A New Strategic Approach to Science Cities: Towards the Achievement of Sustainable and Balanced Spatial Development - Technopolis: Best Practices for Science and Technology Cities - page 13

Critiques of the technopolis concept have taken a number of forms (see Park
1997 ; Sternberg 1997 ), but below are outlined some of the key arguments that
provide insights into the challenges which the approach might face if it is to be the
basis of future regional development policies.
Limit 1—the technopolis development remains as a 'satellite development', and
fails to become fully integrated within the wider economy and spatial development
processes. Further development increasingly becomes dependent on attracting new
investment through the provision of land and skilled labour that is a cheaper offer
than that in the major existing cities. Outcome could create a cost competitive
model, highly dependent on wider economic conditions.
Limit 2—the technopolis is only able to significantly attract mobile FDI, cre-
ating a branch plant syndrome with little, if any, endogenous-based growth and
embedding of capital, skills or technological knowledge. Productive and service
tasks are largely routine, involving subcontracting and overspill functions decen-
tralising on cost or capacity grounds from main core economies.
Limit 3—the technopolis fails to fully develop appropriate university-business
links. There is a lack of key creative and entrepreneurial professionals in the local
universities or businesses, or path-dependent social relationships continue as
barriers to fully developed interactions. Failure or limits to such interaction can be
reinforced by prevailing national state policies towards university-based education,
research and entrepreneurial activities, and the lack of challenges to established
professional and social relationships which discourage new relationships and
entrepreneurship.
Limit 4—the technopolis is unable to develop sufficient soft infrastructure to
support research and technological development, in particular no forms of venture
capital and international knowledge exchange. Further growth becomes more
dependent on increasing the hard infrastructure of the area—roads, airports,
buildings—thus reinforcing satellite and dependent development trajectory.
Limit 5—failure or limits to the relocation of high-level, internationally com-
petitive R&D activities, furthering the spatial division of high order scientific and
technical labour.
Limit 6—the technopolis is characterised by a lack of inter-industry linkages
and voluntary collaboration, and a lack of spin-offs from universities, laboratories
and research centres. Business and entrepreneurial cultures remain embedded in
previous cultures of trust, reward and dependency.
Limit 7—technopolis development is limited and frustrated by unproductive
rivalry and competition between local governments and development agencies.
This can lead to ineffectiveness and inefficiency, but can also increase the fiscal
burden.
Limit 8—technopolis success is severely limited by the failure for national and
regional

policy development objectives to be appropriately integrated. Con-

tradictions occur between sector goals and spatial outcomes.
There is therefore, within the science city/technopolis model, a potential threat
that practices will too easily develop an emphasis on the property and physical
dimensions of urbanisation and regional development. Emphasis can shift towards