Archives

Lost in translation?: Building science and innovation city strategies in Australia and the UK

Paul K Couchman
Professor, Griffith Business School, Griffith University, Gold Coast Campus, Gold Coast QLD

Ian McLoughlin
Business School/Centre for Social and Business Informatics, University of Newcastle, Newcastle Upon Tyne, United Kingdom

David R Charles
David Goldman Chair of Business Innovation, Centre for Knowledge, Innovation, Technology and Enterprise (KITE), Newcastle University Business School, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom

Abstract

With the development of the ‘knowledge economy' in many advanced industrial nations, there has been a growing interest in regional innovation systems and the role that universities might play in these.

One result has been the demarcation by government actors of specific spaces for the creation, transfer and transformation of knowledge. Such spaces have been given various names, such as ‘smart regions', ‘science cities' and ‘innovation corridors'. Whilst the associated policy rhetoric has much in common with the earlier interest in science and technology parks there are also clear distinguishing differences. More recent policy initiatives have sought to foster industry clusters within these spaces to contribute to economic development and diversification and link this to economic, social and cultural regeneration.

This paper explores policy-driven creation of ‘innovation areas' by focusing on two contrasting examples: Newcastle Science City in the North East of England and the Gold Coast Pacific Innovation Corridor in Queensland, Australia. The paper compares the rhetoric of university-industry-government policies with the realities.

Keywords

city economies, knowledge, innovation, universities, clusters

Article Text

In the current context of globalisation and the development of the so-called ‘knowledge economy', there has been growing interest in both policymaking and academic circles in two interrelated phenomena: policies on knowledge production and exploitation between universities, business and government; and policies to promote localised innovation systems.

The first consists of policy measures which focus on the creation, transfer and commercialisation of knowledge, most notably through the introduction of measures to ensure that there is a flow from centres of knowledge creation, such as universities and public sector research agencies, to centres of economic application largely, though not exclusively, in firms (Bozeman 2000; Laredo & Mustar 2001; Thune 2007). The resulting regime has been claimed to have a new mode of knowledge production, new entrepreneurial actors (the entrepreneurial university), and a novel ‘triple helix' form of university-industry-government inter-relationship (Gibbons et al 1994; Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff 1997). This model proposes a more prominent role for universities in innovation within the economy, higher levels of collaboration among universities, industries and governments, with innovation policy an outcome of interaction among these institutional spheres rather than a government prescription, and that each partner ‘takes the role of the other' so for example an entrepreneurial university takes on some of the traditional roles of industry and government (Etzkowitz & Klofsten 2005).

The second phenomenon has been a renewed interest in localised innovation, as exemplified by firm clusters, regional innovation systems and the concept of ‘city-regions' (Porter 1998; Cooke 2002; de la Mothe & Mallory 2006). Cluster policies have been adopted by policy-makers at several levels of government in order to foster localised innovation and economic development and most have involved attempts to strengthen the links between industry, universities and other knowledge producing institutions (Gunasekara 2006; Charles 2007).

Particular emphasis has been placed on the idea of the city or city-region as a ‘natural' scale for economic interaction, and the recognition that knowledge infrastructure is typically concentrated in cities. With the knowledge economy focusing policymaking attention increasingly on knowledge- based services as well as high tech industry, the city-region (defined as the city and its immediate zone of influence) is seen as the driver of national and regional/state economies. Policy tools available at the city-region scale include provision of new physical spaces to host and encourage activities which translate academic knowledge into commercial activity, and broader efforts to use the cultural renaissance of the ‘city' as an ‘attractor' for the so-called ‘creative classes' (Florida 2002) and other human capital required to ‘energise' translational activity.

As a consequence, the traditional locus of policy for science and innovation at the national scale has been extended to other levels of government and new governance relationships have emerged to oversee new sub-national, and indeed supra-national, policies (Charles et al 2004). At a sub-national scale, regional, metropolitan and State or provincial governments have developed an interest in innovation policies and focused on the stimulation of territorially defined innovation systems as a key element of economic development strategies. Indeed, the growing emphasis on science-based industries has led to a new focus at sub-national levels of policy on investments in science infrastructure, whether it be large scale equipment, such as synchrotrons, or smaller infrastructure in university research centres or even scientific talent-attraction funds, much of this concentrated in cities. At the same time, in Europe, we see the increased engagement of the EU in science and innovation policy, with EU policymakers often working directly with cities and regions to promote innovation strategies and to promote international collaboration among cities and regions in transferring the experiences of innovation policy. These disparate strategies and initiatives also draw upon new models of governance, with public-private partnerships overseeing strategy development, use of universities as policy innovators, and special purpose governance arrangements for specific initiatives. ...continues...

Toggle references

Navigate: Archives | Contents | Top of page

Related Publications from eContent Management