This study examines how the Daedeok Science and Technology (S&T) Park, built as a national R&D center, has evolved over time from the perspective of a complex adaptive system. We argue that the Daedeok S&T Park—a planned park exhibiting path-dependent, self-reinforcing trajectories led by the government—has gradually evolved over time, undergoing some tension between nationalizing and regionalizing forces instead of encountering an imminent and radical transformation through the replication of a new model each time. The state's role is highlighted as a creator that ironically leads to the process of the planned park's evolution toward a more cluster-based park by strengthening regional actors' capabilities and changing the structure of governance. The study contributes to the literature on S&T parks by providing an in-depth analysis of an S&T park from an evolutionary perspective, and not from a typical static evaluation, and is based on archival analyses and case studies of ten firms as well as on in-depth interviews with key actors.
AsheimB TGertlerM S, 2005, “The geography of innovation: regional innovation systems”, in The Oxford Handbook of Innovation Eds FagerbergJMoweryDNelsonR (Oxford University Press, Oxford) pp 291–317
2.
AzzolinaLDe LucaD, 2009, “Paths of local development: two technological districts face-to-face”Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy27451–467
3.
CastellsMHallP, 1994Technopoles of the World: The Making of Twenty-first-century Industrial Complexes (Routledge, Abingdon, Oxon)
4.
ChampenoisC, 2012, “How can a cluster policy enhance entrepreneurship? Evidence from the German ‘BioRegio’ case”Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy30796–815
5.
ChampenoisCMenuS, 2012, “‘New’ cluster policies: a process-based approach”Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy30761–765
6.
ChouT L, 2007, “The science park and the governance challenge of the movement of the high-techurban region towards polycentricity: the Hsinchu science-based industrial park”Environment and Planning A391382–1402
7.
EdgingtonD W, 2008, “The Japanese innovation system: university—industry linkages, small firms and regional technology clusters”Prometheus261–19
8.
EfendiogluA M, 2006, “Bay area (California, USA) and Hsinchu (Taiwan) biotech clusters: a comparative analysis”Journal of Asia—Pacific Business6(4) 45–60
9.
EtzkowitzH, 2012, “Triple helix clusters: boundary permeability at university—industry—government interfaces as a regional innovation strategy”Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy30766–779
10.
HuT-SLinC-YChangS-L, 2005, “Technology-based regional development strategies and the emergence of technological communities: a case study of HSIP, Taiwan”Technovation25367–380
11.
HwangH R, 2009, “A case study on the characteristics of technology innovation of science-based firms: centered on SMEs in Daedeok Innopolis”Innovation Studies4179–200 (in Korean)
12.
HwangJ-S, 2004, “IT cluster evolved from research park: Taeduk Valley in Korea”Journal of the Economic Geographical Society of Korea7359–384 (in Korean)
13.
JeongJ HParkS O, 1999, “Taeduk Research Park: formation of spin-offs and local linkages”, in Second Tier Cities: Rapid Growth Beyond the Metropolis Eds MarkusenA RLeeY-SDiGiovannaS (University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN) pp 199–222
14.
KeebleD E, 1989, “High-technology industry and regional development in Britain: the case of the Cambridge phenomenon” Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy7153–172
15.
KimH Y, 2009, “The making of a science town: the case of Daedeok, Korea”Journal of the Economic Geographical Society of Korea1283–95
16.
KimHLeeJ H, 2009, “Multi-scalar dynamics of cluster development: the role of policies in three Korean clusters”Journal of the Korean Geographical Society44634–646
17.
KitagawaF, 2006, “Repositioning universities in multi-spatial innovation systems: the Japanese case”Social Epistemology20299–314
18.
KitagawaFWoolgarL, 2008, “Regionalisation of innovation policies and new university—industry links in Japan: policy review and new trends”Prometheus2655–67
19.
Korea Institute for Industrial Economics and Trade, 2009, “Innovation strategies for R&D special zones”, Seoul (in Korean)
20.
KoschatzkyKKrollH, 2007, “Which side of the coin? The regional governance of science and innovation”Regional Studies411115–1127
21.
KownO-H, 2000, “Strategies to become a new industrial district of Taedok Science Town by evaluating R&D productivity”Journal of the Korean Regional Development1217–40
22.
LeeJ H, 2006, “Location factors and spatial networks of enterprises which established in and around Daejeon”, Master's thesis, Department of Geography, Seoul National University (in Korean)
23.
LeeY-S, 2009, “Balanced development in globalizing regional development? Unpacking the new regional policy in South Korea”Regional Studies43353–367
24.
LiJWuKZhuYLuY, 2011, “Comparison study of construction model of innovative city: Pittsburgh, Tsukuba and Singapore”, paper presented at 2011 International Conference on Management and Service Science, 12–14 August, http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=5997966
25.
LinC-Y, 1997, “Technopolis development: an assessment of the Hsinchu experience”International Planning Studies2257–272
26.
MangematinVErrabiK, 2012, “The determinants of science-based cluster growth: the case of nanotechnology”Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy30128–146
27.
MartinRSunleyP, 2007, “Complexity thinking and evolutionary economic geography”Journal of Economic Geography7573–601
28.
MartinRSunleyP, 2011, “Conceptualizing cluster evolution: beyond the life cycle model?”Regional Studies451299–1318
29.
MenuS, 2012, “The role of cluster policy on leadership: evidence from two Pôles de compétitivité”Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy30816–834
30.
Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Energy, 2000, “Technology Transfer Promotion Law in 1999”, South Korea
31.
Ministry of Science and Technology, 2008The 40-year History of Science and Technology in Korea Seoul (in Korean)
MoonM, 2008, “From KIST to Daedeok Science Park”History Criticism85262–289 (in Korean)
34.
OhD-S, 1995, “High-technology and regional development policy: an evaluation of Korea's technopolis programme”Habitat International19253–267
35.
OhD-S, 2002, “Technology-based regional development policy: case study of Taedok Science Town, Taejon Metropolitan City, Korea”Habitat International26213–228
36.
OhD-SKimK-BJeongS Y, 2005, “Eco-industrial park design: a Daedeok Technovalley case study”Habitat International29269–284
37.
ParkS C, 2000, “The roles of high-tech oriented private companies in science cities: a case study of Tsukuba Science City in Japan and Taedok Science Town in South Korea”Korea Observer3173–102
38.
PerryB, 2007, “The multi-level governance of science policy in England”Regional Studies411051–1067
39.
PerryBMayT, 2007, “Governance, science policy and regions: an introduction”Regional Studies411039–1050
40.
SalazarMHolbrookA, 2007, “Canadian science, technology and innovation policy: the product of regional networking?”Regional Studies411129–1141
41.
SaxenianAHsuJ-Y, 2001, “The Silicon Valley—Hsinchu connection: technical communities and industrial upgrading”Industrial and Corporate Change10893–920
42.
Small and Medium Business Administration, 1997, “Special Law on Fostering Venture Business in 1997”, South Korea
43.
SotarautaM, 2012, “Policy learning and the ‘cluster-flavoured innovation policy’ in Finland”Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy30780–795
44.
SotarautaMKautonenM, 2007, “Co-evolution of the Finnish national and local innovation and science arenas: towards a dynamic understanding of multi-level governance”Regional Studies411085–1098
YounèsD, 2012, “Why is intersectoral cooperation difficult to maintain? Insights from French cluster policy”Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy30835–847
