final thesis kt - diva › smash › get › diva2:934536 › fulltext01.pdfacknowledgement! $...
TRANSCRIPT
The Role of Institutions for the Development of Science Parks -‐‑ The Case of Regional Science Parks
in Thailand
KASEM TANTANASIRIWONG
Master of Science Thesis Stockholm, Sweden 2016
The Role of Institutions for the Development of Science Parks
The Case of Regional Science Parks in Thailand
Kasem Tantanasiriwong [email protected]
Master of Science Thesis INDEK 2016:88 KTH Industrial Engineering and Management Industrial Economics and Management
SE-100 44 STOCKHOLM
Master of Science Thesis INDEK 2016:88
The Role of Institutions for the Development of Science Parks -‐‑ The Case of Regional Science Parks
in Thailand
Kasem Tantanasiriwong
Approved
2016-May-25 Examiner
Terrence Brown Supervisor
Kristina Nyström Commissioner
Contact person
Abstract
This thesis contributes to the understanding of the role of institutions as a factor for the development of Science Park projects. Semi-‐‑structured interviews have been conducted to find out the institutional factors given by Science Park Promotion Agency (SPA), supported by Ministry of Science and Technology, Thailand in response to Regional Science Parks in Thailand. Research findings show that steady standard of practice, explicit governance, continued budget allocation and capacity building are regarded crucial. Yet, other empirical results suggest that some institutions should be adjusted in a holistic manner in order to accelerate the innovation process in the long run. Furthermore, the results illustrate a growing tendency of interplay between different roles of institutional spheres -‐‑ academia, industries and public sectors. Overall, this thesis tends to benefit policy-‐‑makers involving in the Science Park development project, helping them perceive the implications of their on-‐‑going measures to Regional Science Park and related national innovation systems. Keywords Science Park, Institution, Triple Helix model, System of innovation
Acknowledgement
This thesis would not have been possible without the assistance of several people. First of all, I would like to thank Dr. Kristina Nyström, Associate Professor in Industrial Economics and Management, who provided me with her supervision and indefatigable guidance throughout the course of my thesis. Also, much appreciation is given to a senior policy analyst Dr. Aimorn Imcharoen from a Technology Management Center at National Science Technology and Development Agency (NSTDA) for her in-‐‑depth consultation with regard to my interview design. Besides, Dr. Charnwit Tridech, a policy and plan analyst, from Science Park Promotion Agency (SPA), who permitted me to have an access to plenty of useful information about Regional Science Park projects in Thailand. Furthermore, I appreciate all respondents from Regional Science Parks for the devotion of their valuable time with such an amicable accessibility. To my mom and dad, I have been grateful to both of you for raising me up with your unconditional love and affection. And last but not least, I was thankful to Thai Government who had supported me with Royal Thai Government Scholarship throughout my study period in Sweden
Stockholm, June 2016
Kasem Tantanasiriwong
Table of Contents 1. Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 7 1.1 Background .................................................................................................................................... 7 1.2 Aims and research objectives .................................................................................................. 7 1.3 Scope and delimitations ............................................................................................................ 8 1.4 Sustainability aspects ................................................................................................................. 8 1.5 Outline of the thesis .................................................................................................................... 9
2. Regional Science Parks in Thailand ............................................................................... 10 2.1 Development of Regional Science Parks and activities ............................................... 10 2.2 The role of Regional Science Park (RSP) in its ecosystem .......................................... 11 2.3 Science Park strategic development plan and its measures (2013-‐‑2017) ............ 11
3. Literature Review ................................................................................................................ 16 3.1 Systems of innovation ............................................................................................................. 16 3.2 Triple Helix system .................................................................................................................. 19 3.3 A conceptual framework for institutional analysis ...................................................... 21
4. Methodology .......................................................................................................................... 25 4.1 Interview method ..................................................................................................................... 25 4.2 Selection of interviews ............................................................................................................ 26 4.3 Data collection ........................................................................................................................... 27 4.4 Method critique ......................................................................................................................... 28 4.5 Source criticism of literature sources ............................................................................... 28 4.6 Summary method chapter ..................................................................................................... 29
5. Empirical Findings and Discussion ................................................................................ 30 6. Conclusion and Suggestions for Future Research ..................................................... 36 6.1 Limitations .................................................................................................................................. 36 6.2 Future research ......................................................................................................................... 37
References ...................................................................................................................................... 38 Appendices ..................................................................................................................................... 42
ABBREVIATIONS The following abbreviations occur in the paper STI Science, Technology and Innovation NIS national innovation system SME small and medium enterprises SPA Science Park Promotion agency S&T Science and Technology NSP Northern Science Park NESP North-‐‑eastern Science Park STSP Southern Thailand Science Park RSP Regional Science Park IPR intellectual properties right
7
1. Introduction 1.1 Background
Motivated by the Science Technology and Innovation (STI) Policy in Thailand, its
government tries to enhance the role of STI in national economic and social
development by “developing STI infrastructure and services that effectively support
technology and R&D commercialization” (Durongkaveroj, 2015, p.5). Three regional
science parks in Thailand have been established as a key driving force of STI to the
arena of national innovation system (NIS) by taking advantage of triple helix
mechanism, university-‐‑industry-‐‑government relationship (Etzkowitz, 1993; Etzkowitz
and Leydesdorff, 1995).
The science parks are expected to play a key role in university research
commercialization to increase the competitiveness in production sectors and service
sectors through the innovation ecosystem (OECD, 1997; 1999). However, whether or
not the science parks can provide a sound business-‐‑enabling environment to start-‐‑ups
or SMEs involved in this ecosystem is determined by the quality of institutions involved.
For these reasons, it is essential that the policy-‐‑makers understand what institutional
factors that engender fruition to those firms and make them become sustainable in
businesses.
1.2 Aims and research objectives
The aim of this thesis is to reveal the pattern of system of innovation used in regional
development through STI in Thailand. This finding should benefit the government, who
is accountable for promoting the science park, to help them produce the right rules or
policies pertinent to the authentic need of their science park developers. To achieve this
goal, the objective of the thesis has been designed to focus on the concept of institutions
and actors in the system of innovation, and the context of regional economic areas in
Thailand. Thus, the research question in this thesis is
8
“What institutional factors contribute to a good environment for Science Park in
Thailand?”
Furthermore, I will study
“Which of the measures or policies from government, including SPA, are
perceived hindrance for the Science Park development?”
1.3 Scope and delimitations
This thesis aims to investigate the role of institutions in response to the view of people
involved in Regional Science Parks in Thailand (unit of analysis). The institutional
framework in the thesis only cover the aspect of institutions in government measures
performed by a government organization that mainly acted on Regional Science Park
development policies, Science Park Promotion Agency (SPA). A Triple Helix model was
extensively used as System of innovation framework for methodology. Given the
beneficiary of institutions, the respondents in the data collection process were from the
management level at Regional Science Parks: directors, deputy directors and managers,
rather than the firms who used the service in the Science Park. The research
implications, however, would only be generalizable in the context or Regional Science
Parks at the time the research was conducted. In other words, the implications, would
be subject to change in government policies and ecosystem.
1.4 Sustainability aspects
This thesis was implemented in the areas of social and economic sustainability through
an institutional aspect. In fact, institutional sustainability is considered important for
sustainable policies (Pfahl, 2005). Besides, according to World Bank’s 2003 World
Development Report, broader insight into the necessity to transform institutions for
sustainable development in a dynamic world need to be emphasized (World Bank,
2003). This research was done to investigate how sustainable the Science Park project
was with regard to the institutions or measures the Science Park interacted with. It is
important for government or policy-‐‑makers to obtain the feedback from all
stockholders involving in institutions to ensure that the maximum policy implications to
the society and economics are met.
9
1.5 Outline of the thesis
First of all, background information about Thailand Regional Science Parks and their
relevant development plan are discussed in order to understand how they have been
developed over time and what policies and measures have been executed. The following
chapter presents the literature review of all the frameworks and definitions necessary
to have an insight into the institutions and institutional arrangement that will be used in
the subsequent data analysis sections. Then, a methodology chapter will elucidate the
methods of data collection and analysis used for the study. After that, the research
findings are presented, analyzed and discussed. Finally, the conclusion and
recommendations for future research are presented.
10
2. Regional Science Parks in Thailand
2.1 Development of Regional Science Parks and activities
Science and Technology (S&T) Policy was put forward to one of seven Thailand’s
Dreams projected by the government (Phasukavanich 2003) with the theme of
‘innovative nation with wisdom and learning base’. For this reason, Thailand’s Science
and Technology Strategic plan (2004-‐‑2013) was approved by the government in 2004.
In that plan, a Regional Science Parks (RSP) project was initiated and designated to be
executed in three main regions of the country: northern, northeastern and southern, in
order to enhance Science, Technology and Innovation (STI) capability in, for example,
agriculture, industrial manufacturing sectors. In contrast to Thailand Science Park
(TSP1), the first Thailand Science Park in the north of Bangkok led by National Science
and Technology Development Agency (NSTDA2) whereby a four national research
centers: BIOTEC3, MTEC4, NECTEC5, NANOTEC6 and one technology management center
(TMC) are located, the Regional Science Park (RSP) is primarily led by a network of
regional universities.
However, Regional Science Parks was not officially organized in a partnership model of
regional university science parks until 2013 when involvement of Science Park
Promotion Agency (SPA) was strategically endorsed by Government at that time. Since
then, RSP in Thailand has been divided into three Regional Science Parks according to
Thailand’s strategic areas of economic development, namely Northern Science Park
(NSP), Northeastern Science Park (NESP) and Southern Thailand Science Park (STSP)
(see Appendix 3).
1 http://www.sciencepark.or.th/index.php/en/ 2 NSTDA is an autonomous entity reported to the Government Board chaired by Minister of Science and Technology 3 BIOTEC is the National Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology, a member of NSTDA 4 MTEC is the National Metal and Materials Technology Center, a member of NSTDA 5 NECTEC is the National Electronics and Computer Technology Center, a member of NSTDA 6 NANOTEC is the National Nanotechnology center, a member of NSTDA
11
2.2 The role of Regional Science Park (RSP) in its ecosystem
The three Regional Science Parks, despite located in different areas of the country, are
embedded in a triple helix-‐‑like ecosystem and mostly are considered in an overlapping
area with some specific industrial clusters. In such ecosystem, various forms of
interactions can be found from a number of stakeholders: government organizations,
private firms, research institutes, universities, policy-‐‑makers, supporting agents in
several dimensions (e.g. financial benefit, tax incentive, etc.) and science park R&D
tenants. The role of the Regional Science Parks is as follows: (MOST, 2012)
(1) a catalyst in technology transfer and innovation development for local
clusters,
(2) bridging knowledge providers, strengthening linkages and creating
knowledge sharing between knowledge producing agents, industry (mainly
SMEs) and government policy and supporting organizations,
(3) supporting start-‐‑ups and SMEs through business incubation, marketing
services (mapping and matching supply and demand),
(4) provision of management and support for R&D innovation, Intellectual
property regulation (IPR) services, and technology transfer,
(5) financial support for R&D, innovation and technology transfer,
(6) strengthening industrial research and technology capacity through expert
consultancy
(7) collaborative research and cooperating projects between universities,
research institutes and private sectors.
Thus, most of the key activities and services available in Regional Science Parks appear
in four main platforms: (a) Service platform, (b) Science, Technology and Innovation
(STI) Business Incubation platform, (c) Industrial Research and Technology Capacity
Development Program (IRTC) platform and (d) Co-‐‑research platform.
2.3 Science Park strategic development plan and its measures (2013-‐2017)
In order to enhance the effectiveness and unity as to national innovation system, a
Science Park Promotion Agency (SPA) -‐‑ a government organization -‐‑ has been
12
established in 2011. Since then, key stakeholders and their roles for the development of
RSP has become more obvious; numerous incentives and supporting measures have
been put in place to ensure that the national social and economic development plan is
fulfilled.
Thailand’s first National Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy (2012-‐‑2021) is
intended to “unify STI commitments among public agencies and to strengthen the
collaboration with and among the private sector, academics, and research institutes”
(National STI). As far as such policy is concerned, the Science Park development has
become its primary attention. To execute this policy, the Science Park Promotion
Agency (SPA) has set its strategic goals to support the development of all new or
existing Science Parks in the country. Goals and objectives involved in its role are as
follows:
(1) encourage increasing R&D activities in private firms,
(2) increase the growing number of R&D investors in Science Parks by both Thai
firms and MNC7,
(3) support private investors in Science Park development,
(4) make the best use of public resources and infrastructures in Science Parks
(5) facilitate the links between Science Parks and regional/local government
agencies (e.g. industrial clusters, municipality),
(6) encourage the interaction of innovation networks and science park
ecosystem,
(7) maintain continuous and concreate incentives and measures.
Its measures pertinent to such goals are categorized into three different items
1. privileges and incentives,
2. capacity building for Science Parks and
3. Science Park development investment.
In privileges and incentives, they involve 1.1 nation-‐‑wide tax incentives applicable for
researchers, innovative firms (e.g. 300% deduction on R&D expenditure), including
Science Park developers and 1.2 ‘talent mobility’ concerning human resource 7 Multinational Companies
13
development through matching fund for industrial Ph.D. and M.Sc. as well as mobility of
researchers from universities to private sectors.
In the area of capacity building for Science Parks, the supportive measures are, for
example, to strengthen Science Park management capability through a number of
practices:
(2.1) providing training programs in innovation management, as well as
knowledge sharing for best practice learning within a network of Regional
Science Park, including between RSP and external experts in the field,
(2.2) introducing private venture capital into Science Parks,
(2.3) having IPR international registration support,
(2.4) investing in infrastructures and facilities necessary for R&D and business
incubation,
(2.5) collaborating with public and private agencies to carry out research
commercialization processes (proof of concept, rapid prototyping, as well as
industrial pilot production),
(2.6) matching-‐‑fund program to develop industrial technology capacity of
entrepreneurs and collaborative research,
(2.7) networking between the public organizations special in the field with
entrepreneurs, including public sectors, for example, municipal government.
In Science Park Development Investment, the government is expected to be
continuously involved in Science Park development by investing in necessary
infrastructures. For this reason, the Science Park can be expected to grow faster. This
perspective is underlying the first phase of five-‐‑year investment for those three
Regional Science Parks in Thailand since 2012 where the SPA started investing in all
major infrastructures in the Science Park, for instance, business incubation center,
building for R&D tenants, testing and metrology laboratories as well as pilot plants. In
fact, in fiscal year 2015, the SPA managed to support the RSP with the overall budget
amounted to 52 MSEK (based on 4 Baht/SEK), and the percentage of budget spending
on RSPs as shown in Figure 1, 2 and 3 below.
14
Figure 1: Budget spending in various platforms of Northern Science Park in FY20158
Figure 2: Budget spending in various platforms of Northeastern Science Park in FY2015
8 accessed with permission from internal database of annual budget spending of Science Park Promotion Agency (SPA), Office of the Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Science and Technology
Service Platform28%
Incubation Platform26%
IRTC18%
Co-‐‑research28%
Northern Science Park
Service Platform
Incubation Platform
IRTC
Co-‐‑research
Service Platform40%
Incubation Platform29%
IRTC24%
Co-‐‑research7%
NortheasternScience Park
Service Platform
Incubation Platform
IRTC
Co-‐‑research
15
Figure 3: Budget spending in various platforms of Southern Thailand Science Park in
FY2015
Service Platform42%
Incubation Platform43%
IRTC9%
Co-‐‑research6%
Southern Thailand Science Park
Service Platform
Incubation Platform
IRTC
Co-‐‑research
16
3. Literature Review Theory and Research Background
This section reviews literatures necessary to understand the role and the formation of
institutions with the unit of analysis of science park. The systems of innovation (SI) are
explained in general in terms of its structural and functional aspects, followed by a
triple helix (TH) concept that plays a significant role in forming an institutional sphere
and its corresponding spaces as to the environment for the science park. Finally, the
description of a conceptual framework for institutional analysis is included.
3.1 Systems of innovation
In today’s knowledge-‐‑based economy in many countries, policy-‐‑makers have been
seeking a proper tool to drive economic growth and regional development through
innovation. Developed from evolutionary economics (Edquist, 2001), innovation system
is gaining much attention because it serves not only a theoretical foundation
(Laestadius, 2012) to understand innovation processes, but also a framework for
innovation policy design (Woolthuis, 2005).
According to Edquist (2001), the system of innovation (SI) approach has originated
after the seminal work by Lundvall (1992) and Nelson (1993) and then widely used in
academic contexts, as well as a framework for innovation policy-‐‑making. In his article
Edquist (1997), a system of innovation is characterized by multiple factors derived from
the area of, namely economics, society, politics as well as organizations that have an
impact on innovation processes. In contrast to Edquist (1997), Laestadius (2012)
defines the system of innovation from a structural perspective. He argues that the
system of innovation is a system by which actors and institutions constitute a structure
in economic regime. The system possesses its specific industrial and innovative
properties as opposed to the environment surrounded. Besides, the overall function of
an innovation system is marked by developing, diffusing, and utilizing of innovations
(Laestadius, 2012).
17
Edquist (2001) elaborates that innovation systems consist of components and its
relationships. The components are organizations (players or actors) and institutions
(rules of the game) (Edquist and Johnson 1997). They argue that organizations are
“formal structures with an explicit purpose and they are consciously created” (Edquist
and Johnson 1997, p.47). Although, the definition of Institutions used by scholars in
literatures has been developed further from neoclassical economics to evolutionary one
(Edquist 1997, p.43-‐‑45), North (1981, p.7)’s definition has been considered more
comprehensive with regard to historical perspective:
Institutions are the humanly devised constraints that structure political, economic
and social interaction. They consist of both informal constraints (sanctions, taboos,
customs, traditions, and codes of conduct), and formal rules (constitutions, laws,
property right). (North, 1991:97)
Relationships between Organizations and Institutions
The relationships between organizations (actors, players) and institutions (rules of the
game) (Edquist and Johnson 1997) are important for innovations and for the operation
of systems of innovation. In fact, institutions influence and shape the organizations, in
other words, organization can be said to be ‘embedded’ in an institutional environment
or set of rules, including legal system, norms, standards, and so forth (Edquist and
Johnson 1997).
Functions of SIs Systems in a human body can be used as an analogy to comprehend the fact that
functions come organically with their corresponding systems. So does the system of
innovation (SI). Unlike the functions of human body systems, functions (activities) of SI
are to “produce, diffuse and use innovations, and more specially are on things that
influence the development, diffusion and use of innovations (Edquist 2001, p.9)”.
Nevertheless, functions of SI have not yet been unanimously defined by scholars.
Functions or ‘activities’ (Edquist, 2001) has been interpreted from different
perspectives of experts found in literatures (Liu and White 2001; Johnson and
Jacobsson, 2000; Rickne, 2000). Rickne (2001) argues that the innovation system
should be described with regard to its functions better than actors, and a regional
18
innovation system will be of great benefit to firms if it possesses functions that fits to
their prosperity. She suggests that functionality of the innovation system is derived
from a well-‐‑functioning ‘whole’; a holistic view of the functions is necessary to
understand the dynamics of the system (Rickne 2001). The following diagram (see
Figure 4) shows how Rickne (2001) depicts the ‘functional chain’ for young technology-‐‑
based firms, showing the relationship between actors, functions and corresponding
resources by which the relationship between actors and functions can be both many-‐‑to-‐‑
one and one-‐‑to-‐‑many. The actors in her research comprises (a) research and
educational organizations, (b) related companies, (c) users, (d) venture capital
companies.
Source: (Rickne, 2001, p.12, Fig 2)
Figure 4 Functional chain diagram
Relationships between Components and Functions in SIs As summarized from Edquist (2001), functions (or activities) are performed by
organizations whose incentive frameworks are provided by institutions. Furthermore,
there is no direct relationship between institutions in SI and its functions. Nonetheless,
19
the role of institutions in relation to functions can be understood such as that they
influence how organizations (actors) perform the functions.
3.2 Triple Helix system
A Triple Helix (TH) system is a theoretical framework for innovation policy and practice
in the knowledge society, introduced by Henry Etzkowitz and Loet Leydesdorff in the
mid-‐‑1990s (Laestadius, 2012). The triple helix model is conceptually constructed from
university-‐‑industry-‐‑government relations and has become salient to regional policy and
practice (Etzkowit, 2008). Furthermore, it is a synthesis between the IS approach
mentioned above and the mode 2 approach9 (Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff, 1997;
Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff, 2000). In other words, TH system can be referred to a
system of innovation that tends to be fundamentally in transition (Cozzen et al., 1990,
2012) and co-‐‑evolution theory (i.e. interacting systems, actors and institutions) (Nelson,
1994).
From the perspective of systems theory (Carlson and Stankiewicz 1991; Carlsson et al.
2002; Edquist 2005; Bergek et al. 2005), the Triple Helix system consists of
components, relationships and functions. Etzkowitz (2008) defines the components
as university-‐‑industry-‐‑government institutional spheres (e.g. education institutions,
business firms, government agencies), whereas the relationships are represented by the
various alignments of those spheres, and functions are delineated by a set of activities
specific to the Triple Helix spaces: the knowledge, innovation and consensus Spaces.
In contrast to a system of innovation, Triple Helix systems have high permeability
boundary among the institutional spheres, allowing the appearance of interaction
among university, industry and government. Empirical evidence to support this
phenomenon can be acquired from MIT, Boston, Stanford and Silicon Valley, and so on
9 Mode 2 approach represents the production of knowledge beyond a traditional method, for example, exercised in universities. Such knowledge can be characterized by ‘transdisciplinarity’. The production of Mode 2 knowledge engenders “a complex network of linkages between a number of subfields and heterogeneous sites, leading to further transmutation and reconfiguration of these subfields and sites (Baber, 1995, p.752)”.
20
(Etzkowitz, 2012). Indeed, organizations can be more creative; knowledge and
individuals tend to be transferred between the spheres, resulting in a new form of
organizations as the recombination takes place (Etzkowitz and Ranga, 2012). For
example, at the regional policy level, they argue that Triple Helix systems aims to
amalgamate local resources for joint benefit and new institutional formats to engender
the formations of Triple Helix spaces.
The fundamental characteristics of Triple Helix model are (1) the higher role for all the
actors – university, industry and government, (2) a collaborative relationships or
interaction among those three institutional spheres and (3) each institutional sphere
tends to break in the other’s role in order to fill the gap of any weakness in innovation
system (Leo, 2011)
Functions as defined by Laestadius (2012, p.37) “the dynamics of interplay between
the three main actors – government, academia and industry” with the possible
formation of a set of potential models for interaction. Ranga and Etzkowitz (2010)
proposes their definition of Triple Helix functions in a more specific manner toward
various activities of the Triple Helix spaces, namely, the Knowledge, Innovation and
Consensus Spaces. Based on Thailand Regional Science Parks (RSPs), such innovation
space of this Triple Helix model is the focus in this paper.
Unlike knowledge space, which is focused on ‘critical mass’ of knowledge in order to
foster the local, regional and national knowledge base, innovation space is built upon
the concept of the recombination of traditional organizational models in conjunction
with the concept of organizational functioning (Etzkowitz and Ranga, 2010). In other
words, the innovation space is derived from a new alignment of institutional spheres,
and is a function of the strength and weakness of the relevant actors in the region.
Activities in the innovation space that are conceptualized by Etzkowitz and Ranga
(2010) entail how resources are integrated to establish the new organizational format,
how legitimation is introduced to link between the new and traditional institutions, for
example. They point out that such conceptualized activities can be executed through the
formation of differentiating institutional spheres, for instance, venture capital firms,
science parks, business or technology incubators (Etzkowitz and Ranga, 2010).
21
In their article Etzkowitz and Ranga, (2010), the development and analysis of
innovation space are suggested in a two-‐‑dimension framework. The first dimension is
about establishing actors, namely, “technology transfer institutions (e.g. technology
transfer offices in universities, in firms and in government research labs, industrial
liaison offices), business support institutions (e.g. science parks, business/technology
incubators) and financial support institutions (public and private venture capital firms,
angel networks, seed capital funds, etc.)”. The second dimension deals with policies that
contribute the establishment and activity of relevant institutions concerning the former
dimension. Such policies are as follows:
(1) policies supporting partnership between university, public research institutions
and industry, in particular SMEs, establishment of science parks, incubators,
business/technology incubators, seed funds and new types of public-‐‑private
partnerships,
(2) policies to increase participation of industry and other stakeholders in public
research priority-‐‑setting,
(3) policies related to the intellectual property rights (IPR) regimes governing the
ownership, licensing and exploitation of IPR resulting from publicly-‐‑funded
research, promotion of technology transfer to industry and spin-‐‑off creation, IPR
awareness and training activities targeting in particular the research community.
(4) fiscal measures to encourage the creation and growth of R&D-‐‑intensive firms
and raise attractiveness of research careers, etc,
(5) support to guarantee mechanisms for research and innovation in SMEs (equity
investment of venture capital funds or loans, national and regional programs to
improve access to debt and equity financing for research and innovation
activities, increasing awareness of research-‐‑intensive SMEs about the use of risk
capital, notably through actions at regional level (Etzkowitz and Ranga, 2010).
3.3 A conceptual framework for institutional analysis
In this thesis, institutions of the innovation system (Lundvall, 2007, Malerba, 2004),
specifically speaking, the Triple Helix model, is elaborated on based on the context of
science park. The concept of Triple Helix as discussed in the previous section is used to
22
provide an insight into the formation of Innovation Spaces (institutional alignment)
pertinent to the relationship of institutional spheres (actors), university-‐‑industry-‐‑
government.
According to Edquist (2001, p.12), institutions and their functions (activities) have no
direct relationships. In fact, he explains that the roles of institutions with respect to
functions seem to be that “they influence how the actors perform the functions”.
Institutional structures used in this research has been partly reviewed from Truffer
(2009) where they are divided into three levels, namely level 1: institutions
(Williamson, 1998, 2000), level 2: Institutional arrangements (Ostrom, 2005) and level
3: institutional sectors (Lundvall, 1992; Archibugi and Michie, 1997). Hollingsworth
(2000) suggests that prior to the understanding of how the institutional configuration
of a society influences its style of innovativeness, it is significant to know about
institutional structure.
Level 1: Institutions In his article The New Institutional Economics (NIE), Williamson (1998) develops a
schematic that represent four levels of social analysis, in addition to previous new
institutional economics (NIE) once proposed by Mathew (1986)
He explains that there is the interaction between different adjacent levels in such a way
that the higher level of institutions tends to put influence the lower through constraints,
at the same time, the lower presents feedback to the higher one in return. In his top
level (L1) of social analysis – embeddedness – it comprises norms, customs, mores,
traditions. These are also called softer institutions “in the wider context of political
culture and social values that shapes public policy objectives, the macroeconomic policy
environments (Woolthuis, 2005, p.613)”.
At the second level (L2) called institutional environments or formal rules of the game,
they play a key role in national innovation system (NIS) whereby the legislative, judicial
23
and bureaucratic functions of government, enforcement of property rights and contract
laws are included.
At the third level (L3), governance or play of the game, this level reveals the role of
governance of contractual relations based on the transaction cost economics. It can be
characterized by government incentive alignments. For the most part, the possible
reorganization of transactions among governance structure is ranging from one to 10
years. Institutions in this level have a crucial impact on innovation processes taking
place by the actors that is involved in the unit of analysis of Science Park.
In the lowest level of social analysis, neoclassical theory comes in play to distinguish
this level from a discrete structural analysis of governance. This level has been
perceived by the firms whose functions are production (i.e. prices and quantity and
incentive alignment).
Level 2: Institutional arrangements Citing to Ostrom (2005), Truffer (2009) defines institutional arrangements “aligned sets
of formal and informal institutions (level 1) that structure certain action arenas”. In
other words, institutional arrangements result in the interactions and coordination, for
example, hierarchies, networks, associations and communities (Hollingsworth, 2000).
Institutional arrangements are also derived from social and economic interactions. For
instance, in economy, some particular interactions can be found in markets whereby
firms with their structured hierarchies, as well as professional associations tend to
exercise the combined configurations of institutional arrangements for certain
governance (Hollingsworth, 2000)
The Triple Helix model is a kind of institutional arrangement of institutional spheres,
University-‐‑Industry-‐‑Government relationships (Etzkowitz, 2008), that contains
collaborative patterns of actors in a science park project. In other words, the
institutional arrangements established in the science park are corresponding to
functions (activities) or spaces of actors that contribute to an innovative environment in
24
the Science Park and, in the long run, innovation processes for regional and economic
development.
Level 3: Institutional sectors
Institutional sectors are the highest form in this typology whereby they are “coherent
bundles of institutions and institutional arrangements, which product specific
(functional) output for society (Truffer, 2009, p.7)”. For example, Truffer (2009);
Carlsson and stankiewicz (1991) mention:
• The political system
• Financial system (e.g. capital supply)
• Research system: university research, research institutes, R&D organization
(including university-‐‑industry links), research funding schemes
• Education and training
• Business system: firm structures, industrial relations system (e.g. labor
markets); Inter-‐‑firm relationships, co-‐‑operation of firms (supply chain, user-‐‑
producer interactions)
• Legal system (e.g. patent registration, property right)
• Collective bargaining
• Industrial and corporate organization
25
4. Methodology10
An exploratory research was chosen in this study for the purpose to find out the pattern
or idea from the expertise in the field in order to the answer to the research question
proposed in this thesis. A case study was used in this thesis because it would be more
flexible on the type of data to collected (Collis and Hussey, 2009). Without the
predetermined theory for conducting research, it was considered appropriate to choose
the inductive approach that deals with the observation of empirical reality (Collis and
Hussey, 2009). In other words, the observation activities will form the base from which
new knowledge is formulated (Bryman and Bell, 2011), and thus general inferences are
concluded from particular incidents (Collis and Hussey, 2009).
According to Bonoma (1985), a data collection method for research is relevant to levels
of data integrity and results currency. In quantitative research, the accuracy of data
measurement is highly important; however, the quality and depth of data collected
about phenomenon are more paramount to qualitative research (Collis and Hussey,
2009). They argue that case studies used by interpretivists tend to be high in results
currency due to its “contextual relevance across measures, methods, paradigms,
settings, and time” (Collis and Hussey, 2009, p. 64). As a consequence, a qualitative
study was evaluated to be appropriate in this study. In qualitative research is the
emphasis on an understanding of a given context. The purpose of this study is a deeper
understanding of the role of institutions to the development of Science Park. With that
purpose of the study, a qualitative research is more appropriate. The advantage of a
qualitative approach is that the study can provide answers and explanations in a deeper
way than, for example, a questionnaire survey. The amount of information from each
interviewee is also much larger than a quantitative approach (Bryman and Bell, 2011).
4.1 Interview method
In this thesis, a qualitative approach will be used. This goes hand in hand with the thesis
aimed to gain a deeper understanding of what institutional factors that plays a key role
10 Most of the content of this section was adopted from project of Technological and Industrial Change course.
26
in Thailand Regional Science Park (RSP)’s ecosystem. A qualitative approach is also
motivated by the opportunity for an open discussion and it is possible to make
corrections in real time during the interviews. At the same time, follow-‐‑up questions
can be made so that the empirical relevance of the material can be ensured (Wallen,
1993).
The choice of interview method for this thesis is the semi-‐‑structured interview since
flexibility in the interviews is important. The semi-‐‑structured interviews ensure a lot of
freedom in how the interviewee wants to answer. In the meantime, there may be a
number of themes that the researcher is likely to go through and those can be raised
during the interview (Bryman and Bell, 2011). These themes are designed based on the
perspective of Science Park manager toward the role of institutions in a Triple Helix
model in which different functions (activities) are involved. Semi-‐‑structured interviews
will provide the interviewee the opportunity to freely share any information they want,
while the interview is followed by a prearranged structure. This method is time-‐‑
consuming which leads to some restriction in the number of persons who can be
interviewed.
To create comparable results, it requires that similar questions will be asked for all
respondents. The theoretical study will form the basis for the design of the interview
template.
4.2 Selection of interviews
The purpose of qualitative interview according to (Holme and Krohn Solvang, 1991) is
to increase the information value and create the basis for more complete and deeper
insights of what is studied. This means that the selection does not happen randomly,
instead it is selected based on some aspects (Holme and Krohn Solvang, 1991). In order
to obtain such a large information content as possible, a large range of variation in the
sample needs to be taken in account. It is therefore important to interview several
individuals involved in the Regional Science Park project. Since the evaluation model is
performed in a qualitative research, it will require respondents from various locations
of Science Parks to answer the research question. Therefore, respondents from current
27
Regional Science parks in Thailand, namely, Northern, Northeastern and Southern
Science Parks will be interviewed. This allows the role of institutions to the Science Park
to be explained from different perspectives, and satisfy a broad and credible empirical
material. By collecting data from different professional groups with different roles,
differences and patterns will be identified. It is of course important that the ones that
will be interviewed are involved in the Regional Science Park to be able to share
relevant information. This can be ensured when the researcher ask the persons if they
are willing to participate on the interview.
The selection will not be representative of University Science Parks in Thailand. In
general, only three Regional Science Parks in Thailand have been studied. The purpose
of the study is not to generalize the results, but rather to get a picture of how
government measures has influenced the development of Regional Science Parks. In
fact, that representativeness is not as important as in a quantitative research (Bryman
and Bell, 2011). In qualitative studies is not a generalization and representativeness of
the central purposes (Holme and Solvang Krohn, 1991).
4.3 Data collection
Initially, relevant frameworks are collected based on well-‐‑known theories. Then, data
will be collected through qualitative interviews to finally return to the theory to analyze
primary data. To get the relevant empirical material from the interviews required that
the researcher is familiar with the problem area and understand the respondent's
reality (Holme and Solvang Krohn, 1991). This is done by the preliminary study
described above where the researcher introduces the Regional Science Parks. Skype
interviews were taken on a voluntary basis from a group of top management from three
Regional Science Parks: Northern Science Park (NSP), Northeastern Science Park
(NESP) and Southern Thailand Science park (STSP) as shown in a list of respondents in
the result section. In Northern Science Park (NSP) where it was a network of seven
university Science Parks, 4 out of 7 universities were willing to have interviews. Also, 1
out of 4 universities was available from the Northeastern Science Park, a network of
four universities; 2 out of 2 universities from Southern Thailand Science Park was
interviewed.
28
4.4 Method critique
When the theoretical concepts are transferred to empirical observations, there are two
fundamental terms that should be discussed about the credibility of studies, validity and
reliability. Validity is the ability to measure what it intends to measure (Eriksson and
Wiedersheim-‐‑paul, 2014; Bryman and Bell, 2011). Reliability aims to get credibility in
what have been measured and the ability to generalize the results. That means if the
study will be repeated several times, it will achieve the same result (Eriksson &
Wiedersheim-‐‑Paul, 2014).
The discussion on the reliability is in this case less relevant, because this study applied
qualitative method (Bryman and Bell, 2011). Only three cases were studied, with
limited interviews, which makes it very difficult to generalize the conclusions given to
the whole Science Parks in Thailand. The goal is a deeper understanding of the role of
institutions to the current Regional Science Parks rather than generalizations about the
entire Science Parks, including private one, in Thailand, which makes the discussion on
reliability not as relevant. The one that the researcher interviews will be selected
according to how well they are involved in the science park which is crucial to ensure
validity.
4.5 Source criticism of literature sources
A major focus was initially to get an overall view of the research question and a
foundation for further work. There are quite a lot written about innovation systems, the
Triple Helix model and Science Parks. Research papers, scientific articles, books and
websites have been collected and used as a basis for the study. The papers have been
taken from publicly known databases such as Google Scholar, Routledge and
ScienceDirect. The researcher has been searching information using various keywords
such as as system of innovation, triple helix, institution, science park. The collected
material has been critically reviewed so that misleading sources should be avoided. This
is to always choose the sources with critical review (Nyberg & Tidström, 2012).
Literature sources have provided a broader overview of the problem area. The majority
of the sources have been scientifically reviewed which raises credibility.
29
4.6 Summary method chapter
The research method of the thesis is qualitative. A case study has been chosen to make
it possible to investigate what institutional factors contribute to a good environment for
Regional Science Parks in Thailand. A semi-‐‑structured interview method is selected so
that the interviewee will have the opportunity to freely share any information at the
same time as the interviews follow a predetermined structure in which certain fixed
themes of the main issues from the role of institutions in the Triple Helix model is
covered.
30
5. Empirical Findings and Discussion
With regard to the first interview question11, it was designed to figure out measures
implemented by the Science Park Promotion Agency (SPA) that is perceived crucial for
Science Park development. The findings show that all respondents perceived a dramatic
change that happened to their Science Park as the SPA under Ministry of Science and
Technology has been involved since 2014 in the Regional Science Development project.
A director at KKUSP, Dr. Supachai said “SPA has made a standard of practice, useful
working framework and guidelines for all three Regional Science Parks”. Furthermore, he
said the basis for that argument is that in the past there was no standard and continued
support for government in a Regional Science Park development project. Similarly, a
director at WUSP Dr. Niyom said “SPA has played a pivotal role in a preferable structural
change in Science Park, providing good governance, concreate supporting schemes, clear
guidance toward the measurement of key performance indicator (KPI) that correspond
with the government policies”. Other conspicuous benefits found in many responses in
response to the SPA are ‘capacity building’. A deputy director at STeP Dr.Kasemsak said
“even though all four platforms, namely, (1) Service platform, (2) Business Incubation
platform, (3) Industrial Research and Technology Capacity Development Program (IRTC)
platform and Co-‐‑research platform, ‘capacity building’ through knowledge sharing,
innovation bootcamps, innovation award and expo can be seen crucial to Science Park”.
He further explained that knowledge sharing helps all the staff and personnel in Science
Park learn best practice from other colleague in Regional Science Parks and external
experts both in the country and overseas in Science Park management”. Dr Kasemsak’s
perspective is rather compatible with Dr. Siam in that he believed building human
capital through training is significant for Science Park development and he said “without
a SPA’s support, this would never happen”. Dr. Kasemsak also perceived the benefit the
public relations through innovation award and expo supported by SPA where he
considered useful for public awareness in innovation and benefit from the platforms
available in the Science Park. Some of other responses to this interview question focus
on the continued budget spending in infrastructure building pilot plant. Others
concentrate on the networking that SPA help Science Park to connect with financial
service sectors. The responses from respondents have clearly reflected on the point of 11 See Appendix 2 for research questions
31
how institutions or rules of game (Edquist, 2001) have influenced the functions of
system of innovation (Hollingsworth, 2000) which is Science Park.
Reflections about what hinders the development of Science Parks are described in the
second interview question. One of the factors that government is lacking according to
most respondents is educating other public sectors, firms, and financial service sectors
about the role of Science Park. Dr. Suphachai said “in order to reach the maximum
outcome of Science Park project, all stakeholders especially public sectors need to
understand the role of Science Park” and “even though national tax incentives are already
set to some degree to attract new start-‐‑ups and SMEs to do more R&D in Science Park, the
specific tax incentives for the incubatees are still unclear”. Dr. Kasemsak perceives the
inefficiency in supporting mechanism. He said “Although most tax incentive is well
designed for large firms like the incentive from the Board of Investment which is attractive
to the firms, small firms or start-‐‑ups tends to focus on finding the market, earing revenue,
not tax reduction”. Besides, other respondents point out redundancies in supportive
policies and inefficiency in resource management among public sectors, for instance,
many supportive programs led by government in order to boost the number of new
innovative start-‐‑ups have involved numerous actors of public sectors from Ministry of
Science and Technology, Ministry of commerce, Ministry of industry and so on. For
example, a director at Nareasuan Science Park Dr. Assadang said “supports from
government are varied depending on the conditions of business, say incentive from
Ministry of Industry are designed for SMEs that already have factories, Ministry of
Commerce has only incentive for exporting business, not SMEs in the country”. In addition
to Dr. Assandang’s perspective, Dr.Kasemsak said “none of Ministries should be working
independently. In fact, research commercialization need a holistic approach, say starting
from market survey in which Ministry of Commerce have to take the lead; Ministry of
Science and Technology help finding the proper knowhow to produce and finally to scale-‐‑
up the production, Ministry of Industry have to be involved”. Moreover, one respondent
from the Southern Science Park (STSP) argue that SPA fails to efficiently allocate the
budget for the Regional Science Parks in that, first of all, the budget is allocated based in
yearly commitment in key performance indicator (KPI), rather than the regard of
impact of the platform in particular Regional Science Park. In other words, different
RSPs have different performance in platforms. Dr. Kasemsak said “A yearly performance
32
measurement that ties to the government’s fiscal year is not supposed to be used for R&D
project. In other word, such project, unlike process or product improvement, would take up
to more than three years to see the fruition based on product diffusion (to a mature
stage)”. In this section, the response shows the interaction between actors, academia,
industry, public sectors, in the Triple Helix model (Etzkowitz, 2008; Hollingsworth,
2000) that resulted in different institutional arrangements and their subsequent
functions.
In response to Triple Helix interaction and the role of Science Park in the third question,
some respondents perceive a gradual increase in interaction between universities and
industries, for example, SMEs ask the university to help them develop their
manufacturing process through available research, and large companies tends to work
jointly with researchers in research institutes or universities. Dr. Suphachai said
“Science Park is a gateway of the university”. However, Mr. Sompong from PSUSP
responded that there still has been a gap between industries and universities due to
their different mindsets, for instance, researchers especially in the university are
playing their role in producing knowledge and receive a promotion in their career paths
through publication, on the other hand, the industries are disappointed that they have a
hard time finding the right people to work with their companies, lacking in the research
that is well-‐‑suited for their problems. One respondent argues that as the government
focus on a national agenda of supporting ‘Food Valley’ cluster, this results in an
increasing interaction among the Federation of Thai Industries, the Thai Chamber of
Commerce, Board of Trade of Thailand, and municipal government and universities.
According to the findings in this section, it can be argued that there is an increasing
interplay between universities and industries show a good sign of success in the Science
Park project; however, this needs to be done in parallel with the greater extend of effort
to raise the awareness of the role of Science Park and innovation from all stakeholders
in Science Park ecosystem.
33
In terms of sustainability of RSP development. Some of the respondents are asking the
government to have more public relations to increase the awareness of innovation, to
centralize its policies, to develop more infrastructure in the city to be ready for future
investment of private firms and to encourage the university to have more
entrepreneurial programs that help support the private firms. However, Mr. Sompong
said “the sustainability of Science Park is dependent upon the industry”. To attract more
industry in the region, he suggested “public sectors and local government have to adapt
themselves to innovation, infrastructure like new city layout is necessary because Science
Park is considered a kind of infrastructure as well.” Furthermore, he argued that
“transitional research needs to be taken into account by university, by listening to what
industry needs”. Other respondents focus on how Science Park to be sustainable by itself
no matter how the government policies have changed through attracting more firms to
become tenants in Science Park to have more income and attracting more private firms
to invest in R&D infrastructure, including building, in the area of Science Park. Dr.
Kasemsak shared his sustainable model of the Regional Science Park development in a
form of several aspects, in a structural aspect, local government should get more
involved in a Science Park project, city improvement is necessary, incubation platform
can be considered to spin-‐‑off to be an incubator with its own business model. Regarding
the financial aspect, revenue can be obtained from renting, providing a high value
service and becoming a new entity whereby external loans can be accessible. Regarding
the service aspect, the Regional Science Park should be more specific on a particular
industry, namely Food for higher recognition (e.g. a cosmetic innovation park, a Biotec
park).
34
Figure 5 A causal loop diagram of Regional Science Park and measures provided by
Science Park Promotion Agency (SPA)
According to given empirical findings, their representation can be illustrated in a causal
loop diagram as shown in Figure 5 above. The orange boxes are related to various
measures of SPA to all RSPs. The plus sign represents the reinforcing relationships
between cause and effect elements. There exists a reinforcing loop between
Environment for Science Park box and Growth of TH interaction box. According to the
diagram, it can be concluded that any increase in institutions through a variety of
measures from SPA contribute to a good environment for Science Park, at the same time
fortering the growth of Triple Helix interactions among academia, industries, public
sectors.
Nonetheless, it is also important to take into account the hindrances that influence the
development and environment of Science Park. In fact, such influential factors are
derived from the measures themselves whereby, for instance, they have been ineffective
in tax incentive, too tight in budgeting system and lacking in a holistic view of
collaboration between public sectors. In other words, tax incentive can be abortive if
they are still unclear in the operational level in Science Park, misplaced by giving too
35
much focus on only large enterprises, rather than SMEs or startups, not least redundant
in public spending in similar SME projects without centralization. Furthermore, in
budgeting system, it is more than obvious that budget allocation plays a pivotal role in
platform sustainability (see Figure 5). This means that adaptive budgeting system based
on the true impact of particular activities in each platform, other than such rigid fiscal
year budgeting seem to be conducive to the environment of RSP. Finally, in light of the
holistic view of system of innovation, actors in Science Park ecosystem are responsible
for their corresponding roles and work together in such a way that innovation process
is efficiently implemented.
In brief, Regional Science Parks in Thailand has a strong relationship with government
institutions especially through their capacity building and financial support for the early
stage of its development. Furthermore, resource management is critical for Science Park
development. What’s more, the development of Science Park project is explicitly linked
to how well the stakeholders in ecosystem understand each other role: private firms are
aware of the benefit they are likely to obtain from R&D and Science Park, as well as
universities understand the role of Science Park to research commercialization.
36
6. Conclusion and Suggestions for Future Research
In this thesis, I have investigated the role of institutions for the development of Regional
Science Parks in Thailand. The research question earlier posted from the introduction
section has been answered. Numerous institutional factors such as Standard of practice,
KPI-‐‑based guidelines, capacity building, especially, budget allocation are important for
the development of the science parks. The study has obtained primary data (7 out of 13
University Science Parks) from the interview of administrative level at Regional Science
Parks, further questions have been added during the interview to ensure the
understanding between interviewer and interviewee. The Triple Helix model is a useful
tool to understand the phenomenon when there is interaction between different
players, in this case, academia, industry and government. Since this thesis is based on
qualitative research, the results can be expected to vary subject to various experiences
and background of respondents. However, the research has shown useful implications
to understand the influence of institutions to the extent that has an impact on key
performance of a Science Park project. In addition, this thesis also provides, to some
degree, a foundation for scenario-‐‑building for policy decision concerning RSP
development project in Thailand. Another contribution is an explicit layout of the
causality of current institutional factors in the context of RSP in the system of
innovation. Finally, government or policy-‐‑makers can benefit from these insights and
take into account when they try to improve the positive outcome from the budget they
have spent.
6.1 Limitations
There are limitations in this thesis that should be discussed as suggestions for future
improvement. Without time constraint, the empirical data would have been extensively
collected from firms and tenants who have been collaborating in a Regional Science
Park project in order to augment the validity of research data. Besides, geographical
factors of Regional Science Parks were ignored from this research area, thereby the
findings tended to be characterized by ecosystem involved in that particular location.
37
6.2 Future research
In light of future research, further study can be extended from this thesis, for example,
in the areas of better understanding the role of stakeholders, finding significant
determinants of innovation in the Science Park project and paving the way to secure the
maximum outcome of innovation system for Thai economic and social development. For
future research methods, qualitative data can be dramatically enriched by data
collection on private firms, public sectors or stakeholders that involve in this RSP
project. Furthermore, policy-‐‑makers are expected to formulate a more thorough causal
loop diagram to elucidate the innovation system in the context of Triple Helix RSP. Also,
further research can be done on developing hypothesis for exploring untested
relationships between stakeholders in Science Park ecosystem in the Triple Helix model
in response to the role of Science Park.
38
References Archibugi, D., Michie, J., (1997). Technological globalization and national systems of
innovation: an introduction. In: Archibugi, D., Michie, J. (Eds.), Technology, Globalisation and Economic Performance. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 1-‐‑23.
Baber, Z. (1995). Contemporary Sociology, 24(6), 751-‐‑752.
Bergek, A., Jacobsson, S., Carlsson, B., Lindmarki, S., Rickne A. 2005. Analysing the dynamics and functionality of sectoral innovation systems – a manual. In: 10 Year Anniversary DRUID Summer Conference, Copenhagen, June 27–29.
Bonoma, T.V. (1985) ‘Case research in marketing: Opportunities, problems, and a
process’, Journal of Marketing Research, XXII, May, pp. 199-‐‑208. Bryman, A., & Bell, E. (2011). Business Research Methods 3e. Oxford University Press. Carlsson, B., Jacobsson, S., Holmen, M., Rickne, A. 2002. Innovation systems: analytical and methodological issues. Research Policy 31, 233–245. Carlsson, B., Stankiewicz, R. (1991). On the nature, function, and composition of technological systems. Journal of Evolutionary Economics 1, 93–118. Collis, J., & Hussey, R. (2009). Business Research: A Practical Guide for Undergraduate
and Postgraduate Students. Palgrave Macmillan. Cozzens, S., Healey, P., Rip, A., Ziman, J. Zr Eds.,(1990). The Research System in Transition. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Cozzens, S. E., Healey, P., Rip, A., & Ziman, J. (2012). The research system in
transition (Vol. 57). Springer Science & Business Media. Douglass, C. (1981). North, Structure and Change in EconomicHistory, WW
Norton&Company. Inc., New York. Douglass, C. (1991). Douglass C. North. The Journal of Economic
Perspectives, 5(1), 97-‐‑112. Edquist, C. (2001). The Systems of Innovation Approach and Innovation Policy: An
account of the state of the art. In DRUID Conference, Aalborg (pp. 12–15). Edquist, C. (ed.) (1997) Systems of Innovation: Technologies, Institutions and Organizations, London: Printer/Cassel Edquist, C. (2001). The Systems of Innovation Approach and Innovation Policy: An account of the state of the art. In DRUID Conference, Aalborg (pp. 12–15).
39
Edquist, C., (2005). Systems of innovation: perspectives and challenges, in: Fagerberg, J., Mowery, D.C., Nelson, R.R. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Innovation. Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 181–208.
Edquist, C. and Johnson, B. (1997). 'Institutions and organizations in systems of
innovation', in C. Edquist (ed.) Systems of Innovation: Technologies, Institutions and Organizations. London and Washington: Pinter/Cassell Academic
Eriksson, L.T. & Wiedersheim-‐‑Paul, F. (2014). Att utreda forska och rapportera. Liber. Etzkowitz, H. (2008). The Triple Helix: University-‐‑Industry-‐‑Government Innovation in Action. Routledge, London. Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (1997). Introduction to special issue on science policy
dimensions of the Triple Helix of university-‐‑industry-‐‑government relations. Science and Public Policy, 24(1), 2–5.
Etzkowitz, H., Leydesdorff, L. 2000. The dynamics of innovation: from National
Systems and "Mode 2" to a Triple Helix of university-‐‑industry-‐‑government relations. Research Policy 29, 109-‐‑123.
Etzkowitz, H., & Ranga, M. (2010, October). A Triple Helix System for knowledge-‐‑
based regional development: From “Spheres” to “Spaces”. In VIII Triple Helix Conference, Madrid, October.
Freeman, C. (1987). Technology policy and economic performance: lessons from Japan. London: Pinter. Gebhardt, C. (2012). The Entrepreneurial State: The German Entrepreneurial Regions
Program as an attenuator for the financial crisis. European Planning Studies (forthcoming).
Heerwagen, J., Kelly, K., Kampschroer, K. 2010. The Changing Nature of
Organizations, Work and Workplace (downloaded on 8 April from http://www.wbdg.org/resources/chngorgwork.php).
Hollingsworth, J. R. (2000). Doing institutional analysis: implications for the study of
innovations. Review of International Political Economy, 7(4), 595–644. Holme, I. M. & Krohn Solvang, B. (1991). Forskningsmetodik -‐‑ Om kvalitativa och
kvantitativa metoder. Lund: Studentlitteratur. Intarakumnerd, P., & Chaminade, C. (2011). Innovation policies in Thailand:
towards a system of innovation approach? Asia Pacific Business Review, 17(02), 241-‐‑256.
Jacobsson, S., & Johnson, A. (2000). The diffusion of renewable energy technology:
an analytical framework and key issues for research. Energy Policy, 28(9), 625–640.
40
Laestadius, S., & Rickne, A. (2012). The theoretical foundation for Swedish innovation policy. Innovation Governance in an Open Economy: Shaping Regional Nodes in a Globalized World, 18.
Liu, X., & White, S. (2001). Comparing innovation systems: a framework and application
to China’s transitional context. Research Policy, 30(7), 1091–1114. Lundvall, B-‐‑A. (1992) (ed.). National Systems of Innovation: Towards a Theory of Innovation and Interactive learning, London: Pinter Lundvall, B.-‐‑., (2007) National innovation systems -‐‑ Analytical concept and development tool. Industry and Innovation 14 (1), 95-‐‑119 Lundvall, B., (1992) National Systems of Innovation -‐‑ toward a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning. Pinter, London. Malerba, F. (2004). Sectoral systems of innovation: concepts, issues and analyses of six major sectors in Europe. Cambridge University Press. Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST) (2012). Strategy for National Science Park
development (2013-‐‑2017) , Secretary of Permanent Office, Ministry of Science and Technology.
National STI http://www.sti.or.th/uploads/content_file/แผน_วทน.pdf (Last viewed
16/05/2016) Nelson, R.R. (1993) (ed.). National Innovation Systems: A Comparative Study, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Nyberg, R. & Tidström, A. (2012). Skriv ventenskapliga uppsatser, examensarbeten och
avhandlingar. Studentlitteratur AB. Ostrom, E. (2008). Doing institutional analysis: Digging deeper than markets and
hierarchies. In Handbook of new institutional economics (pp. 819-‐‑848). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Pfahl, S. (2005). Institutional sustainability. International journal of sustainable
development, 8(1-‐‑2), 80-‐‑96. Phasukavanich, C., 2003. The pace of Thailand through the Year 2020. Power
point presentation, Bangkok, Thailand, 20 May. Mimeo Ranga, M., & Etzkowitz, H. (2013). Triple Helix systems: an analytical framework for
innovation policy and practice in the Knowledge Society. Industry and Higher Education, 27(4), 237–262.
Rickne, A. (2000). New technology-‐‑based firms and industrial dynamics evidence from the technological system of biomaterials in Sweden, Ohio and Massachusetts. Chalmers University of Technology.
41
Rickne, A. (2001). Assessing the functionality of an innovation system. Goteborg, Chalmers University of Technology. Rubin, H. (2009). Collaborative Leadership: Developing Effective Partnerships for Communities and Schools. Corwin Press, Thousands Oaks, CA. The Triple Helix concept. (n.d.). Retrieved May 08, 2016, from
http://www.triplehelixconference.org/th/9/the-‐‑triple-‐‑helix-‐‑concept.html/print/
Wallén, G. (1993). Vetenskapsteori och forskningsmetodik. Lund: Studentlitteratur.
Williamson, O. E. (2000). The new institutional economics: taking stock, looking ahead. Journal of Economic Literature, 38(3), 595–613.
Woolthuis, R. K., Lankhuizen, M., & Gilsing, V. (2005). A system failure framework for innovation policy design. Technovation, 25(6), 609–619. World Bank. (2003). Sustainable Development in a Dynamic World:
Transforming Institutions, Growth, and Quality of Life. Oxford University Press.
42
Appendices Appendix 1 A list of respondents Northern Science Park (NSP) Name: Kasemsak Uthaichana, Ph.D. Position: Deputy Director Organization: Chiang Mai Science and Technology Park (STeP) -‐‑ A main hub of NSP Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand Name: Siam Popluechai, Ph.D. Position: Director Organization: Mae Fah Luang Science Park (Intellectual Properties Management and Innovation Development center) Mae Fah Luang University, Chiang Rai, Thailand Name: Kal Kalayanamitra, Ph.D. Position: Director Organization: Maejo University Science Park (Maejo University Business Incubator) Maejo University, Chiang Mai, Thailand Name: Assadang Polnok, Ph.D. Position: Director Organization: Lower North Science Park Naresuan University, Phisanulok, Thailand
Northeastern Science Park (NESP) Name: Supachai Pathumnakul, Ph.D. Position: Director Organization: Khon Kaen University Science Park (KKUSP) -‐‑ A main hub of NESP Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, Thailand Southern Thailand Science Park (STSP) Name: Sompong Petroch Position: Manager Organization: Prince of Songkla University Science park (PSUSP) -‐‑ A main hub of STSP, Prince of Songkla University, Songkla, Thailand Name: Niyom Kamlangdee, Ph.D. Position: Director Organization: Walailak University Science Park (WUSP) Walailak University, Nakhon Si Thammarat, Thailand
43
Appendix 2 Interview questions
1. Which of the measures or practices received from Science Promotion Agency (SPA) is perceived most crucial for Science Park?
2. Which of the measures or policy from government, including SPA, are perceived hindrance for the Science Park development?
3. What is the interactions among academia, industries and public sectors in a Triple Helix model and in what way the Science Park performs on them?
4. How can the Science Park be sustainable in response to uncertainty of future regulations and supports from the government?
44
Appendix 3 Regional Science Parks (Thailand) Northern Science Park (NSP) formally founded in 2012 is a partnership network among Chiang Mai University as a main hub and the other six universities (total seven universities: Chiang Mai University, Maejo University, Mae Fah Luang University, University of Phayao, Uttaradit Rajabhat University, Pibulsongkram Rajabhat University and Naresuan University)
Source: http://www.step.cmu.ac.th/sciencepark.php
NSP uses the Triple Helix model with the collaboration with government, academia, and private sectors, industry to strengthen the knowledge-‐‑based and creative economy in Thailand. Its mission is to promote the use of Science and Technology for product commercialization and increasing competitiveness in private sectors in the northern region and Mekong River.
Four main platforms available in NSP as follows: (1) Service Program (2) Science, Technology and Innovation (STI) Business Incubation Program (3) Industrial Research and Technology Capacity Development (IRTC) Program (4) Collaborative Research Program
Focus industry and cluster development that involves in this region are 1. Food and vegetable value chain Industry
45
2. IT software, digital content industry 3. Medical industry and Biotechnology 4. Renewable energy, environments and innovative materials
The other two Regional Science Parks in Thailand are Northeastern Science Park (NESP) and Southern Thailand Science Park (STSP). NESP is a network of four collaborative universities, namely Khon Kaen University (a main hub of NESP), Mahasarakham University, Ubon Ratchathani University and Suranari Institute of Technology. STSP is a network of two universities: Prince of Songkla University (a main hub of STSP) and Walailuk University. Although the platforms available in these Science Park are the same as the North Science Park (NSP), the focus industries are different based on the existing resources and strategic industrial development in those regions. In the NESP, its focus industry is on poultry and starch, whereas in the STSP the main focus industry is on Latex and pharmaceutical product.