vision of the "New Britain" and the other sides of the "Cambridge Phenomenon", Environment and Planning D, Vol. 9, pp.91-116.
49. Wicksteed, S.A. (2000) The Cambridge Phenomenon Revisited, Part 1 and 2, Cambridge, the original book was written by Segal Quince & Partners (1985) The Cambridge Phenomenon: The Growth of High-Technology Industries in a University Town, Cambridge, see also Crang, P. and Martin, R. (1991) 'Mrs Thatcher's vision of the "New Britain" and the other sides of the "Cambridge Phenomenon", Environment and Planning D, Vol. 9, pp.91-116.
50. Bernardy, M. de and Boisgontier, P. (1988) Grains de Technopole, Editions Presses Universitaires de Grenoble, Grenoble.
51. Chanaron, J.J. and Ruffieux, B. (1990) "The efficiency of technopoles. Lessons from the experience of Meylan's ZIRST', Industry and Higher Education, June, pp.131-135; see also Dunford, M. (1991) 'Industrial trajectories and social relations in areas of new industrial growth', in G. Benko and M. Dunford (Eds.) Industrial Change and Regional Development, London: Belhaven Press, pp.51-82.
52. Chanaron, J.J. and Ruffieux, B. (1990) "The efficiency of technopoles. Lessons from the experience of Meylan's ZIRST', Industry and Higher Education, June, pp.131-135; see also Dunford, M. (1991) 'Industrial trajectories and social relations in areas of new industrial growth', in G. Benko and M. Dunford (Eds.) Industrial Change and Regional Development, London: Belhaven Press, pp.51-82.
53. See Rousier, N. (1997) 'Internationalisation et développement des technopoles: Grenoble et les réseaux internationaux', in J. Cohen, D. Hart, and J. Simmie (Eds.) Recherche et Développement Régional, Travaux franco-britanniques, Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne, pp.167-182.
54. For example, the number of high-tech start-ups, the number of high-tech patents or high-tech employment; see [29].
55. Stenke, G. (2002) Großunternehmen in Innovativen Milieus - Das Beispiel Siemens/München, Department of Economic and Social Geography, University of Cologne (=Kölner Forschungen zur Wirtschafts - und Sozialgeographie, Vol. 54), see also [29].
56. Castells, M. and Hall, P. (1994) Technopoles of the World, London, New York: Routledge.
57. See [5].
58. Bundesministerium für Forschung und Technologie (BMBF) (2004) Bundesbericht Forschung 2004, BMBF, Bonn, pp.393ff.
59. Florida, R. (2002) 'The economic geography of talent', Annals of the Association of American Geographers, Vol. 92, pp.741-755.
60. See [8].
61. Acs, Z. and Varga, A. (2002) 'Introduction to the special issue on regional innovation systems', International Regional Science Review, Vol. 25, pp.3-7.
62. According to Thierstein, A. and Wilhelm B. (2001) 'Incubator, technology, and innovation centres in Switzerland: features and policy implications', Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, Vol. 13, pp.315-331. German technology centres belong to the continental European model of regional corporate communities, which are predominantly publicly funded and focus on public policy objectives, whereas the Anglo-Saxon model is geared more towards the creation of new technology and science-based firms, which in turn necessitates close cooperation with and proximity to universities and higher education institutions.
63. Necessity entrepreneurship vs. opportunity entrepreneurship, see the recent country report Germany of the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor, Sternberg, R., Bergmann, H. and Lückgen, I. (2004) Global Entrepreneurship Monitor: Country Report Germany 2003, Department of Economic and Social Geography, University of Cologne.
64. Wagner, J. and Sternberg, R. (2004) 'Start-up activities, individual characteristics, and the regional milieu: lessons for entrepreneurship support policies from German micro data', Annals of Regional Science, Vol. 38, pp.219-240.