More than half of the 116 research parks now operating in the
United States were established during the 1980s, with the aim of
boosting regional economic growth. But until now no one has
systematically analyzed whether research parks do in fact generate
new businesses and jobs. Using their own surveys of all existing
parks and case studies of three of the most successful--Research
Triangle Park in North Carolina, Stanford Research Park in
California, and the University of Utah Research Park--Michael Luger
and Harvey Goldstein examine the economic impact of such
facilities.
As the name suggests, a research park is typically meant to provide
a spacious setting where basic and applied technological research
can be quietly pursued. Because of the experience of a few older
and prominent research parks, new parks are expected to generate
economic growth for their regions. New or old, most parks have
close ties to universities, which join in such ventures to enhance
their capabilities as centers of research, provide outlets for
entrepreneurial faculty members, and increase job opportunities for
graduate students.
Too often, the authors say, the vision of "incubating" economic
growth in a gardenlike preserve of research and development has
failed because of poor planning, lack of firm leadership, and bad
luck. Although the longest-lasting parks have met their original
goals, the newer ones have enjoyed at best only slight success.
Luger and Goldstein conclude that the older facilities have
captured much of the market for concentrations of research and
development firms, and they discuss alternative strategies that
could achieve some of the same goals as research parks, but in a
less costly way. Many of these alternatives continue to include a
role for universities, and Luger and Goldstein shed fresh light on
the linkage between higher education and the use of knowledge for
profit.