AMvB Ruimte Netherlands General Regulation on the Management of Spatial Planning APICA Science Park and Innovation Centre Association
BZW Brabant-Zeeuwse Employers Association
CEPD Taiwan Council for Economic Planning and Development CPAMI Taiwan Construction and Planning Agency, Ministry of Interior CTSP Central Taiwan Science Park
DPP Democratic Progressive Party, the second largest political party in Taiwan DAF Van Doorne’s Automobile Factory
DATAR France Inter-ministerial Delegation for Territorial Planning and Regional Attractiveness EFRO European Regional Development Fund
EL&I Netherlands Ministry of Economic Affairs, Agriculture and Innovation
EPZ Export processing zone
EU European Union
HSC Hsinchu Science City
HSP Hsinchu Science Park
HUDB Taiwan Housing and Urban Development Bureau
IC Integrated circuits
ICT Information and communication technology IOB Dutch Interdepartmental Policy Research
IT Information technology
ITRI Taiwan Industrial Technology Research Institute KMT Kuomintang, the largest political party in Taiwan
KvK Netherlands Chamber of Commerce
MEZ Netherlands Ministry of Economic Affairs
MIRT Netherlands Multi-year Plan for Infrastructure, Spatial Planning and Transport MITI Japan Ministry of International Trade and Industry
NCTU National Chia Tung University in Taiwan NTHU National Tsing Hua University in Taiwan
NLG Dutch guilder
NSC Taiwan National Science Council
NV REDE An economic development agency for the Eindhoven Region OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency PCC Taiwan Public Construction Commission R&D Research and development
RDEC Taiwan Research, Development and Evaluation Commission
SPA Taiwan Science Park Administration
SRE Eindhoven City Region
STPs Science and technology parks STSP South Taiwan Science Park
SVIR Netherlands National Policy Strategy for Infrastructure and Spatial Planning TKFP Taiwan Knowledge-based Flagship Park
TNO Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research TPG Taiwan provincial government
TSMI Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Corporation TU/e Eindhoven University of Technology
UMC United Microelectronics Corporation UNDP United Nations Development Programme UPC Urban Planning Commission in Taiwan
URBACT A European exchange and learning programme promoting sustainable urban development VROM Netherlands Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning, and Environment Administration WRO Dutch Spatial Planning Act in 1962
Wro Dutch Spatial Planning Act in 2008
WRR Netherlands National Scientific Council for Government Policy
WTO World Trade Organisation
PART 1 Introduction
1 Introduction
§ 1.1 Emergence of High-tech Spatial Development
High-tech development has had strategic importance for economic policy for a long time, because it has been broadly accepted that technological change ‘lies at the very heart of the processes of economic growth and development’ and innovation is key to promoting technological change (Dicken 2003, 85). After the Second World War, when other countries struggled to rebuild their damaged economies, the USA continued its rise in economic performance by consolidating its science and high-tech industry to trigger economic growth (Coopey 2004). The economic success of the USA influenced other countries to consider the promotion of technology as a main strategy to reconstruct their economy and establish their technology policy according to their own conditions.
Advanced by government intervention and market-driven forces, since the 1970s information and communication technologies (ICTs) have been rapidly evolving and broadly applied to ‘flexible integrated production and management systems’, which support an internationally decentralised mode of production both functionally and spatially (Castells 1989, 12). Following the continuing evolution of ICTs and the dynamic process of decentralising production modes, an informational and global economy has emerged. In this new economic system, technological capacity is one of the main factors that determine the outcome of global competition—a capacity that ‘refers to the appropriate articulation of science, technology, management, and production’ (Castells 1989, 103).
Under such global conditions, since the 1970s both developed and developing countries have established technology policies to harness the potential of ICTs and other new technologies, aiming to enhance and sustain competitiveness in the global economic network. One commonly used strategy is to initiate and/or promote the development of high-tech spaces—such as technology parks, science parks, science cities, and technopolises—where technologically advanced industries and/or research and development (R&D) firms and institutes gather to trigger economic growth at the national, regional and/or local level. According to Science Park and Innovation Centre Association’s (SPICA) Directory, by the end of 2010 there were more than 395 science and technology parks (STPs) and 1,664 business incubators in 102 countries. While these figures are provisional and do not claim to be exhaustive, they give an impression
The concept and scale of high-tech spatial development varies according to time and place. Differences may result from the particular socio-economic, political and historical context of a place, but also from the way the initiators of a development understand and perceive the notion of high-tech development, which may be influenced by contemporary discourse and technological developments. For example, the French term
‘technopole’ combines two key ideas, technology and city (polis in Greek), so in their well-known book, Technopoles of the World, Castells and Hall (1994) chose technopole as a generic name for high-tech spaces. They define technopole as a planned place gathering technologically advanced, knowledge-intensive industries and R&D activities for the purpose of promoting technologically innovative, industry-related production. They further identify four types of technopoles, including new techno-industrial complexes, technology parks, science cities and the Technopolis programme in Japan.
However, they exclusively select cases from industrialised and newly industrialised countries, within a period leading up to the beginning of the 1990s. Some of the case areas arose without significant planning by government (e.g. Silicon Valley and Boston Highway 128 in the US, Cambridge in the UK, etc.), others were the outcome of more specific, deliberate political decisions (e.g. Taedok Science Towns in Korea, Tsukuba Science City in Japan, Hsinchu Science Park in Taiwan, etc.). Their definition of technopole does not include current high-tech spatial developments, which have received an additional impetus since the rise of ICTs and the advent of the Internet in the mid-1990s, such as the more recently established IT City and IT Corridor in India (Centre, van Westen, and Prasad 2008).
Moreover, in the past two decades many countries—including the countries where the cases are located—have been influenced by the doctrine of neoliberalism and/or huge financial burden, gradually changing the role of the public sector from a provider to an enabler, facilitator, or supporter. Ways of formulating and implementing technology policy and approaching high-tech spatial development have also been shifting from government to governance. For example, Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff (2000) proposed a triple helix model of innovation governance. In this model, government focuses on the development of hybrid organisations and trilateral networks that overlap and connect government, academia and industry in order to build a tight interrelation and collaboration among the three sectors and to encourage the creation of an innovative milieu. The Brainport Eindhoven development is a good example of the triple helix model, presenting a more collaborative way to conduct high-tech spatial planning and development.
The experience of developing countries and the changing role of the public sector in industrialised and newly industrialised countries must be considered, because these situations might offer alternative perspectives to understand the relationship between high-tech development and its effects on the organisation of space. On the basis of the previous studies, there is a pronounced need to reinvestigate high-tech spatial
development. In light of this, this research focuses on the changing role of government in high-tech spatial development. I understand high-tech spaces to be places that gather technologically advanced industries and/or R&D firms and institutes, that have been specifically selected by technology policies—in developed or developing countries—and implemented to enhance high-tech development and trigger economic growth at the national, and/or regional level. This includes government led initiatives without, or with different degrees of private sector involvement, private-led initiatives with different degrees of public sector support, or the result of partnerships between the public and private sector.