New Strategies for Regional Innovation in the US and Japan - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


PPT – New Strategies for Regional Innovation in the US and Japan PowerPoint presentation | free to view - id: d8b55-OTUwM


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation

New Strategies for Regional Innovation in the US and Japan


... at National Institute of Science and Technology Policy, Tokyo, Japan ... Source: US Patent and Trademark Office, 7. Regional Innovation ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:89
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 39
Provided by: PPS24


Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: New Strategies for Regional Innovation in the US and Japan

New Strategies for Regional Innovation in the US
and Japan
Trends, Contrasts, and Assessment
  • Philip Shapira
  • Professor, School of Public Policy, Georgia
    Institute of Technology, Atlanta, USA
  • Presentation at National Institute of Science and
    Technology Policy, Tokyo, Japan
  • March 10, 2005

  • New technology paradigms and regional roles
  • Trends in US regional innovation policies
  • Case of Georgia, USA Promoting innovation in a
    traditionally non-innovative region
  • Japanese regional innovation policy comparisons
  • Concluding points

? New ParadigmsRD and innovation paradigm
shifts (US)
Adapted from Arnold
New roles for regions and localities in innovation
  • Complex systems, SMEs, Clusters

Tacit as well as formal knowledge
Human capital and competences
Economies of scope (flexibility, specialization)
Linkages and networks (vertical -gt lateral)
Knowledge spillovers, agglomeration economies
Experimentation, learning
Regions as drivers of innovation
(No Transcript)
Regional Innovation Intensity Measured by
Patents / mill pop.
Source US Patent and Trademark Office,
Regional InnovationSearch for New Conceptual
Source F. Moulaert and F. Sekia, Territorial
Innovation Models A Critical Survey, Regional
Studies, 37.3, 289-302, 2003.
? Trends in US Policies Search for new
development policy models
  • US State policy waves
  • (1) business attraction
  • (2) business creation..
  • (3) regional innovation system approach
  • Innovation and technology emphasis
  • Decentralized, multi-actor
  • Emphasis on collaboration, partnerships
  • Rediscovery of the foundation
  • Integrated (within and between program areas)
  • Benchmarking, comparison, learning

Clusters and Creative Cities
  • Regional Innovation Clusters
  • (M. Porter)
  • Geographic concentrations
  • Connected companies
  • Linked institutions
  • Cluster types
  • High Tech (new knowledge)
  • Mature (know-how)
  • Characteristics
  • Knowledge spillovers
  • Labor pool
  • Competition cooperation
  • Productivity innovation
  • Creative Places
  • (R. Florida)
  • Geographic concentrations
  • Talent
  • Technology
  • Tolerance
  • Location (not corporation)
  • Place to work
  • Place to live
  • Urban
  • Lifestyle, quality of life
  • Real amenities

Council on Competitiveness, National Innovation
Initiative, 2004
Innovation Hot Spots
Regional prototypes (diverse)
Metropolitan complex Chicago
Hub-and-spoke region Seattle (WA)
Product cycle region Boston/Route 128 (MA)
Networked region Silicon Valley (CA)
Metropolitan complex New York (NY) (multi
innovation district)
Metropolitan complex Los Angeles (CA) (multi
innovation district)
Technopole Research Triangle (NC)
Emerging metro San Diego (CA), Phoenix (AZ)
Traditional cluster Dalton (GA)
High tech cluster Austin (TX)
Emerging metro Atlanta (GA)
States as Laboratories
  • Diversity of regional conditions
  • Diversity of regional models
  • Role of states and localities as laboratories
  • Developing new policy approaches
  • Experimentation
  • Testing
  • Exchange, benchmarking, evaluation
  • Learning
  • Deploying good practice (states, federal level)

University roles in regional development
  • Research knowledge creation
  • expand regional knowledge pools, research
  • Education human capital formation
  • build regional skill capabilities, less brain
    drain, more brain draw
  • Know-how transfer to improve existing products
    and processes
  • upgrade existing firms
  • Technological innovation
  • create and commercialize new products in region
  • incubate new firms, diffuse new technologies
  • Infrastructure
  • regional facilities, equipment, electronic
  • Knowledge flows
  • improved information and people flows between
    universities, other institutions, and local firms
  • Leadership
  • in addressing regional problems and opportunities
  • Regional milieu
  • creation of a favorable context within region

Modified from Luger Goldstein, The Role of
Public Universities, in Bingham and Meier (eds),
Dilemas of Urban Economic Development (1997).
? Case Study State of Georgia, USAContext
  • Georgia, USA - basic statistics
  • 7.5 million population - 3.5 million workforce -
    17 manufacturing 26 services 25 trade
  • 12,000 manufacturers, 98SMEs, and growing...
  • 600,000 manufacturing jobs, 66SMEs
  • Not a traditional location of innovation
  • Much Georgia industry is in traditional sectors
    (e.g. textiles, food processing) or in routine
    branch plants
  • Poor educational performance
  • Weak innovation culture
  • Low industrial RD spending public RD dominated
    in past by defense procurement
  • Trends towards increased innovation
  • Great increase in state technology spending
  • Innovative companies technology jobs growing
    (GA - a leader in tech job growth in 1990s) - but
    still a small share
  • Innovative firms often locate in Atlanta suburbs,
    not in central city, mid-metros or outlying areas

Georgia ManufacturersReturns to strategy (1999)
Source Georgia Manufacturing Survey 1999,
weighted responses of 727 manufacturers

Georgia State innovation strategy a new
strategy with roots
  • Develop a more technologically-advanced economy
  • A goal with origins in post-civil war era
  • Early steps include develop of technological
    institutions (Georgia Tech), state university
    system, technical colleges
  • 1960s Know-how transfer to existing companies
    through a statewide industrial extension system
  • 1970s Initial efforts to strengthen science and
    research base - benchmark with North Carolinas
    Research Triangle
  • 1980 - First advanced technology incubator (ATDC
    at Georgia Tech) in Atlanta
  • 1980s - Development of public technology
    incubators in other locations of the state, with
    mixed success
  • 1990s - Evolution into a comprehensive
    technological development strategy, aimed to make
    Georgia a premier location for advanced
    technology development
  • 2010 Vision Among top five states with a
    technology-based economy

Strategies for Regional Technology Promotion in
  • Development of entrepreneurial research
  • Georgia Tech
  • Creating knowledge pools for technological
  • Georgia Research Alliance
  • Georgia Center for Advanced Telecommunications
  • Life sciences research centers bioengineering
  • Technological commercialization
  • Georgia Tech Advanced Technology Development
  • Other incubators
  • Know-how transfer
  • Georgia Manufacturing Extension Partnership
  • Complementary actions
  • Venture capital technology support associations
  • Deployment of lottery funds
  • HOPE Scholarships (access to higher education)

Example 1Entrepreneurial UniversitiesGeorgia
Institute of Technology
  • Strategic transition
  • technical institute to a technological
  • Expansion of capabilities
  • research, facilities, networks
  • research 5m (1970s) ? 350m (2004)
  • Leadership to promote innovation
  • emergence as an Innovation U
  • Engagement with private sector
  • university-industry centers, research
  • promotion of entrepreneurship, tech transfer,
    research commercialization
  • Engagement in state science and technology policy
    to promote economic development (as well as
    national policy)
  • Growth of interdisciplinary programs, new
    teaching programs
  • e.g. Management of Technology Global
    Engineering Sustainable Development CIBER -
    International Business Center European Center
  • biomedical engineering (Georgia Tech Emory
  • Incentives for faculty (and student) innovation

Example 2Creating knowledge pools...
Georgia Research Alliance (GRA)
  • Collaborative state initiative with 6 research
    universities in Georgia - established 1991
  • Aim use research infrastructure to generate
    business and economic development in targeted
  • advanced telecommunications
  • biotechnology
  • environmental technologies
  • existing industries
  • emerging areas e.g. nanotechnology
  • c.200m state funding (since 91)
  • plus federal, private
  • GRA Research Universities
  • Georgia Institute of Technology
  • Emory University
  • University of Georgia
  • Georgia State University
  • Medical College of Georgia
  • Clark Atlanta University

for technological innovation
Georgia Research Alliance concept Building
critical mass to create jobs
Leading-edge industry-oriented research
at universities
Skilled workforce of scientists, engineers,
and technicians
Pool of Scientific Entrepreneurs
Industry clusters with major RD facilities
Supportive environment (capital, quality of
life, business atmosphere)
Example 3Technological innovation venture
  • Advanced Technology Development Center (ATDC)
  • One of first technology incubators in US
    (established 1980)
  • Entrepreneurial services, space, and support for
    early-stage new technology companies
  • Faculty research commercialization program
  • Corporate RD support program (including landing
  • Part of Georgia Tech Economic Development
    Institute. 9 staff associates.
  • State funding about 1.5 million a year
  • 100 companies graduate 4,200 employees 1.75b
  • Original facility at Georgia Tech in Atlanta, now
    joined by facilities in mid-Georgia, GCATT, south
    Georgia, and Emory biotech collaboration

Example 4Know-how transfer
  • Georgia Manufacturing Extension Partnership
  • Aim accelerate deployment of improved
    technologies and practices, to SMEs in Georgia
  • 18 field offices 100 staff 1,400 firms aided
    per year
  • Services quality, environment, manufacturing
    process, business systems, training, informatics,
    product development
  • Partnership 7m budget (fed 2.5 m state 3m
    industry fees 1.5m)
  • Linkages with faculty, SBDCs, Voc-Ed, Georgia
    Power, NASA, Federal labs, private consultants

Example 5Greater Georgia Regional Learning
  • Multi-year effort - enhance technology-based
    economic development in mid-sized cities
  • Regional industry cluster focus enhance local
    organizational, leadership, planning, and
    management capabilities for technology-based
    economic development
  • Strengthen strategies and opportunities to grow
    and attract technology-based enterprises
  • Ensure that participating cities are deploying
    world-class best practice approaches to fostering
    technology-based development
  • Benchmark learning network with comparable
    European cities (2001-2004)
  • Augusta (GA) Dundee (Scotland)
  • Columbus (GA) Cork (Ireland)
  • Macon (GA) - Heilbronn (Germany)
  • Savannah (GA) Pisa (Italy)
  • New counterpart EU program (in development)
  • with University of Stuttgart

EU-NARI Network Activities for Regional Innovation
Georgia caseInsights Fostering an innovative
regional economy
  • Work in progress
  • Greatest success in Atlanta metro area (but still
    much to do)
  • Emerging strategies in other mid-size cities
  • Challenges in rural areas and small towns
  • Innovation policy strategy
  • Long-term uses instruments of the state
  • Promotes clusters, but is much more than clusters
  • Building innovative institutions ? leadership
  • Public-private relationships
  • Decentralized and networked
  • Builds complementary assets in the innovation
  • Finance information infrastructure
  • Talent (though still major issues in K-12)

? Japanese Case Some Comparisons Regions in
Japan and the New Regional Context
SMEs in Japan Changing Positions and Roles
Subcontract outsourcing
Technology / expert input
Market / network innovation
Japanese Case Transition types
Public-Private Interface New Roles and Challenges
  • Transition I Dual system to supply-chain
  • Technologies Process improvement, quality,
    precision, delivery, technical / vocational
  • Business support Loans, business mutual
    insurance, contractor relations (vertical supply
    chains), labor standards
  • Public role level the field (standardization),
    disseminate knowledge and good practice
    (routinization) regional location development
  • Transition II Supply chain to innovation leader
  • Technologies RD, product development,
    technology pioneering, technology fusion, science
    and technology training
  • Business support risk capital, clustering and
    networking (horizontal and lateral), labor
    mobility, internationalization
  • Public role catalyst, broker (innovation),
    develop and appropriate knowledge,
    differentiation regional innovation systems

Case Study 1Kohsetsushi Centers
  • Public testing and research centers (kosetsu
    shiken kenkyu kikan)
  • First established in late C19 expanded in C20
  • Draw on US agricultural extension and engineering
    experimentation station concepts
  • Activities - research technology guidance
    testing and analysis open laboratories
    training network groups
  • Focus SMEs with under 300 employees
  • Large network (180 manufacturing centers) -
    spread out widely
  • Managed by prefectures and local governments, but
    under MITI (METI) guidance
  • 1b system 7,000 engineers, researchers,
    other staff

Case Study 1Kohsetsushi Centers
  • Effective in Type I transition
  • Especially Quality, testing, catch-up
    research, bridge for SMEs
  • Established most Japanese regions as viable
    production locations
  • Challenged by Type II transition
  • Outdated skills and labor system rigidity (though
    increasing use of secondment and foreign
  • With a few exceptions, RD lags leading
    international centers and the expertise of many
  • Outdated facilities (though there have been a
    number of new and consolidated centers)
  • Central guidance v. need to be flexible and
  • Restrictive fee and financial structures
  • Often risk averse

Case Study 21990s Regional Technology Projects
  • From Technopolis (1980s) to new public and
    "third-sector" (public-private) technology
    centers and projects (1990s-2000s)
  • Fields include software development, new
    materials, biotechnology, and other emerging
  • Examples Research Core Key Facilities Concept
    (advanced services) New Media Community Science
    Parks Regional Techno-Centers and Techno Plazas
    Venture Incubators Cooperative Research Centers
  • Sponsors MITI (METI) other ministries
    prefecture and local gov.
  • Often organized though third-sector foundations
    usually have new buildings sometimes associated
    with Kohsetsushi
  • Focused mainly to SMEs (though also involve large
    firms, including foreign firms)
  • Aim to promote innovation, small business
    start-up, new technology development, networking

Case Study 21990s Regional Technology Projects
  • Effectiveness - Type II transition
  • Added up-to-date research facilities incubator
    space also important symbolic values
  • Issues
  • Management and staffing - use of seconded
    personnel from government and large private
    companies - few public entrepreneurs
  • Availability of research capability in local
    public universities, labs
  • Financial basis - real-estate perspective
  • Framework conditions relatively few established
    researchers and entrepreneurs willing to take
    risk of start-up companies (venture capital
    consequences of failure
  • Poor economic climate since 1991 (though also a
    missed chance to promote innovation?)

Case Study 3New Regional Initiatives
  • Regional Cluster Projects (current)
  • METI Industrial Clusters Enterprise networking
  • 19 cluster projects, 5000 companies (esp. SMEs),
    200 universities
  • Association, technical assist, coop RD, HR,
  • Example TAMA (Tokyo Advanced Metropolitan Area)
  • MEXT Intellectual Clusters research centers,
    projects organize academic-lab-industry links in
  • 10 clusters, 4.2m per cluster year.
  • Joint research, patenting, TTOs
  • Special Zones for Structural Reform (current)
  • Zones where regulations are relaxed, incl.
    ind-univ, education, IT, urban development. More
    than 300 zones approved to date.
  • Reform of national universities potentially a
    fundamental regional change
  • Two-Layer Extensive Areas (Proposal under
  • New Decentralized Regional Blocs (6-10 m people)
  • Metropolitan cities and groups (300k)
  • Addresses decentralization, flexibility, ageing

TAMA Cluster
Observations on new regional cluster initiatives
  • Cluster approaches
  • Ambitious, many public and private organizations
  • Cut across jurisdictions (e.g. TAMA case)
  • Plays to Japans strengths in technology,
  • Better than 1990s regional technology projects
  • Investment is relatively small
  • Cluster policies dont reach small and mid-size
    population centers
  • Still a preponderance of guidance
  • Limited local customizations
  • Lack of experimentation limits learning?
  • Multiple ministry programs, who can coordinate?

Assessment of Japanese regional approaches...
  • Regional SME support systems developed for Type I
    transition (e.g. Kohsetsushi) have yet to adjust
    to Type II demands
  • New Type II mechanisms not proven yet as
  • First round of 1990s Type II programs limited
    regional effects
  • Assumed a flexible regional innovation framework
    that did not exist
  • Second round of Type II programs (clusters,
    institutional reform)
  • Show more promise
  • But may be limited by lack of scale and leverage
    by limited real decentralization and soft
    systems that have yet to evolve
  • Evaluation and accountability systems have
    evolved, but lack the punch to promote further
    major change
  • Requires new leadership, champions, at local and
    national levels

? Concluding PointsRegional Innovation Some
insights and implications
  • In both the US and Japan
  • Search for conceptual understandings of regional
    innovation systems is not complete
  • Search for effective policies and practices is
  • Customization and distinctiveness in regional
    innovation policies are critical
  • Learning needs to be embedded
  • Balance between center and locality is not easily
  • Important to address underlying barriers to
    improved regional innovation performance, as well
    as add new policy layers.

The difficulty lies, not in the new ideas, but
in escaping from the old ones. John Maynard
Keynes, The General Theory (1936)