Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 92
--> Annex B Overheads on the Research Triangle Experience Prof Michael Luger THE ROLE OF S&T PARKS: The Research Triangle Experience with Lessons for Sandia Presentation at NRC Symposium on Industry-Laboratory Partnerships: The Role of S&T Parks April 22, 1998 Prof Michael Luger University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
OCR for page 93
--> Outline of presentation I. Basis for remarks II. Overview of S&T (research) parks in the US III. What makes them ''successful?'' IV. The RTP phenomenon V. The rest of the world—further lessons Basis for remarks 1991 book on US parks, including case study of RTP Subsequent work on S&T parks and S&T policy in US, Europe, and Asia Subsequent work on the role of universities and research centers/labs in regional economic development Economic studies of Research Triangle; most recently, At the Crossroads: North Carolina's Place in the Knowledge Economy of the 21st Century
OCR for page 94
--> Overview of S&T (research) parks in the US Type of park # of parks Median Age, 1995 Mean # tenants, 1989 Mean # tenants, 1995 Fast growing 17 16 32 58 Growing 30 11 3 19 Stagnant 12 12 34 41 Declining 3 14 33 35 Early parks, no data 13 12.5 8 Later parks, no data 28 13 35 Newcomers 41 5 8 No longer park 4 10 Not located 16 12 18 Skipped in 1989 20 11 TOTAL 184 Overview of S&T (research) parks in the US Type of park % in NE and MA % in S % in W and NW % with access to university % with infrastructure Fast growing 42 29 12 88 76 Growing 10 30 24 80 80 Stagnant 25 33 33 58 33 Declining 67 67 33 Early parks, no data 30 38 15 77 62 Later parks, no data 18 25 21 Newcomers 35 34 9 66 59 No longer park 25 25 25 Not located 27 40 13 Skipped in 1989 44 17 22
OCR for page 95
--> Overview of S&T (research) parks in the US Specializations of different types of parks: Fast growing telecommunications optics, lasers medical research biotech software chemical Newcomers (>1988) medical equipment biomedical information technology software environmental health/medical/pharmaceutical semiconductor/advanced materials What makes parks "successful?" "Success" is a normative concept; can be defined in several ways: as a real estate project in terms of "policy effectiveness" (outcomes vs. goals) in terms of efficiency (is present value of net benefits > 0?) in terms of ability to transform a regional economy (longer time horizon)
OCR for page 96
--> What makes parks "successful?" The U.S. story, in brief Our 1991 study used net induced job creation in the region as measure of success; outcomes varied among parks Research Park Success Indicators NAME OF PARK LOCATION YEAR ESTABLISHED DIFFERENCE (%) Ada Research Park Ada, OK 1960 -0.02 Ann Arbor Technology Park Ann Arbor, MI 1983 -1.49 Arizona State University Research Park Tempe, AZ 1984 -0.17 Carolina Research Park Columbia, SC 1983 -0.16 Central Florida Research Park Orlando, FL 1979 0.72 Charleston Research Park Charleston, SC 1984 -1.20 Chicago Technology Park Chicago, IL 1984 1.65 Clemson Research Park Clemson, SC 1984 0.38 Connecticut Technology Park Storrs, CT 1982 3.18 Cornell Research Park Ithaca, NY 1951 9.48 Cummings Research Park Huntsville, AL 1962 0.40 Engineering Research Center Fayetteville, AR 1980 0.02 Great Valley Corporate Center Malvern, PA 1974 0.08 Innovation Center and Research Park Athens, OH 1978 1.94 Interstate Business Park Tampa, FL 1983 -1.05 Johns Hopkins University Research Park Baltimore, MD 1984 -0.64 Langley Research & Development Park Newport News, VA 1966 -8.80 Maryland Science and Technology Center Adelphi, MD 1982 1.44 Massachusetts Biotechnology Research Park Worcester, MA 1984 3.48 Miami Valley Research Park Kettering, OH 1981 0.11 Morgantown Industrial & Research Park Morgantown, WV 1973 0.24 RTP DIFFERENCE is 4.45; DIFFERENCE is employment growth in park region minus employment growth in control counties after park opens.
OCR for page 97
--> What makes parks "successful?" Regression analysis of 70 parks (DIFF on explanatory variables and a hazards model), and case studies of 3 parks (RTP, Stanford, Utah) indicated the following common success factors: - parks had marketing and development strategy appropriate for region's resources and culture - parks provided services/infrastructure consistent with tenants' needs - park businesses and nearby university connected in meaningful ways - there was visionary leadership and cooperation - there were deep pockets and patience - there was good timing and good luck The Research Triangle phenomenon The region in 1959/early 1960s traditional, low wage manufacturing universities were regional severe brain drain as a consequence strategic location at doorstep of "new south" large tracts of centrally located land enlightened leaders from government and business: Sanford, Hodges, Guess
OCR for page 98
--> The Research Triangle phenomenon Strategic decisions in park development get government anchors get blue chip corporate anchor; branch plant location as regional HQ sell land with covenants provide high level of services make sure universities have meaningful input in governance RTP has used relatively little government assistance The Research Triangle phenomenon One out of 4 jobs created in the region between 1959-1990 traced to park (almost 60,000). INCLUDES: jobs in park businesses (>30K, many would not have been there otherwise) jobs created via spending multiplier from induced jobs in the park jobs created in businesses that provide goods and services to induced businesses in the park jobs in companies spun off from park businesses, and through that multiplier We did not count jobs in businesses that moved to region not to be in park, but because of reputation of region, due to park
OCR for page 99
--> The Research Triangle phenomenon The region in 1998 high tech employment in universities, labs, hospitals gives region one of highest ratios of Ph.D.s per capita three research universities are nationally ranked brain drain is now brain draw considerable volume of spin-off activity from industry and universities region is fast growing; 1.2 million population Spin-offs Recent research identified a total of 32 high-technology spin-offs from North Carolina universities between 1972 and 1997. Sixteen of those taken place since 1991, implying a considerable increase in spin-off activity in recent years, though trend is difficult to assess since older spin-offs are more difficult to identify. Unsurprisingly, the state's three largest research universities, UNC-CH, Duke, and NCSU, generated almost all the spin-offs, and most were located in the Research Triangle area. Spin-off/start-up activity from industry comes from high-level scientists and engineers let go in restructuring. . . having severance, pensions, savings, and real estate to use as seed capital
OCR for page 100
--> S&T parks worldwide Sample of S&T parks elsewhere: South Africa (4) China (8) Japan (7) Thailand (2) Russia (11) Canada (18) Finland (10) France (53) Italy (11) United Kingdom (44) Australia (15) Brazil (3) These countries differ widely in their levels of economic development Principles: Knowledge Along the Economic Development Continuum
OCR for page 101
--> Policy: Services Along the Economic Development Continuum Lessons for Sandia With proliferation of parks, it may be difficult to achieve success in conventional terms Park may help establish region as growth pole, substituting for urbanization economies Planners need to heed lessons from successes: parks had marketing and development strategy appropriate for region's resources and culture parks provided services/infrastructure consistent with tenants' needs there was visionary leadership and cooperation there were deep pockets and patience there was good timing and good luck
Representative terms from entire chapter: