TECHNOPOLES OF GLOBAL INFORMATION ECONOMY

Koray Velibeyoglu

Izmir Institute of Technology, Phd Candidate,

Izmir, January 2000

korayvelibeyoglu@iyte.edu.tr

 

Introduction

The integration of world with the rise of global economy is chiefly the by-product of last decades of 20th century. This period had witnessed the emergence of some dramatic changes in economical, social and cultural platforms of the world. To many commentators the new developments in information technology and shifts in capitalist economic system from industrial economy to information economy has revolutionized our lives and cities. The new type of society that has been emerging is variously labeled as post-modern, post-industrial, post-Fordist, information or global.

Knowledge-based, information reach industrial production is considered at the heart of these rapid changes. Therefore to discuss and measure the impacts of information economy upon our cities and lives are one of the major urban planning problems. Needless to say that information economy can currently be observed only in small parts of the world however its effect is worldwide. For that reason it is vital for urban planning study and policies that how the new faces of the global cities will look like and which forces and factors will change them?

This paper aims to discuss the global cities in information economy by examining the technopoles as a new scene of 21st century’s industry and cityscape. It is also tries to find clues about the possibility of techno-city (intelligent city, or science city) as a new morphology of cities. 

This paper has three parts. In section A the rise of informational economy and the changing positions of world cities in global world can briefly be outlined. Section B is confronted to the concept of “Technopole” that refers geographically-focused clusters of interrelated technology producers, innovative manufacturers, research institutions, expert service providers, investors and coordinating institutions. Technopoles of the world will be mentioned according to their typologies, and specific criteria. Explanations will be supported by case studies of each type. Lastly, as a conclusion, the future position of technopoles in global economy will be discussed in the light of current discussions and speculations such as futuristic technopolises of Japans and virtual technopolis phenomenon.

A. Cities in Global Information Economy

1. Information Economy

Information has become an important part of the economy since the 1940s. Informational economies what we called today are on the basis of information sector that has emerged primarily in response to the increasing complexity of the economic system and increasing demand for flow of information by the globalization. The information economy is comprised of firms involved with information products or information services that can be examined in four categories: [1]

 

  1. Knowledge and Information Production Industries: create new knowledge and information or package existing information into a form of appropriate to a particular recipient. Information production industries comprise very large spectrum including real estate and property consultants, management, engineering, legal services, accounting, health services and so on.
  2. Information Distribution and Communication Industries: concerned with transmission of information from the initiator to the recipient. The education and communication industries can be thought in this category.
  3. Information Processing Industries: primarily concerned with receiving and responding to information inputs. Brokerage industries, advertising and marketing, insurance and finance, and the primary governmental information and regulatory services are the examples of this category.
  4. Information Infrastructure Industries: manufacture, install, operate and repair the machinery and technology used to support the other categories of information sector industries. These industries are associated with telecommunications, office equipment and a range of telematic products, including computers.

 

Information has great mobility that gives both new opportunities and new threats for cities. There is an increasing disparity between information-rich and information-poor regions all around the world. The transition from industrial economy to a knowledge-base informational economy will cause some probable structural changes in cities that I will state some of them below.

2. Changing Role of Cities in Global Information Economy

Digital revolution is changing our society and cities tremendously. According to futurist Alvin Toffler the emergence of knowledge-rich information technologies represent the 'Third Wave' in the evolution of cities.[2]

Similarly Peter Drucker points out that today knowledge is the city’s crucial resource. Flows of data and information will play a larger role than the flow of goods or capital in tomorrow’s world. Cities that are the communication points and the control centers for information systems will be the world’s command centers: global cities. Saskia Sassen explains the rise of global cities by the globalization of the economy: “The more globalized the economy becomes, the higher the agglomeration of central functions in a relatively few sites, that is, the global cities.[3] There may be several key points that will be constituted the core of global cities:

             The global, networked information economy creates increasing competition between cities. Struggle between global cities will upon the control of information, not the use. For that reason the cities that are information-rich will become the key command points for international economic system as Tokyo, London and New York. (Fig.1)

            Secondly another crucial resource for cities is the quality and availability of skilled human resources that are the engine for economic development. Innovation and new techniques that depend on information are now at the central part of leading transnational firms. The key to profitability is increasingly based on the innovative capacity of workforce.

            Thirdly the telecommunications infrastructure will be the physical backbone of 21st century post-industrial cities as once railways and ports were. It is for this reason that many cities are tries to expand their telecommunications facilities and renew the existing ones for getting and distributing the information.

            Last but not the least it is vital for global cities that must be reconfigure their knowledge institutions such as universities, collages, and knowledge transfer and information centers like research centers.[4]

             Many commentators suggest that the decentralization of industrial components (dispersion of headquarters, back offices, sales points, and inventories to the different areas) and digitalization of economic activities by telecommunications (i.e. tele-shopping) will make cities obsolete in terms of economic context. However place, as Sassen claims, is central to the multiple circuits in global economy.[5] In today’s world there are two types of place for global economic activities: First one is the city and the other is export –processing zones or hi-tech clusters, namely as technopoles, that are the focus of this study.

 

Fig.1.    Evolution of urban form of a North American City and the post-Fordist global metropolis,

Source: (Graham and Marvin, 1996)

 

B. Technopoles as the New Industrial Space

            The terms Techno-, Science-, -Park, -Plaza, -polis and –topia that try to identify the new industrial space can be classified under one common name: Technopole.[6] Technopoles are the new image of industrial production areas with series of low, discreet buildings in a quite carefully landscaped area, in a campus-like atmosphere. No doubt that this resultant space is the gift of new informational economy. Three contemporary economic revolutions gave way to the formation of technopoles:

1.      A technological revolution that covers the rapid developments in IT based technologies.

2.      Formation of global economy

3.      Emergence of a new form of production and management in the production process through the increasing productivity with innovation, science, technology, and management of information.[7]

In this section major points of the technopole phenomenon will be highlighted in the light of current worldwide examples. Then the role of technopoles in the global informational economy will be examined.             

1. What is Technopole?

 

The technopole is a new industrial place that brings together institutions, labor, and finance that generate the basic materials of the informational economy. It is an emerging form of specialized development that developed by the private sector or by the public private partnership. Technopoles are generally supported by central and local governments. Most of them are considered together with advantageous connection of universities. Its areas are occupied mostly by private companies that produce IT based products and innovation. Technopoles’ sites also include some significant institutions such as universities, research institutes etc. Because they are the centers of IT-oriented production considered as the nodes of new industrial space of 21st century. Technopoles are scattered all over the world but significantly focused on major post-industrial cities. (Fig.2) Technopole programs of The United States, Japan, France, England and Israel are the most ambitious ones.

 

Fig.2. Technopoles of the World

 

Unlike any other industrial arrangements technopoles are more than just plots to rent. Let us check out what an advanced technopole area offers to its entrepreneurs:

·         A mixture of university and research centers with industry and government partnerships.

·         A combination of large, small and entrepreneurial businesses.

  • Clusters of buildings in R&D neighborhoods with multidisciplinary themes based on the University's training programs including Advanced Communications Technologies, Biosciences and Biotechnology, Advanced Materials, Environmental Technologies etc.
  • Intensive partnership formation among industry, government and university residents in a pedestrian-scale community.

·         Advanced technology infrastructure for network communications.

·         A strong transportation system combined with regional scale network.

·         Conference Centers and Hotels for meetings, training and entertaining.

·         Residential neighborhoods within walking distance of the R&D facilities.

·         Recreational amenities such as a golf course, jogging and biking trail, a fitness center etc.[8]

2. General Features of Technopoles

2.1. Locational Criteria for Technopoles:

Technical, social, recreational, and educational supports make technopoles as one of the most important generators of new IT-based industrial production and innovation. Needless to say that Technopoles are mega projects and its sites require some basic arrangements. These may be grouped under seven major headings:

1.      Scientific And Technological Infrastructure: It covers the "knowledge resources" of a region formed by universities, public and private research labs, libraries, technological incubators, innovation centers, science parks. These main institutions are supposed to ensure systematic project maintenance and to promote networking. Information networks that ensure local, regional, and international communication between the institutions and firms are the backbones of these developments.

  1. Business infrastructure: Industrial associations, chambers of commerce, development agencies, can foster this kind of background.  Business infrastructure also includes special financial opportunities provided for that region, government funding for training and R&D, and government offices providing a wide range of business support services within the technopole area.
  2. Physical Infrastructure: Technopoles require sufficient transportation (highways, rail, airports), telecommunications, water and power supply.
  3. Human Resources: This includes adequate supply of skilled labour, scientists, engineers, technicians, and technology incubation from universities and the government research institute within the technopole site.
  4.  Quality of Services: High quality residential areas, parks, recreational facilities within a quite and well preserved site.
  5.  A Diversified Economic Base: It includes extensive supplier and distribution networks, specialized services.
  6. Need for Attractiveness:  This comprise two set of typical industrial location factors: The first includes a reduced cost of doing business, usually due to low tax levels and limited labor union activity and the latter are related to the costs of prevailing wages, housing, food and transportation.

2.2. Supporting Factors that enhance the achievements of Technopoles:

The factors outlined below may be the less critical but considerable ones:

  1. Availability of supporters: political and academic leaders,
  2. Existence of an entrepreneurial culture,
  3. Existence of strong linkages between the scientific and the entrepreneurial community,
  4. Information networks,
  5. Image making:  comprise the promotion of the region's image as a technopole.[9] In today’s economy and culture image making has become a central basis for successful competition.
  6. Existence of Incubators

Despite the usefulness of these sets of factors that outlined above are not enough to form a successful technopole. As Castells and Hall point out that there is no magic formula of being next Silicon Valley. Its success is based on “the gradual build-up of relationships, informal norms of mutual trust and cooperation, the intense exchange of information among entrepreneurs and scientists, and the creation of a consensus toward the goal of creating a technopolis.”[10] In this comment this phrase is worth to underline: creation of consensus. This harmony between diverse agents creates clear benefits:

For the university: It provides expanded employment opportunities for students, enhanced student and faculty recruiting, enhanced technology transfer, increased interaction with industry, income, and application of technology in regional economy.

For the firms in the Technopoles: Easy access to skilled labor and to university facilities and resources, new products and markets, enhanced competitiveness.

For State and Local Government: Increase in business activity, enhanced personal, corporate and property taxes, recruitment and retention of highly trained workforce and high-tech businesses, new high-tech jobs as well as other jobs in the region, reinforced R&D economic base, exports, attraction of other public and private investments.

2.3. Success Criteria for Technopoles:

Thus Technopoles aims to foster societal and economic progress via technology and research their achievements can be evaluated alike from traditional economic evolution criteria. These criteria can be summarized in six headings:[11]

1.      Quantity of technological innovations that is realized with cooperation of universities and research institutes

2.      Common research projects between the private firms and universities and other research centers within technopole area.

3.      Manager services giving to the private firms.

4.      Number of researchers passing from university/research institution to technopole

5.      Invention and product sales related to Technopole and incubator centers.

6.      Job creation; both in quality and quantity.

3. Types of Technopoles

Because Technopoles are land and property-based, established by co-operation of hi-tech businesses, universities, and governmental organizations, they can vary from large technology and research hubs to small regional science parks and incubator centers.

Although there are some slight differences the terms technopark, industrial complex, business park, science park, technology park, and technopolis are often used as equal with each other. Some of them have more ambitious goals, some more modest ones, but they all generate scientific synergy and economic productivity. Here I will elaborate my explanations by four categories, largely based on Castells and Hall’s definition.

3.1. Industrial Complexes

            High technology firms that chiefly making innovative milieu constitutes industrial complexes. These complexes are the true command centers of the new industrial space. They link R&D and manufacturing their formations. Some are the early centers that have been formed before the rise of global industrialization. Like Silicon Valley, they are characterized by the high technology firms. Other new complexes, however, develop out of old industrial regions which go through a process of transformation and reindustrialization. The most significant example of these places is Boston’s Route 128.

            The most important character of these developments is their spontaneity. Although governments and universities play a crucial role in their developments they take place without conscious planning. This characteristic distinguishes industrial complexes from other types of technopoles. Because other types, like technology parks, are the results of the deliberate institutional efforts that try to imitate success of these spontaneous industrial complexes. Silicon Valley, the basic model of the many technopoles of today, will briefly be discussed as an example.

Silicon Valley

            Along with Manchester of the 1820s, Pittsburgh of the 1890s, and Detroit of the 1920s, Silicon Valley stands as one of history's paradigmatic centers of industrial production. Silicon Valley, home to thousands of high-tech firms and tens of thousands of scientific and technical professionals, takes places in the northwest quarter of Santa Clara County in California. Named for the silicon semiconductors that are the heart of the region's industry. (Fig.3)

 

Fig.3. Silicon Valley, Source: (Castells and Hall, 1994)

 

It is not a valley at all, but rather the nearly flat area south of San Francisco Bay. Journalists started using the term Silicon Valley in the 1970s to describe the unique concentration of microelectronics firms- Hewlett-Packard, IBM, Intel, National Semiconductor, Amdahl, Rolm, Tandem, Apple, Atari, and countless others-that have headquarters or large branch offices here.[12]

            Very core of the system is innovation. Most of the key inventions in microelectronics and computing have originated in Silicon Valley: integrated circuit, the microprocessor, the Unix system, and the development of personal computer (PC). Today Silicon Valley, with 330.000 high technology workers, including 6.000 Ph.D.s in engineering and science, is the most legendary hi-tech clusters all over the world.

Some History:

·        The story has begun in Silicon Valley in the early 20th century. The title of Father of Silicon Valley belongs to Stanford University professor of electrical engineering: Frederick Terman. He encouraged his students to work for local companies and to start businesses of their own. Among two of the students to pay attention to his advice were William Hewlett and David Packard that today their company is a transnational, multi-billion dollar giant.[13]

·        Throughout the 1950's, electronics companies such as General Electric and Sylvania, were joined by Westinghouse Electric and Ford Philco in establishing facilities in Palo Alto. On the other hand near San Jose IBM established a huge research center. These companies established their roots and flourished. With the establishment of Stanford Industrial Park in the mid 50's, the very character of Silicon Valley as a conglomeration of hi-tech companies took hold. Hewlett-Packard moved to the Park in 1954. Relations between university and private industry, as Terman dreamed, would constitute the nucleus of the Silicon Valley.

·        In 1957 Fairchild Semiconductors was founded. This firm became the nucleus of 10 new spin-off firms (Intel, National Semiconductors, Signetics, Amelco and Advanced Micro Devices) that have been created by former Fairchild engineers after 1965. Among these firms Intel’s integrated circuit semiconductor chips would become the defacto standard for the industry. By 1970, that industry had grown to around 15 companies, and the Computer Revolution was on. In this decade military and aerospace demand boomed the semiconductor industry in Silicon Valley.

·        By the mid-1970s Silicon Valley had developed its social networks, industrial basis, supporting financial and service activities, and professional organizations that made help to generation of a self-sustained innovative milieu. Adding to this portrait, universities, including Stanford, San Jose State, Santa Clara, and Berkeley have become critical sources of R&D for Silicon Valley.

·        In 1981 IBM introduced its own PC. After this date Silicon Valley networks started to generate computer companies like Sun Microsystems both in hardware and software. By the mid 1980s computer industry became the most important activity in the region.

To Hall and CastellsSilicon Valley now became increasingly specialized in the high level of technological production in microelectronics and computers, with companies automating their manufacturing plants and/or moving them to other cheaper areas in the United States while keeping in the Valley the high level functions of R&D, design, and advanced manufacturing.[14]

Evolution of Silicon Valley Model:

            Generation of an innovative milieu in Silicon Valley after 1950s gave the first clues of new production factors of new informational age. The major production factors that flourished Silicon Valley can be grouped under three headings:

1.      Existence of Universities as Raw Material: The new raw material, that is scientific knowledge and advanced technological information in electronics, generated in and diffused from Stanford University.

2.      Availability of Applicable Science and Technology: The Federal Government’s supported Silicon Valley through military markets and through tax provisions for small businesses. Because production of firms in the Valley area has largely based on technology-rich products and innovation that the Federal Government’s highly needed. This became the primary factor in the generation of innovative milieu.   

3.      Accessibility of High-skilled Scientific and Technical Labor: Bay universities, including Stanford and Berkeley, has applied strong scientific programs in the region. Therefore the first stages of milieu has largely benefited from the pool of good engineers and technicians.

Although Silicon Valley seems spontaneous in some ways it is basically characterized by the conscious efforts around Stanford Industrial Park and spin-offs from the fundamental firms (Shockley Semiconductors, Fairchild Semiconductors in 1960s). Above all, Silicon Valley created its own culture and creative synergy. This is achieved by articulation of three interrelated foundations:

  • A work oriented culture: that valued technological genius and inventive entrepreneurialism;
  • Professional organizations: that sustained the interests of the Valley’s electronics industry;
  • Territorial concentration of work, residence and leisure: that became extensive of its own values and interests, while excluding and segregating other social groups and economic activities.[15]

Silicon Valley’s entrepreneurial and research-oriented culture has changed the nature of new industrial spaces. It is created a model for new technopoles and technological programs (e.g. Japan Technopolis Program) all over the world. Silicon Valley also became the most significant example of industrial command points of new global information economy.

3.2. Science Parks (Science City)

The term science parks include all other similar names such as research parks, technology parks, innovation centers and so on.

 "A science park is a property-based initiative which has formal operational links with a university or other higher educational or research institution; designed to encourage the formation and growth of knowledge-based business and other organizations normally resident on site; has a management function which is actively engaged in the transfer of technology and business skills to the organizations on site.” [16]

Within this context, science parks may provide:

·        intellectual and physical infrastructure that includes the built environment its immediate surroundings as well as communications, telecommunication, IT, business services and business support activities.

·        management support actively engaged in the transfer of both technology and, for their clients, business skills.[17]

The first science park or science city was created on the campus of Stanford University in 1950s. However it is only in recent years that science parks have become a prominent element of national and regional strategies for economic and technological development. 

Science parks are research complexes and have no direct territorial linkage to manufacturing. They are expected to reach a higher level of scientific quality through the synergy created by various institutions of they own.  

Science parks can now be found in many parts of the world, including Europe, Japan, Russia and other countries. Japan has made two major attempts to build a science city: Tsukuba (1960s) and Kansai (1980s). Here Tsukuba Science City will be examined as the case for this category.

Tsukuba Science City

Unlike spontaneously evolved industrial parks that including Silicon Valley, Boston’s Route 128, and Cambridge (England) Tsukuba is one of the world’s few planned technopoles.[18] It is located about 60 kilometers northeast of Tokyo, and 40 kilometers to Tokyo’s international airport Narita. (Fig.4) In the 1960s to reduce the overcrowding of Tokyo Metropolitan area some national and educational institutes was decided to go to Tsukuba City. The aim of a Japan government was to promote science and technology, and encourage the educational institutions in a large satellite science city. It was a large decentralization program and Tsukuba were selected by the appropriateness of several conditions:

·        It was within one hour from Tokyo

·        There was an existing city in the surrounding area

·        It was very close to Lake Kasumigaura that guaranteed the reliable water supply.

Construction of about 4000 hectares in Tsukuba area has been started by Japan Housing Corporation in 1968. By 1980, 43 national organizations for research and education had moved to the 27-square kilometer site in Tsukuba. At the beginning progress was slower than expected but after 1985, when the International Science and Technology Expo was held in Tsukuba, the city increased its infrastructure investments and governmental promotion: The new expressway made for the Expo, The Joban Railway directly linked to Tokyo’s Rapid Transit Expressway, investments in information and communications technology (ICT), and Law of Promotion of Research Exchange approved in 1987. After that, private firms have discovered the science city. [19]

 

Fig.4. Location of Tsukuba Science City

 

At the end of 1980s, 30 percent of all national research agencies and 40 percent of their researchers were found in Tsukuba. Also about 50 percent of total budget for all institutes is invested there. Today this number heightened to more than 200 research facilities including laboratories of private companies built in the neighboring area, and 59 educational and research institutes (48 national, 11 non-profit) together with the national University of Tsukuba (opened in 1973) that is the core of Tsukuba Science City.[20] (Fig.5)

Evaluating Tsukuba

            Tsukuba Science city is a mega-project that costs 1.067 billion USD till the 1990. Despite a huge public expenditure it cannot be said that Tsukuba is fully succeeded. Japan government has been faced with many problems during the construction, promotion and application process:

·        During the construction phase, the Japan Housing Corporation met much opposition from landowners. As a solution Japan Government had constituted new six different municipalities within Tsukuba region to provide service coordination, and inefficient management of infrastructure. But the problem has largely been remedied by the merger of five of these municipalities (Oho, Sakura, Toyosato, Tsukuba, and Yatabe) into one (Tsukuba City) in 1987, allowing Tsukuba to develop more effectively the infrastructure needed for technology development: additional industrial parks, office space, and recreation facilities. Although Tsukuba Science City is a planned development and controlled growth land prices are rising on a speculative wave.

 

Fig.5. Central Portion of Tsukuba Science City

 

·        Another problem is the lack of cohesion between National Institutions due to the vertical integration characteristics of Japanese government agencies: This created the excessive duplication of equipments, poor interaction with the private sector and therefore the lack of joint research. Relocated research institutes (Tokyo origined) focused on large projects for National and International market. This created a tendency to neglect basic research and applied research that the local industry and small and medium scale firms are strongly needed.

·        Despite great efforts many researchers have regarded Tsukuba as an isolated island, remote from normal human society. Castells and Hall noted that there is a “Tsukuba Syndrome” especially among researchers’ wives. Tsukuba still suffers from lack of sufficient communication among disciplines. Studies had shown that 8.8 percent of essential research information came from within Tsukuba, against 23.1 percent from Tokyo. [21]

Also there are many positive sides experiencing with Tsukuba Science City. One of these is the agglomeration of research institutes in the Science City that were once scattered in Tokyo. This promoted the arrangement of small meetings and exchange of information among researchers in Tsukuba, and increased the number of conferences and symposia held in there. As a part of next-generation industry program of Japan Government in 1980s, public-private partnership has been encouraged in Tsukuba. Private firms participated the research projects of chosen public research bodies. New technologies developed during the research phase are patented by the Government but made available first to those firms involved in these projects.    

            1980s has been the years of development for Tsukuba. The isolation problem with Tokyo has largely broken by Exposition, public-private partnership, and physical infrastructure investments. Tsukuba Science city is the seed of bigger technopolis program of Japan that I will keep in touch again.

3.3 Technology Parks (technopark)

            According to United Kingdom Science Park Association (UKSPA)’s definition technoparks are:

·        Organizations that have physical relations with an university and a research center,

·        Tightly designed areas that encourages the formation and progress of high technology-using private firms within their boundaries,

·        Initiatives that their administration gives particular attention of transferring the technology and business management to the related firms.[22]

Technology parks are well-planned high technology business areas established by government or university-related initiatives. Despite the looseness of boundaries technoparks differ from science parks and industrial complexes. Their image is much closer to a new-style industrial district rather than innovation-based science-parks. Innovation functions are not excluded from such project but they are mainly based on manufacturing.

Technoparks aims to encourage new industrial growth by attracting high-technology manufacturing firms to an advantaged space. They generate jobs, skills, and economic growth for a region that is vital for new conditions of international competitiveness and information-based production.

The universal goal of technology park projects is to attract investment by private firms that are using information-based productions. To attract investors to such areas governments use fiscal incentives, offer facilities and productive infrastructure, seek to improve telecommunications and transportation, assist the creation of educational and training institutions, and try to generate a good image for the technopark.[23]

            As outlined above governments play an important role in the design and development of technoparks. Technology parks are prestigious projects of large-scale regional or national urban development policies. They try to attract hi-tech firms to grow and compete in the informational global economy. Therefore industrial competitiveness of any technology park projects is more important than their R&D capacity. In this context French Science Park Sophia- Antipolis, known as one of the classic examples of a technology parks, will be discussed as a remarkable example of this type. (Fig.6)

Sophia- Antipolis

            Sophia-Antipolis has been established as the international business park near Nice on the Mediterranean costs of France. It is so large complex that consists of 1.164 companies, 20.530 engineers and technicians, 5.000 researchers on a 2.300-hectare site. Sophia- Antipolis has been designed in a vast landscaped park that is approximately the one-fourth the size of Paris. Planned extension to the north of the present Park in the near future will increase this area to 4,600 hectares.[24] Sophia-Antipolis has strong physical infrastructure options: advanced telecommunication networks, a close connection to France’s second international airport etc. (Fig.7)

 

Fig.6. Technopoles of France and Sophia-Antipolis

 

Historical background of the Park:

  •  Background of Sophia-Antipolis was prepared with creation of regional industrial zone (1962) and foundation of Nice Sophia-Antipolis University (1965).  Project has been started in 1968 with the slogan of  “the great European City of Science in the sun”. However it would began with lack of access and basic services.
  • In 1972, National Interministerial Committee approved the plan and consultants developed a land-use plan that reserved one-third of the site for a mixture of innovative technology, housing and living activities. Two-thirds of total area has been reserved as green belt. This refined strategy gave the entire development a very high environmental quality.
  • In 1974, the first company has been established on the park’s site (FRANLAB, a subsidiary of the Institut Français du Pétrole).[25] However during the 1970s park’s progress was very slow and Sophia-Antipolis was considered as a kind of high-technology island, isolated from the rest of the region. In 1977 the public sector (Air-France’s worldwide passenger reservation services moved to the area) entered the Sophia-Antipolis and then the park took off. 
  • 1980s have witnessed a time of rapid employment growth. Investments increased seven-times higher between 1982 and 1989. (In 1983, 23 new companies and + 630 new jobs; in 1986, +158 new companies and +672 new jobs; in 1989 +26 new companies and + 1861 new jobs) After that Sophia-Antipolis gained its national and international status as a well-known technopark.

 

Fig.7. General Map of Sophia-Antipolis

 

General Features of Sophia-Antipolis:

  • Firms and Employment: As a general structure Sophia-Antipolis has largely been the partnership of the private companies that using high technology. In the job profile Information technologies represents the most dynamic sector. (Fig.8) Parks has cosmopolitan character: 40 percent of total of employees are from abroad. There are 1.164 firms in Sophia-Antipolis and 110 of them are foreigned-based firms. (Table 1), Information Technologies, Medical and Chemical Sciences, Natural Sciences, and Higher Education, Training and Research are the principal industries in Sophia-Antipolis. (Fig.9)

Table 1: Sophia-Antipolis 1999

 

SITUATION OF THE SCIENCE PARK AS OF 01/01/99

GROWTH 98/97

Jobs

20 530

+10,8%

Corporations

1 164

+ 5,5%

Space occupied

861 100

+ 4,9%

Source: Sophia-Antipolis’s Web Site (http://www.sophia-antipolis.net/anglais/infos/frame.htm)

 

Fig.8. Percentage of Employees by Sectors (1999)

Fig.9. Corporations in Sophia-Antipolis (1999)

 

  • Research & Education: Public higher education and research have been developed in the park corresponding with the needs of companies. The aim is to create higher education, research and industry partnership. More than 5.000 students and researchers in the public sector work in the Park alongside research engineers in the private industry.   
  • Life in the Park: Two-thirds of the park sets aside for green space. (The ground use ratio is around 30 %.) 1500 hectares of forested area surrounds the park and constitutes Sophia Antipolis’s "Green Belt". 150 hectares of the 800 hectares is reserved for housing, sports and recreation. 3500 families live at Sophia Antipolis. Approximately 70 percent of employees work outside the park to prevent the “island effect”. The buildings in the park have been planned to be in harmony with landscape that have roof-top solar panels and landscaped terraces. 40 tennis court, 4 golf courses, and many other sports complexes serve the Sophia Antipolis area.[26]
  • Services in the Park: There are some services for the firms in the Park: several business centers with multiple resources; information technology, legal, fiscal, venture capital, promotion, training, etc.; hotels with totaling 950 rooms facilities and logistics suitable to organize colloquia and seminars. There are also clubs and social associations in the park. (Club of Managers, Health Sector Club, Hi-tech Club, Telecom Valley etc.)

Evaluating Sophia-Antipolis:

            Sophia-Antipolis is one of the best examples of the technology parks. Park’s failures and achievements can be discussed under three main headings:[27]

  1. Dual Structure within the Park: Perrin suggests that in 1974-1986 period for the Park there is a dual structure between large multinational firms and small and medium enterprises (SMEs) in terms of research activities and access to basic services. The first provides high wages and facilities for their researcher The latter, on the other hand, never developed the inclination to break away and start their own firms; their employers continue to internalize their R&D. SMEs are underdeveloped because their costs for land, maintenance, and qualified labor are too high and also lack basic services, both technological and organizational. However, after 1985 some central services were created to advice and support to SMEs. The Centre d’Acceuil des Technologies (CAT) has began to offer young entrepreneurs administrative services, relations with a network of scientific, technical, commercial and administrative specialists, and availability of small lots.
  2. Problems in creating an Innovative Milieu: Quere evaluated the innovative capability of firms in the Park in terms of developing new ideas, progress in the market, cooperation level with other firms. He found most of the local firms are innovative while the foreign firms are not. To him entire technopark has failed to develop to its true potential, for three reasons: The first is that the firms constituting the milieu have expertise in quite different areas. Therefore partnerships or the development of cross cutting activities could not be enlarged. The second is an isolation of the human resources that must be the basis of any milieu of innovation. There is no mobility between firms. The third is that firms and research centers see an actual danger in cooperation. Therefore foreign firms remain isolated. Only the local firms tend to form partnership with the research centers.  
  3. Errors of Public Authorities: To Castells and Hall the dominant public actors in France have seen the progress of the Park more as one of land-use planning than of economic development: success has been measured in sales of so many square meters of land. Again Quere criticizes that the public authorities are incapable of the kind of technological management that is needed. The two distinct bodies, the big state research centers and multinationals, did not effectively relate to one another.  Research and industry remain in their own boundaries so that synergy and cross-fertilization could not be fostered.

3.4.Technopolis

The word technopolis, a newly coined word, consists of a "techno" and a "polis" which originally signify an "art" and a "city" in Greek, and means an industrial city accumulated with advanced technologies.[28] As a huge scale and ambitious project Japan Technopolis program will be examined associated with previously discussed Tsukuba Science City.

Timeline for Japan Technopolis Program:

  • In 1979 an early step of project has begun with the investigation of American Silicon Valley’s success. The key term was “the process of innovation”. In Japanese case neither Tokyo nor Tsukuba Science City appeared to offer a model for future development of industrial concentrations: The first was too competitive and imitative, the latter was too academic due to its researchers.
  • In 1980 Japan’s Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI) framed the outline of Japan Technopolis Program:

“Technopolis (technology-intensive city) is a city that effectively combines an industrial sector composed of electronics, machinery and other most advanced technologies with an academic and residential sector. This concept aims at promoting regional development and creating a new regional culture under the lead of industrial and academic progress. A possible model scheme in and after the 1980s, it differs in its basic approach from the conventional ideas of regional development centering on land utilization and infrastructural improvements.” [29]

·        In 1983 Technopolis Laws passed and project started under a Technopolis Committee. They prepared a very concentrated calendar for Technopolis: to choose the sites by 1984, to complete construction of the physical infrastructure by 1990, and to complete development of each technopolis by the year 2000. (Fig.10)

 

Fig.10. Technopoles of Japan

 

Location Criteria For Technopolis Sites:

1.         A total area of 1300 square kilometers or less,

2.         Existing enterprises with potential for high-tech development,

3.         An existing city (Mother City) with 150.000 or more people,

4.         An existing university with high-tech education or research,

5.         Access to high-speed transportation facilities giving a one-day return trip from Tokyo, Nagoya or Osaka.[30]

As state policy MITI opened the Technopolis development to competition of local prefectures. These prefectures would play the crucial role in planning and constructing the technopoles. Therefore MITI’s role could be reduced to the technical assistance level. 47 prefectures volunteered and 26 of all were chosen. In implementation phase there were three different types of technopolis sites. The first group was lagging technopolises that traditional local industrial firms in there remain far behind new technologies. Second was successfully attracted the outside capital. The third group is the technopolises that transformed traditional local industry into modern local industry successfully.

Goals of Technopolis Program:

MITI had an ambitious plan to build a Japanese technostate of research cities dispersed throughout the economy (decentralization). The major aim of technopolis program is to encourage development in relatively underdeveloped rural areas by forming high-tech industrial complexes.[31] Therefore the emphasis is on the peripheral regions rather than existing metropolitan areas like Tokyo. Second is to encourage innovation through high-tech industries in MITI’s list: aircraft, space, optics, biotechnology, medical electronics, robots, integrated circuits, computers, software, data processing, fine ceramics, medicine, and industrial machinery. Another important goal is to create 21st century informational economy and gain world leadership in innovation through technopolis program.

Evaluating the Japan Technopolis Program:

            Japan technopolis program could not be fully concluded and still there is no regular information about the role of technopolises. But the program can be evaluated in seven main headings under the guidance of major discussions up to now.

  1. Failure to achieve original vision: The program failed to achieve its original objective of satellite city integrating Research and Development (R&D), educational facilities, and production facilities for hi-tech industry. Some technopolis locations in the project have conventional satellite new towns and had already most of these facilities.
  2. The branch-plant syndrome: Branch plants and independent firms in technopolis areas could not realized R&D oriented production. Both branch plants and independent firms created jobs but they remained dependent to existing major Metropolitan Industrial sites (Tokyo, Osaka, and Nagoya) and stayed behind the goal of raising local technological levels.
  3. Failure to develop university-industry links: A close links between local universities and industry could not be provided well as in Cambridge and Stanford Universities due to the restrictive regulations and the inability of academic staff. Also not enough synergy could be established between the local universities in technopolises and major universities and corporate headquarters in Tokyo region.
  4. Lack of soft Infrastructure: Prefectural governments (local) constructed hard infrastructure (roads, airports,university and laboratory facilities, technology centers, and industrial research parks) and did not realize soft infrastructure of R&D concentration, venture capital funds, and university research.
  5. The failure to move R&D:  Major business corporations did not decentralize their research facilities into the technopolis sites. Closeness to headquarters in terms of research facilities became the key locational criteria after 1980s. For example NEC conducts basic research and circuit design in Kawasaki City close to its Tokyo headquarters but the actual mass production was in Kumamoto Technopolis.
  6. Failure to attract key workers: 60 percent of the information technology workers are employed in small and medium-sized firms in the Tokyo Region today. For technopolises this means the failure in the attraction of skilled labour.
  7. Financial problem on local governments: Private sector in technopolises did not invest for sectors including domestic services such as construction, housing, and transportation. These sectors were not hi-tech sectors listed by MITI and could not provide high profits. Thus prefectures remained alone in the implementation of hard infrastructure investments.

Despite some negative developments technopolis policy is a very well organized attempt. Its regional and national goals are so big that some points seem unsuccessful in detail. Especially its desire to encourage economic growth in a number of underdeveloped areas holds some risks in the absence of fundamental market analysis.

      On the other hand creating technopolises is a modern time utopia that its results cannot be estimated in the age of uncertainty. In the conclusion part of this paper I will extend these discussion parallel with the techno-city idea.


C. Technopoles and Techno-cities: toward a new morphology of cities?

1. Are Technopoles at the heart of informational economy?

Post-Fordist economy has created a range of new industrial spaces like Technopoles that linked to the global markets. Because Technopoles are considered as a strong tool in the international and intranational competition between cities and regions as well as nations they are now to be found on the periphery of every dynamic area in the world. Are technopoles at the heart of new global economy or are they just a myth or a technological utopia?

            I will try to elaborate this question with two extreme examples: Japan technopolises as a prototype of a new smart cities, and concept of “virtual technopoles” that become possible with the enormous rise of new information and communications technologies (ICTs).

1. Technopoles, Teleports and the “Smart City”: Japanese Case

            As previously discussed to take the world leadership and to balance with regions and cities Japans has started to construct technopolises that have very ambitious goals. The idea has been implemented by Japan’s Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI). Another governmental organization, The National Land Agency, on the other hand, examined the prospects for the 21st century in terms of technological innovations, internationalization and the problems of an aging population. Having identified the key innovations and trends in information technologies, the National Land Agency outlined the land-use plan for Japan’s information society as different strategies for urban, rural, and urban-rural areas.

            A critical element in the improvement of metropolitan and regional areas is the teleport. Teleport is a ground base for using expanding international and domestic satellite communications through telecommunications facilities placed in a well-equipped intelligent building (Telecom Center) that is linked to other cities by optical fibres and other access circuits. The teleport is expected to attract heavy users of telecommunications such as financial institutions, insurance companies, computer firms and information processing industries. This is the idea of new information-oriented city of 21st century of Japans: a city is linked to the world by a communications satellite.

In this model, in terms of industry, attention is directed to the large-scale factory development plants for sale. Within the region there is industrial information center and overseas business enterprise with their own satellite connections. There is also a local software factory, a new countryside industrial area, and a technopolis area with a university, training center and information center. This technopolis area, as Rimmer points out, “has been at the forefront of moves to prepackage these futuristic, information- oriented cities and regions for export”.[32] (Fig.11)

 

Fig.11. The Informised city and region of the 21st Century, Source: (Rimmer,1991)

 

We see that technopolis has greater role as an innovative milieu and image builder in the creation of Japanese futuristic effort to shape 21st century informational city. Japans has also used technopolis concept as a tool for regional activation and seen its exporting potential to industrializing countries within their area of influence. The most significant of this effort is the Multi-Function Polis (MFP) proposal developed by Mitsubishi Electric Corporation. (Fig.12)

 

Fig.12. Modular configuration of Technopolis, Mitsubishi Electric Corporation plan, 1985,

Source: (Rimmer, 1991)

 

Japanese conception of 21st century futuristic city is based on high-tech industries and services, research and development activities, advanced educational, health and leisure facilities and services that are all can be designed in an advanced technopole area. To export and distribute their ideas Japans generally use hitting English-type words such as cosmopolis, technopolis, scientopolis, and multi-function polis. These projects have not yet entirely fulfilled and still open to the debate but can be concluded in two major questions:

  • Is the scope of these programs shaped by Technological Utopianism that suggests technology could provide mere solutions to important social problems?
  • Are these projects motivated more by global and regional industrial leadership strategy than by the goal of constituting the 21st information society?

2. Virtual Technopoles

For the location of business, company and university research activities, and of manufacturing, distribution, and marketing the dependency to physical place is reduced via increasingly cheaper ICT. Researches work together over the Internet, regardless of where they are. For companies, each activity may take place in a different location: R&D, design, raw material sourcing, manufacturing, assembly, distribution, and marketing.

This situation, according to some commentators, is the end of science parks and technology parks could become obsolete in the 21st century. The idea of a park or incubator as a "real estate" enterprise should give way to that of a "knowledge-based" enterprise. But as Saskia Sassen states “There is no fully virtualized firm and no fully digitalized industry. Even the most advanced information industries, such as finance, are installed only partly in electronic space.[33]

On the other hand local linkages and face-to-face interactions have been always seen as vital components for the creation and development of a technopolis. It can be assumed that virtual linkages cannot be seen as substitutes for person-to-person contacts, which will continue to have a crucial role. But the two processes, the personal contact and the virtual connection, can complement each other.

            Networked coordination is becoming increasingly dominant in informational global economy today. We cannot deny the reinforcing effects of Virtual Technopoles on existing industrial complexes. Actually there are few projects in the general area of virtual technopolis development such as French Technopoli Networks, Italian Tecnoretes, and Virtual Science Park (led by University of Leeds). There are some benefits of networking for all branches of industrial firms, universities, research institutions and as well as governments:[34]

·        Small firms and start-ups may provide great benefits, because they generally have limited access to technology networks and to international events such as trade fairs; in less developed regions, they tend to feel isolated.

·        For regional development agencies, networking would be extremely useful to lessen regional deficiencies, to improve focus and to reduce duplication of efforts. 

·        Universities and research centers also benefit greatly. Usually, they already have a high level of interaction with similar organizations, but their linkages with the private sector tend to be limited, and are often concentrated on large firms and state-owned enterprises. 

·        For large firms, the benefits would be smaller, because they tend to have well-developed internal network systems, and also linkages with their suppliers. In a cluster, they tend to be more self-contained than the other agents, with fewer ties with local firms and research institutions. 

·        Governments would benefit from increased efficiency, reduced duplication, and optimization of infrastructure. A virtual technopolis could be a tool to encourage development and overcome isolation in certain regions.

            Both Japan’s efforts to create 21st century futuristic technopolis and Virtual Technopolis discussions have indicated three points of struggle: to survive in global competition, to enhance knowledge and therefore create innovative milieu, and to use physical and human resources efficiently. 

            The role of technopoles in global economy as a new industrial space of 21st century is still questionable. In Technopoles of the World Castells and Hall found that:

“…most of the world’s actual high-technology production and innovation still comes from areas that are not usually heralded as innovative milieu, and indeed may have few of their [technopoles] physical features: the great metropolitan areas of the industrialized world. [35]

            Adding this remark to Saskia Sassen’s findings on the rise existing metropolitan centers as command points for the new global economy I can say that whether real or virtual industrial activities are still need the services and facilities (trained human resources, face-to-face interaction in close proximity, intellectual and social services and as well as physical infrastructure etc.) that existing major cities offered.

            We should know that today there is no single type of industrial production and workplace and all production types and production sites are becoming more complement each other. The common denominator among all economic activities is globalization and strong believes in technology. Technoparks are presented to most industrializing nations, including Turkey, as the magic formula of industrial production and progress. However, as mentioned previously, technopoles are expensive projects and their success depends on availability of different set of factors from local to national level. Developing countries, therefore, should determine the priorities of their strategic investment decisions; technopoles is the only one among others.

 

References

1.      Adem Karahoca et al.,  Bilgi Ýletiþim Teknolojilerinde Teknoparklarýn Ulusal Sanayideki Rolü”, 1997

2.      Carlos Quandt, “Virtual Technopoles: Exploring the Potential of Internet and Web Technologies to Create Innovative Environments in Latin America and the Caribbean”, 1997 

3.      D.K. Kahaner, ATIP report, “Technological Innovation In Japan”, 1995

4.      Edward Blakely, “The New Technology City: Infrastructure for the Future Community”, in Cities of the 21st Century, edited by: P. Hall at al., 1991

5.      Japan Atlas “Tsukuba Science City”, at: http://www.jinjapan.org/atlas/technology/tec01.html

6.      Jim McCormick, “A brief history of Silicon Valley”, at: http://bora.dacom.co.kr/~khkim/text/briefsilvalhis.htm

7.      Langdon Winner, “Silicon Valley Mystery House”, in Variations on a Theme Park, ed. M.Sorkin, 1992

8.      Manuel Castells and Peter Hall, Technopoles of the World, 1994

9.      Ömer Kaymakçalan, “Teknoloji Geliþtirme ve Transfer Aracý Olarak Teknoparklar”, Marmara Araþtýrma Merkezi (MAM)

10.  P. Newton, “Telematic Underpinnings of the Information Economy”, in Cities of the 21st Century, edited by: P. Hall at al., 1991

11.  Peter Rimmer, “Exporting Cities to the Western Pacific Rim: The art of the Japanese Package”, in Cities of the 21st Century,ed. P.Hall at al., 1991

12.  Saskia Sassen, “Urban Economies and Fading Distances”, Megacities Lecture at: http://www.megacities.nl/lecture_sassen.html

13.  Saskia Sassen, Global Cities, 1991

14.  Sophia- Antipolis Web Site at: http://www.sophia-antipolis.net/anglais/infos/frame.htm

15.  Stephan Graham, “Imagining the Real-Time City: Telecommunications, Urban Paradigms and the Future of Cities”, in Imagining Cities, edited by: Westwood,S. and Williams, J., 1996

16.  UNCTAD Trade Point Development Center at: http://sunsite.wits.ac.za/untpdc/eto/etosite/ccg00701.txt

17.  United Kingdom Science Park Association (UKSPA) Homepage at: http://www.ukspa.org.uk/htmlfiles/index1.htm

18.  Yamagata Technopolis Foundation Homepage at: http://www.ymgt-techno.or.jp/

 

 



[1] P. Newton, “Telematic Underpinnings of the Information Economy”, in Cities of the 21st Century, edited by:Hall at al., 1991

[2] Stephan Graham, “Imagining the Real-Time City: Telecommunications, Urban Paradigms and the Future of Cities”, in Imagining Cities, edited by: Westwood,S. and Williams, J., 1996

[3] Saskia Sassen, Global Cities, 1991

[4] Edward Blakely, “The New Technology City: Infrastructure for the Future Community”, in Cities of the 21st Century, edited by: P. Hall at al., 1991

[5] Saskia Sassen, “Urban Economies and Fading Distances”, Megacities Lecture at: http://www.megacities.nl/lecture_sassen.html ­

[6] Castells and Hall, 1994, Technopoles of the World, p.1

[7] ibid.

[8] Based on Centennial Campus Promotion Brochure, can be viewed at http://centennial.ncsu.edu/masterpl/tec.htm

[9] Carlos Quandt, “Virtual Technopoles: Exploring the Potential of Internet and Web Technologies to Create Innovative Environments in Latin America and the Caribbean”, 1997  

[10] ibid.

[11] Ömer Kaymakçalan, “Teknoloji Geliþtirme Ve Transfer Aracý Olarak Teknoparklar”, Marmara Araþtýrma Merkezi (MAM)

[12] Langdon Winner, “Silicon Valley Mystery House”, in Variations on a Theme Park, ed. M.Sorkin, 1992

[13] Jim McCormick, “A brief history of Silicon Valley”, at: http://bora.dacom.co.kr/~khkim/text/briefsilvalhis.htm

[14] Castells and Hall, Technopoles of the World, 1994, p.20

[15] Castells and Hall, Technopoles of the World, 1994

[16] Definition of Science Parks by United Kingdom Science Park Association (UKSPA), at: http://www.atip.or.jp/public/atip.reports.95/atip95.88r.html

[18] D.K. Kahaner, ATIP report, “Technological Innovation In Japan”, 1995

[19] Castells and Hall, 1994, “Technopoles of the World: The Making of 21st century Industrial Complexes”

[20] Japan Atlas “Tsukuba Science City”, at: http://www.jinjapan.org/atlas/technology/tec01.html

[21]  Castells and Hall, 1994, “Technopoles of the World: The Making of 21st century Industrial Complexes”

[22] Adem Karahoca at al.,  Bilgi Ýletiþim Teknolojilerinde Teknoparklarýn Ulusal Sanayideki Rolü”, 1997

[23]  Castells and Hall, 1994, “Technopoles of the World: The Making of 21st century Industrial Complexes”

[27] Castells and Hall, 1994, “Technopoles of the World: The Making of 21st century Industrial Complexes”

[28] Yamagata Technopolis Foundation Homepage at: http://www.ymgt-techno.or.jp/

[29] Castells and Hall, 1994, “Technopoles of the World: The Making of 21st century Industrial Complexes”

[30] Castells and Hall, 1994, “Technopoles of the World: The Making of 21st century Industrial Complexes”

[31] UNCTAD Trade Point Development Center at: http://sunsite.wits.ac.za/untpdc/eto/etosite/ccg00701.txt 

[32] Peter Rimmer, “Exporting Cities to the Western Pacific Rim: The art of the Japanese Package”, in Cities of the 21st Century,ed. P.Hall at al., 1991, p.252

[33] Saskia Sassen, “Urban Economies and Fading Distances”, Megacities Lecture at: http://www.megacities.nl/lecture_sassen.html ­

[34] Carlos Quandt, “Virtual Technopoles: Exploring the Potential of Internet and Web Technologies to Create Innovative Environments in Latin America and the Caribbean”, 1997

[35] Castells and Hall, Technopoles of the World, 1994, p.11