An overview of Science Parks and their role in Latin America

Introduction

Science Parks and the popularity of the narrative, as a possible source of knowledge, innovation, and economical development have seduced government policies objectives and private firms’ initiatives around the globe over the last decades. Science parks refer to property-based organizations, created by public institutions and private firms, focused on the mission of acceleration through knowledge agglomeration and resource sharing (Phan, Siegel, and Wright, 2005, p. 166). According to the International Association of Science Parks and Areas of Innovation (2014), a science park main aim is to increase the wealth of its region by enhancing the culture of innovation and competitiveness of its tenants and knowledge-based institutions. To accomplish these objectives, a science park must have three fundamental characteristics: they must be designed to stimulate and manage flow of knowledge and technologies among firms and a particular centre of knowledge or universities; must encourage and support innovation-based companies through incubation; and must provide value-added services (UKSPA, 2016; IASP, 2014). Moreover, science park’s role is to contribute to the entrepreneur value chain at the national or environmental level (Phan, Siegel and Wright, 2005, p. 179). Thus, the stand of government policies is important and significant in driving growth in the future, and to maximize this potential requires effective and strategic evidence-based policies (Wright et al., 2015). However, there is some strong body of evidence that demonstrate that science parks are less relevant if not unhelpful, in the practice, to real innovation generation and transfer. Instead, the usual activities involve adopting and improving existing innovation; this is because they are considered "high tech fantasies" and their objective is to reproduce characteristics of Silicon Valley (Massey, Quintas, and Wield, 1992, pp. 244-250).

The literature tends to analyse the success factors and limitations of science parks derived from experiences of developing countries. The science parks narrative has attracted Latin America countries as possible sources of knowledge, innovation, and development. It has been considered as the ideal instrument to improve political, economical, institutional, social, and technological weaknesses (Rodriguez-Pose and Hardy, 2014). Yet, there is a gap concerning the impact of science parks in developing regions. This paper aims to illustrate and understand the impact of science parks, particularly evaluating and analysing science parks in Latin America. Moreover, this study reviews the vital components of science parks in Latin America. The paper is organized as follows: Theoretical building blocks, definition, and function of science parks; followed by reviewing and analysing the impact of a science park in Latin America; and last, conclusion will be drawn based on the findings.

Theoretical Building Blocks, Definitions, and Functions

Science parks represent a public and private initiative to stimulate the formation and development of new technology-based firms, playing a key role in enhancing innovation, entrepreneurship, and economic growth (Siegel, Westhead, Wright, 2003). Karl Max (1867) was first to suggest the association between innovation, productivity and economic growth by analysing capitalism as a concrete innovator player motivated by economic growth. In addition, innovation is recognized as an endogenous factor from activities, such as R&D, and has an impact in productivity increasing capital, labour inputs and technical progress, thus it works as the engine of economic change (Schumpeter, 1942; Solow, 1956; Romer 1994; Grossman and Helpman1990). Under these concepts, it is deduced that innovation dynamism could be directly linked to economic growth and productivity. In addition to the concept of innovation, entrepreneurship, and economic growth, Moulaert and Sekla (2003) analysed economic 0geography and proposed theories of the territorial innovation model. This is presented as a model of regional innovation in which local institutional dynamics are emphasised through coordination towards regional level of development. The analysis suggests that the common element identify in territorial innovation models is the proximity among innovation and intensive research firms, which magnifies a diversity of synergies and knowledge transfer, thus a favourable environment for innovation. Finally, public intervention for technology activity that leads to innovation generates growth rate, the considered instruments include infrastructure services and the protection of property rights (Barro and Sala-1-Martin, 1995, p. 152). To summarise, aligned with these based theories, there is an important connection associated with entrepreneurship, territorial innovation, and economic growth; in which public intervention through policies instruments, such as science park, will be significant and even critical for a regions development.

A multitude of terms and definitions have been used to describe a science park. The defining characteristic of science parks is the objective to cultivate innovation in specific geographical spaces by providing an optimal environment for their tenants in order to share knowledge, grow, and surely innovate (Rodriguez-Pose and Hardy, 2014). The International Association of Science Parks and Areas of Innovation (2014) indicates that a science park main aim is to increase the wealth of its region by enhancing the culture of innovation and competitiveness of its tenants and knowledge-based institutions. Another prominent organization, The United Kingdome Science Park Association (2016) defines science parks as a business support and technology transfer initiative that promotes an environment where a specific and .close interaction is developed among larger and international firms and a particular centre of knowledge; assists start-up and incubation of innovation-led and knowledge based business; and proposes a formal and operational link with university, higher education institutes, or research organizations. Correspondingly, the Association of University. Research Parks (2015) conceptualize science parks as a property-based venture, in which partnerships are developed through university and research institutions to encourage the growth of new companies, translate technology, and drive technology-led economic development. Under these concepts, the literature on coincide that a science park must satisfy three purposes: (i) To create munificent environment in which start-ups are developed and nurtured (Phan, Siegel and Wright, 2005); (ii) to foster innovation and promote scientific and technologic capabilities (Rodriguez-Pose and Hardy, 2014); and (iii) to become a main source of the local innovation system and stimulate solid economic development within the region (Rodriguez-Pose and Hardy, 2014).

These three identified criteria are linked to the definitions employed by the foremost science parks. However, in accordance with these concepts, incubators, industrial parks, and business innovation centres are excluded. This is because these identities do not include ta research institution or university as a component to generate and transfer knowledge.

The work by Chan and Lau (2005) follows the function of science parks to promote and supply the formation and growth of knowledge and technology-based business, which is described as 'incubators'. Specifically, the function of science parks as incubators providing a social environment, technological and organizational resources, and managerial expertise for the development and achievement of innovation (Phan, Siegel and Wright, 2005, p. 171). Additionally, the formal and operational association with a university or a research centre must develop a synergy to create and fasten knowledge dissemination. Therefore, the role of those who manage the science parks and the technology transfer process and their interaction with research centres (or universities) entrepreneurs within the science park is highly important. Last, science parks are alleged to play a key function for social and economic issues. This is because their objectives include improving the image of the region; counteract the regional imbalance of technology capabilities and innovation; transform regional industrial base from declining to new industries, attract new investment; and generate new jobs in the region (Massey, Quintas, and Wield, 1992).

Science Parks in Latin America

Despite the existence of empirical literature that has proposed different approaches, they tend to analyse the success factors and limitations of science parks derived from experiences of developed countries. Therefore, there is a lack of evidence about the role of science parks in developing countries, particularly discussed in this paper, Latin America. It is also important to mention, the limitations that face any study related to Science Parks in Latin America because of the dimension of the parks, recent operating times, insufficient evidence and no official statistics. Consequently, the findings of the science parks in Latin America have been taken from their website, and the only quantitative contributions and interviews by Rodriguez Pose (2012) and Rodriguez-Pose and Hardy (2014).

Latin American countries have not been immune to the attraction of the science parks. The first initiatives for science parks started in the mid-1980. Yet, the drive for innovation, science, and technology policies has increased drastically since the beginning of the century. Brazil and Mexico, the two largest economies in the region, are leading on the level of implementation of science parks (Rodriguez-Pose, 2012). In the other hand, some countries, such as Peru, lack science parks but have several in implementation plans for the future. Indeed, science parks represent a public and private initiative, still a different path was evidenced from those operating in Latin America, which are financed and promoted by central government, local institutions (universities and research centres), and international organizations (World Bank). The private sector support and initiatives are either much smaller or non-existence. Furthermore, only a few have become completely financially sustainable (Rodriguez Ponce and Harvey, 2014).

Governments of Latin America's largest countries have demonstrated strong capacities in support of innovation and technology (Bastos and Cooper, 1995, p. 228). The work of Rodriguez-Pose (2012) covers eight of the principal economics of Latin America and identifies 60 working parks. Brazil has implemented 22, of the 60 fully operating parks. Most of these concentrate in the Southeast of the country, close to the proximity of Sao Paolo, Rio de Janeiro, and Porto Alegre. Among the most dynamic science park in Latin America is UNICAMP Science and Technology Park located in a privileged area of Sao Paulo, Brazil; one of the biggest cities of Latin America. Moreover, it is associated with the University of Campinas, a major Brazilian Technology University. Among the top twelve in BRICS ranking, which include countries only classified as emerging, and ranked 195th) in the world ranking, the University of Campinas was established in 1966 in the City of Campinas founded by the State of Sao Paulo. Serving as an engine for economic and social development UNICAMP produces world-class basic and applied research, provides high-standard education, and proposes itself as an academic centre of excellence (QS, 2014). As for other science parks with strong capacities in Brazil, Porto Alegre shelters two prominent science parks: VALETEC and PUCR-TECNOPUC. Similarly, Rio de Janeiro Science parks include: PEC-TEC, Polo BIO-BIO, and Parque de Rio; and Sao Paulo is home for University del Valle Technology Park.

After Brazil, Mexico is the country with the most science parks, yet parks with limited capabilities predominate. The exceptions are: Silicon Border Science Park, PIIT, and Tecnopolo Pocito (Rodriguez-Pose, 2012). For countries such as Argentina, Colombia, Venezuela, Chile, and Uruguay, a relatively small dimension of parks with limited capabilities abounds.

In order to determine the viability and the economic impact, Rodriguez-Ponce (2012) identifies five types of indicators: (i) the technological component, (ii) the flow of technology transfer, (iii) the creation of new technology-based firms, (iv) human capital and the improvement, and (v) contribution of the performance of the local economy. These are the findings of the indicators in Latin America:

1. Aligned with the studies of Science Parks in Latin America by Rodriguez- Pose (2012) and Rodriguez-Pose and Hardy (2014), the technological component is essential to the success of a Science Park. To generate technological components, a Science Park must have a formal and operational association with a university or centre of research (Chan and Lao, 2005). Nevertheless, leading research centres and universities are scares; only 1 university of Latin America is situated amongst the top 100 universities, and only 9 universities are situated on the top 300 (QS, 2022). The absence of top universities represents a handicap to the development of technological components. Additionally, the proximity to agglomeration is crucial to the success of the science park; this is the case of UNICAMP, VALETEC, Silicon Border Science Park and others in Brazil and Mexico. Still, several of the science parks in Latin America are located far apart from agglomerations.
2. Another element considered to analysed the viability and the economic impact is the flow of technology transfer. Building synergies mechanism from the start should be part of the strategy of the Science Park (Castell and Hall,1994). However, the lack synergies mechanism, with a few exceptions, set up an environment in which firms and organizations operate disassociated. This is because the Technology Transfer Offices do not initiate managerial practices or instruments to supply collaboration (Rodriguez-Pose,2012).
3. The third element considered is the creation of new technology-based firms. As mentioned earlier, science parks were established to promote the formation and development of new technology-based firms (Siegel, Westhead, Wright p. 177 2003). Despite some of the biggest parks of the region, previously listed, fulfil this function; most of the science parks feature a high rate of firms with low technology capacity. A founded reason is the pressure evidenced by the managers when lowering the technologic and scientific requirements to the tenants in order to meet financial viability (Rodriguez-Pose, 2012).
4. Another considered element is human capital. Key capabilities on how to manage and operate a science park are necessary to create and have a positive performance while running a science park. There are few, or in some countries non-existent, courses or programmes related to science park, therefore the absence of capabilities is evident. Moreover, it is unlikely that Latin American countries will retain human talent. Mainly because of better economical offers, work conditions, and research centres in other regions such as United States and Europe.
5. Also identified as Science Park objective, the improvement and contribution of the performance of the local economy is considered the last element of analyses (Massey, Quintas, and Wield, 1992). However, since the number of technological components, the flow of technology transfer and the creation of new technology-based firms are limited and scares, consequently the contribution to the local economy is restricted (Rodriguez-Pose, 2012).

Conclusion

In today's world, where the only constant is change, the task of managing innovation is vital and critical to growing new business, and thus generating sustainable economic growth (Chesbrough, 2006). Therefore, the management, from a macroeconomics to a microeconomic perspective, is significant to the development of innovation. In other words, the government capacity for building national and regional systems for the support of innovation, such as science parks, must be strategically managed. This suggests that government policies objectives might change depending of the institutional contexts and the characteristics of the region. Similarly, in a microeconomic perspective, the role of those who manage the science park and the technology transfer processes among firms and research centres, is highly important and must be strategically managed (Phan, Siegel and Wright, 2005, p. 171).

Therefore, it is conceivable that the existing evidence indicates that Science Parks in Latin America, with a few exceptions, do not meet the basic conditions linked to the definition, objectives and functions of a science park. At best, these fulfil the conditions of a business incubator without the technological conditions (Rodriguez-Pose, 2012). Surely, it could be agreed with Massey, Quintas, Wield (1994, p. 248) that some parks were built with the idea of reproducing the characteristics of Silicon Valley will reproduce also their results. More important, the existing evidence suggests reconsidering innovation policies and their objectives as to build a promising instrument that will cultivate innovation and generate economic growth. This implication includes science parks as part of the national or regional innovation developing system, and not an external instrument. Possibly this implicates to assemble a combination of policy components that work with interaction and coordination to facilitate its effectiveness. For instance, the initiatives for a strong national and regional innovation developing system would need to tackle the discussed elements, which lack in most of science parks of Latin America, such as internal and external technology, flow of technology transfer, development of new technology-based firms, human capital, and contribution to local development, through the following instruments:

1. A more traditional way to generate and, more important, to retain innovation is by the formation of valuable human capital. This will be accomplished by investing for in higher education for more competitive universities and research centres. Economies that start with a high ratio of human to physical capital would develop rapidly (Barro and Sala-I-Martin, p.265). Also, the creation of programmes and courses related to technology transfer and science park will help to generate key capabilities to manage and operate a science park.
2. Government constant investment intervention: Rodriguez-Pose (2012) implies that mistakenly local governments think that science park will become financially sustainable within the few years. Science parks will need long-term investment by the government. Moreover, government investment in a suitable infrastructure is a key aspect.
3. The natural, social process of knowledge exchange sharing and dissemination can be promoted through a serious investment in knowledge generating mechanism, such as intense R&D, open innovation projects, amongst others (Rodriguez-Pose, Harvey, 2014). Specifically, supporting potential sectors or industries with high potential within a region.
4. Support for new technology-based firms, such as access to grants and tax extensions. (Rodriguez-Pose, 2012). Business incubators and accelerators are also key stakeholders to facilitate the creation and performance of start-ups.
5. Finally, the location of a science parks is critically important. Science parks must be linked to critical mass cities, having in consideration the agglomeration and other vital actors, such as universities, entrepreneurs, and skilled migrants to propagate the dynamic economic gains available (Rodriguez-Pose, Harvey, 2014).

In conclusion, the discussion puts in evidence a precipitation in the initiatives of implementing science parks in Latin America. The deficiency of discussed conditions and elements in the specific geographic areas da not contribute to the development and success of innovation within science parks.

Furthermore, the findings related to the indicators do not completely satisfy the mentioned requirements of science parks. This implies, the suggested innovation policies as part of a strong national and regional innovation developing system; Involving science parks as part of the multiple components. After all, it’s convenient a proximity to the ideal conditions and elements so science parks can become source of knowledge, innovation, and economical development