Science and technology parks: opportunities for use of a functional/goal typology

On the basis of existing research and analytical literature and expert interviews with representatives of owners/ management and residents of science parks in Russia, China, Singapore and the United States, authors developed a new typology of science and technology parks. Its difference from the existing ones is in the focus on the functions of science and technology parks as parts of regional and national innovation systems and corporate value chains; and on the goals imputed to the science and technology parks by government stakeholders. This typology supports more correct analysis of science and technology parks` processes, results and effectiveness, as well as new options of public policy optimization. General information on the main parameters of existing science and technology parks is presented. Following the model assumptions, science and technology parks are divided into 4 basic functional/ goal categories (with some international cases presented and pointing on limitations for Russia). Among them are parks focused on supporting regional growth through employment creation (by supporting technological small and medium enterprises); parks supporting interests of technological development / import substitution of industries or large corporate entities; parks ensuring the formation of globally competitive companies with unique technologies for existing markets; parks capable of providing breakthrough technological development

Keywords: science and technology parks, innovation policy, innovation systems, value chains


  1. A. Albahari, S. Pérez-Canto, A. Barge-Gil, A. Modrego (2017). Technology Parks versus Science Parks: Does the university make the difference?//Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 116, 13-28.
  2. A. Albahari, M. Klofsten, S. Pérez (2011). Managing a Science Park: A study of value creation for their tenants. Proceedings for the Triple Helix IX International Conference, Stanford University.
  3. S. Breschi, C. Catalini (2010). Tracing the links between science and technology: An exploratory analysis of scientists’ and inventors’ networks//Research Policy, 39 (1), 14-26.
  4. R. Cabral (1998). Refining the Cabral-Dahab science park management Paradigm//International Journal of Technology Management, 16 (8), 813-818.
  5. R. Cabral (2004). The Cabral-Dahab Science Park Management Paradigm applied to the case of Kista, Sweden//International Journal of Technology Management, 28 (3-6), 419-443.
  6. C.-P. Chen, C.-F.Chien, C.-T. Lai (2013). Cluster policies and industry development in the Hsinchu Science Park: A retrospective review after 30 years//Innovation: Management, policy & practice,15 (4), 416-436.
  7. J. Davies (2013). From Third Generation Science Parks to Areas of Innovation. Paper for the 30th IASP World Conference on Science and Technology Parks.
  8. M. P. Feldman (1994). Knowledge complementarity and innovation//Small business economics, 6 (5), 363-372.
  9. I. R.Gordon, P. McCann (2000). Industrial clusters: complexes, agglomeration and/or social networks?//Urban studies, 37 (3), 513-532.
  10. J. Guadix, J. Carrillo-Castrillo, L. Onieva, J. Navascuйs (2016). Success variables in science and technology parks//Journal of Business Research, 69, 4870-4875.
  11. F. Hansson, K. Husted, J. Vestergaard (2005) Second generation science parks: from structural holes jockeys to social capital catalysts of the knowledge society//Technovation, 25, 1039-1049.
  12. I. C. Henriques, V. A. Sobreiro, H. Kimura (2018). Science and technology park: Future challenges//Technology in Society, 53, 144-160.
  13. A. G. Hu (2007). Technology parks and regional economic growth in China//Research Policy, 36, 76-87.
  14. IASP General survey 2015. Science and technology parks and areas of innovation throughout the world. International Association of Science Parks (IASP). 2016.
  15. F. C. C. Koh, W. T. H. Koh, F. T. Tschang (2003). An Analytical Framework for Science Parks and Technology Districts with an Application to Singapore//Journal of Business Venturing, 20 (2), 217-239.
  16. A. N. Link, J. T. Scott (2003). US science parks: the diffusion of an innovation and its effects on the academic missions of universities//International Journal of industrial organization, 21 (9), 1323-1356.
  17. H. Lцfsten, P. Lindelцf (2002). Science Parks and the growth of new technology-based firms — academic-industry links, innovation and markets//Research Policy, 31, 859-876.
  18. K. Motohashi (2012). The role of the science park in innovation performance of start-up firms: an empirical analysis of Tsinghua Science Park in Beijing//Asia Pacific Business Review, 19 (4), 578-599.
  19. P. H. Phan, D. S. Siegel, M. Wright (2005). Science parks and incubators: observations, synthesis and future research//Journal of Business Venturing, 20, 165-182.
  20. D. S. Siegel, P. Westhead, M. Wright (2003). Science Parks and the Performance of New Technology-Based Firms: A Review of Recent U.K.Evidence and an Agenda for Future Research//Small Business Economics, 20 (2 (Special Issue)), 177-184.
  21. Setting up, managing and evaluating EU science and technology parks. European Commission. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. 2013. 211 p.
  22. P. C. Vilа, J. L. Pagиs (2008). Science and technology parks. Creating new environments favourable to innovation//Paradigmes, Issue no. 0, 142-149
  23. K. Volkonitskaia (2015). Business models of technoparks in Russia. National Research University Higher School of Economics. Working Papers. Series: Science, Technology and Innovation. WP BRP 55/STI/2015. 30 p.
  24. M. U. Wasim (2014). Factors for Science Park Planning//World Technopolis Review, 3 (2), 97-108.
  25. C. W. Wessner, ed. (2009). Understanding Research, Science and Technology Parks: Global Best Practices: Report of a Symposium. National Academy of Sciences. The National Academies Press. 214 p.
  26. Y. Zhang (2005). The science park phenomenon: development, evolution and typology//International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, 5(1-2), 138-154.
  27. M. A. Janahi. From Sweden to Silicon Valley: What can we learn from the history of research parks? IASP BLOG. Dec. 20. 2017.