In What Makes Science Parks Successful?, economist Christian Helmers takes a look at science parks, which he describes as a popular way government officials like to use to try and kickstart innovation.

Policy-makers around the world follow the deceptively simple ‘science park formula’ to create high-tech hubs: pick your preferred location, preferably in geographical proximity to a university, build some real estate to accommodate companies, offer financial support in the form of subsidies or tax breaks and the best entrepreneurs will come and innovation and its successful commercialisation will happen.

Helmers details success in existing science parks around the world, and notes other nations (Russia, the United Kingdom) embarking on science park programs. But his most interesting points relate to the genetic makeup within—and design of—the parks themselves.

Recent research suggests that firms within the same industry benefit most from mutual knowledge spillovers. The evidence on science park-wide spillovers across firms from different sectors is, at best, weak.

This is a big issue. The importance of interdisciplinary thinking in driving lasting innovation, along with the rapid convergence so many industries are undergoing, are key drivers of growth in the contemporary economy. It may well be true that, As Helmers puts it, “a software engineer finds it easier and more insightful to exchange knowledge with another software engineer from a different company than to exchange ideas with a biochemist.” But it’s the latter that might drive really interesting change and meaningful innovation. If science parks are not designed to take these types of interaction into account, chances are they’ll more likely become a sad testament to stasis and failure than a shining symbol of glorious innovation. (Story via Krisztina Holly.)

1. thoughtyoushouldseethis posted this