Abstract
Local public technology centers are publicly-managed technology transfer organizations, and their resource allocation strategies represent policy instruments for the promotion of localized knowledge spillovers. Since substantial regional differences exist with regard to the need for public technological services, policy instruments should consider these differences. This study develops a model and a method to evaluate whether the regional innovation policy matches the characteristics of a regional innovation system. The results indicate that the resource allocation strategies of technology centers have not been developed according to the needs of the regional environment; hence, technology transfer activities may not have been optimally utilized to facilitate regional economic development.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Information was collected from “Current Status of Local Public Technology Centers” by the Japan Association for the Promotion of Industrial Technology. The upsurge of manufacturing technology centers in the 1980s and 1990s was affected by frequent administrative reform in local authorities. All the reorganized technology centers are counted as newly established technology centers because of the difficulty in identifying centers during the complicated process of reorganization.
- 2.
Factor 1 also positively correlates with the number of research projects per scientist (res), but the correlation is not as strong as with other variables, probably because the variable reflects all types of research projects. Information on each type of research (e.g., funded research) is available for only a few empirical periods; therefore, factor analysis is difficult, since there are few observations to which it can be applied.
- 3.
Absorptive capacity also affects the geographical range of knowledge interactions. Small firms with higher absorptive capacity may not rely on local public technology centers since they are likely to have developed global knowledge networks (Beise and Stahl 1999). Here, it is assumed that small local firms first seek a local market for technological services, and then expand their search for the next best option if the first trial fails.
- 4.
The correlation coefficient between the demand- and supply-side variables is statistically insignificant; hence, the two axes can be depicted as orthogonal. Both variables are normally distributed, meaning that the average value can represent each variable.
References
Anselin L, Varga A, Acs Z (1997) Local geographic spillovers between university research and high technology innovations. J Urban Econ 42:422–448
Autant-Bernard C (2001) Science and knowledge flows: evidence from the French case. Res Pol 30:1069–1078
Beise M, Stahl H (1999) Public research and industrial innovations in Germany. Res Pol 28:397–422
Carayol N (2003) Objectives, agreements and matching in science-industry collaborations: reassembling the pieces of the puzzle. Res Pol 32:887–908
Charles D, Howells J (1992) Technology transfer in Europe: public and private networks. Belhaven Press, London
Cohen W, Levinthal D (1990) Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Adm Sci Q 35:128–152
U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment (1990) Making things better: competing in manufacturing, OTA-ITE-443, Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office
Cooke P, Heidenreich M, Braczyk H (2004) Regional innovation systems (2nd edition): the role of governance in a globalized world. Rutledge, London
Dziczek K, Luria D, Wiarda E (1998) Assessing the impact of a manufacturing extension center. J Technol Transfer 23:29–35
Feller I, Glasmeier A, Mark M (1996) Issues and perspectives on evaluating manufacturing modernization programs. Res Pol 25:309–319
Fritsch M (2004) Cooperation and the efficiency of regional R&D activities. Cambridge J Econ 28:829–846
Fritsch M, Franke G (2004) Innovation, regional knowledge spillovers and R&D cooperation. Res Pol 33:245–255
Fukugawa N (2006) Determining factors in innovation of small firm networks: a case of cross industry groups in Japan. Small Bus Econ 27:181–193
Hassink R (1997) Technology transfer infrastructures: some lessons from experiences in Europe the US and Japan. Eur Plan Stud 5:351–370
Howells J (1999) Regional systems of innovation? In: Archiburi D, Howells J, Michie J (eds) Innovation policy in a global economy. Cambridge University Press, London, pp 67–93
Izushi H (2003) Impact of the length of relationships upon the use of research institutes by SMEs. Res Pol 32:771–788
Izushi H (2005) Creation of relational assets through the library of equipment model: an industrial modernization approach of Japan’s local technology centers. Entrepren Reg Dev 17:183–204
Jaffe A (1989) Real effects of academic research. Am Econ Rev 79:957–970
Jarmin R (1999) Evaluating the impact of manufacturing extension on productivity growth. J Policy Anal Manage 18:99–119
Kneller R (1999) Intellectual property rights and university-industry technology transfer in Japan. Sci Publ Pol 26:113–124
Kneller R (2007) Bridging islands: venture companies and the future of Japanese and American industry. Oxford University Press, New York
Luria D, Wiarda E (1996) Performance benchmarking and measuring program impacts on customers: lessons from the midwest manufacturing technology center. Res Pol 25:233–246
Motohashi K (2005) University-industry collaborations in Japan: the role of new technology-based firms in transforming the national innovation system. Res Pol 34:583–594
Mowery D, Sampat B (2005) Universities in national innovation systems. In: Fagerberg J, Mowery D, Nelson R (eds) Oxford handbook of innovation. Oxford University Press, New York
Oldsman E (1996) Does manufacturing extension matter? An evaluation of the industrial technology extension service in New York. Res Pol 25:215–232
Ronde P, Hussler C (2005) Innovation in regions: what does really matter? Res Pol 34:1150–1172
Ruth K (2006) Innovation policy for SME in Japan: the case of technology transfer centres. In: Storz C (ed) Small firms and innovation policy in Japan. Routledge, London, pp 56–81
Santoro M, Chakrabarti A (2002) Firm size and technology centrality in industry-university interactions. Res Pol 31:1163–1180
Schartinger D, Rammer C, Fischer M, Frohlich J (2002) Knowledge interactions between universities and industry in Austria: sectoral patterns and determinants. Res Pol 31:303–328
Shapira P (1992) Modernizing small manufacturers in Japan: the role of local public technology centers. J Technol Transfer 17:40–57
Shapira P (2001) US manufacturing extension partnerships: technology policy reinvented? Res Pol 30:977–992
Shapira P, Roessner D, Barke R (1995) New public infrastructures for small firm industrial modernization in the USA. Entrepren Reg Dev 7:63–84
Shapira P, Youtie J, Roessner D (1996) Current practices in the evaluation of US industrial modernization programs. Res Pol 25:185–214
Thursby J, Thursby M (2002) Who is selling the Ivory Tower? Sources of growth in university licensing. Manag Sci 48:90–104
Zahra S, George G (2002) Absorptive capacity: a review, reconceptualization, and extension. Acad Manag Rev 27:185–203
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Fukugawa, N. (2013). Strategic Fit Between Regional Innovation Policy and Regional Innovation Systems: The Case of Local Public Technology Centers in Japan. In: Pyka, A., Andersen, E. (eds) Long Term Economic Development. Economic Complexity and Evolution. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-35125-9_13
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-35125-9_13
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-35124-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-35125-9
eBook Packages: Business and EconomicsEconomics and Finance (R0)