Technology Park

Technology parks enable interaction of groups of academic and research institutions

and groups of industries and financial institutions to work in harmony to evolve new
technologies starting from inventions.

From: Innovation, Entrepreneurship, and the Economy in the US, China, and India,
2015

Related terms:

Broadband, Research Institution, Biotechnology, Information Technology, Research

Centres, Technological Change, Technology Transfer, Research and Development,
Industrial Park

View all Topics

Remuneration and retention in a pri-

vately-owned technology company
Doug Davies, Liang Wei, in Human Resources Management in China, 2011

Government assistance
It has proven difficult to attract potential employees to Guangdong Province. So
to help new industry, a Technology Park has been set up as an incubator in which
to ‘nurture’ new business in the area, and to provide employment as an attractor for
young families to come to work in the city.

Some of the incentives provided have included assistance with housing, reduced
taxes and assistance with migration. Other forms of assistance have included en-
couraging major universities to set up campuses in the province, and a greater
provision of amenities, such as schools and hospitals.

A major problem, though, is retaining the younger graduates and workers in the
area. The reason for the drift is that, although the province is near the coast and is
in a very attractive area of China, young workers are persuaded by businesses in the
larger cities (such as Guangzhou and Shanghai) to migrate there, even though the
quality of life may not be as good.

> Read full chapter

China’s stock market

Yong Zhen, in China’s Capital Markets, 2013

The New Third Board

The new Third Board is also called National Equities Exchange and Quotations. On
16 January 2006, the unlisted companies of Zhongguancun Science and Technology
Park in Beijing, also called Chinese Silicon Valley, were allowed to trade their shares
for a trial. That was called the New Third Board trial. It was a trial version of the OTC
market based in Zhongguancun Science Park. On 23 January 2006, Beijing iReal
Technological Corporation Limited became the first company from Zhongguancun
Science Park to be listed in the New Third Board. The New Third Board is aimed
at high-tech enterprises in Beijing’s Zhongguancun Science Park to finance their
growth via share transfers to investors. The companies involved were high-tech com-
panies. Most companies trading on the New Third Board had less than 50 million
Yuan ($7.88 million) in net assets. The threshold for being listed on New Third Board
was low. The fundamental requirements for the listings include valid existence for
two years, prominent main business, sustainable profitability, reasonable corporate
governance, legal compliance of share issuance and transfer, and a certificate of
share transfer pilot company granted by Beijing Municipal Government.

In 2011, CSRC promoted the policy of accelerating the development of a multi-level

capital market system for direct financing, particularly for SMEs. The New Third
Board was to build a nationwide OTC trading market to serve high-growth SMEs
and microenterprises, and to standardize the trading as well as bring order to OTC
trading. In August 2012, the New Third Board Trial was expanded to other regional
science parks, such as Tianjin Binhai Hi-tech Industrial Development Area, Shanghai
Zhangjiang Hi-tech Park, and Wuhan Donghu New Technology Development Zone.
This was called the New Third Board Trial Expansion. By the end of 2012, there
were 200 listed companies in the New Third Board, including 175 companies from
Zhongguancun Science Park, seven from Tianjin Binhai Hi-tech Industrial Devel-
opment Area, eight from Shanghai Zhangjiang Hitech Park and ten from Wuhan
Donghu New Technology Development Zone. Ninety percent of them are high-tech
companies. The total shares outstanding were 5.527 billion and trading volume was
11.455 million shares in 2012. The average P/E ratio for the New Third Board in 2012
was 46. The total fundraising was RMB 2.282 billion Yuan.

After years of trials in several cities, the New Third Board was officially established.
It was a national share transfer system for small and medium-sized enterprises and
was launched on 16 January 2013 in Beijing. It is formally called National Equities
Exchange and Quotations (NEEQ). It is an exchange under the management of
National Equities Exchange and Quotations Corporation Limited. The shareholders
include SSE, SHSE, SD&C (China Securities Depository and Clearing Co., Ltd),
SHFE (Shanghai Futures Exchange), CFFEX (China Financial Futures Exchange),
ZCE (Zhengzhou Commodity Exchange) and DCE (Dalian Commodity Exchange).
The four pilot zones mentioned above have been incorporated into the NEEQ. The
official launch of the New Third Board is a critical step toward nurturing the
nationwide over-the-counter market in China. It is a supplement to the Shanghai
and Shenzhen stock exchanges. By 8 March 2013, 212 companies had been listed
on the New Third Board. The trading is not daily, but is taken on each Monday,
Wednesday and Friday.

The main regulations to supervise and regulate the New Third Board are Interim
Measures for the Administration of National SME Share Transfer System Co., Ltd., which
was issued by CSRC on 31 January 2013, The Business Rules of National Equities
Exchange and Quotations, which was issued by National Equities Exchange and Quo-
tations on 8 February 2013, and The Measures for the Supervision and Administration
of Non-listed Public Companies, which was issued by CSRC on 28 September 2012.
In the next five years, the number of listed companies in the New Third Board is
expected to be more than 5000 and the total market value more than RMB 1 trillion
Yuan, which provides investors, investment banks and other intermediaries a good
opportunity. By the end of 2012, 63 securities firms had qualified as underwriters of
the New Third Board. In addition, the New Third Board also attracts many PE funds.
Due to the fierce competition in the PE market, the New Third Board has become a
field in which PE institutions like to invest.

> Read full chapter

Industrial Parks
S.M. Walcott, in International Encyclopedia of Human Geography, 2009

Types of industrial parks include Marshallian and neo-Marshallian districts,

hub-and-spoke, satellite platforms, state-centered districts, and science and tech-
nology parks. Developing countries use the spatial device of industrial parks to in-
crease their speed of development, attract capital to areas of concentrated privilege,
and spawn growth poles with economic multiples for connected areas. The variety of
forms of industrial parks attests to their utility from the industrial revolution to the
globalized economy and across its varied spaces of production. Shared advantages of
proximity may vary within parks, but parks clearly reflect the power and attractiveness
of clusters by their very prevalence across the economic landscape.

> Read full chapter

Evaluation of Automated Road Trans-

port Systems in Cities
Mike McDonald, ... Ray Alejandro Lattarulo, in Implementing Automated Road
Transport Systems in Urban Settings, 2018

3.7.2.1 The City Transport Problems

An important fact should be noted that the park has more than 3500 employees, to
whom we must add visitors coming daily for labour causes. In the site selected, the
number of workers is more than 1300.

Despite the fact that mobility in Miramon Technology Park is mainly labour mobility,
there is in this area of the park the Science Museum and the Basque Culinary Centre
Foundation, which attract many people daily during lunchtime, besides the regular
events organised in the park and the visits to companies located there.

They are characterised by the use of private transport (car) or walking through the
park, since currently, there is no public transport within the park and city buses only
reach the limits of it, leaving no services to the majority of companies.

Mainly, the greater mobility is early in the morning and in the afternoon (peak hours
are from 08:00 to 09:00 and from 17:30 to 18:30), since employees usually don't go
home at mealtime. As for the mode of transport, four urban and two suburban public
transport lines serve this technology park, although none of them gets into the park,
so the car is by far the predominant mode of transport (67%). There are also four
suburban public transport lines that do not stop too far from technology park.

> Read full chapter

Information Systems and Networks

Amitabha Chatterjee, in Elements of Information Organization and Dissemination,
2017

MYLIBNET
Mysore Library Network (MYLIBNET) was established at Mysore city in the year
1995 with the financial assistance of NISSAT. Central Food Technological Research
Institute (CFTRI), Mysore, is hosting this network in its premises. MYLIBNET has
established its web server www.mylibnet.org to provide services globally. A radio
link with the local earth station of Software Technology Parks of INDIA (STPI)
has been established. The union catalog of periodicals available in the libraries
of Mysore, compiled by it in 1996, has been ported on this web server for easy
access over network. Information related to food patents and the publications of
National Information Centre for Food Science and Technology (NICFOS) attached
to CFTRI are available on this website. A portal on Mysore city covering information
relating to tourist attractions and cultural activities of Mysore has been created
and made available on the web. An on-line directory of manufacturers, consultants,
professionals, doctors, associations, various service providers, etc. in Mysore city can
be accessed on-line through the Web. MYLIBNET regularly organizes short-term
courses for LIS professionals [71,76].

> Read full chapter

Laws, Rules, and Role of Government

Institutions
Rajiv Shah, ... Harini Mittal, in Innovation, Entrepreneurship, and the Economy in
the US, China, and India, 2015

India
India introduced four main policies to promote science, technology, and innovation.
India's Scientific Policy Resolution of 1958 focused on fostering science and scientific
research. The Technology Policy Statement of 1983 emphasized the need to attain
technological competence and self-reliance. The Science and Technology Policy
2003 brought science and technology together for investment in R&D to address
national problems and to create a National Innovation System. To further synergize
science, technology, and innovation, India has declared 2010–2020 as the decade of
innovation, and it aims to set up 14 national centers to achieve this goal.
A National Innovation Council has been constituted, which has been tasked to
formulate a roadmap for innovations by creating a framework for evolving an Indian
model of inclusive growth, develop and champion innovative attitudes and ap-
proaches, identify ways and means to scale and sustain innovations, facilitate inno-
vations by SMEs, and encourage academic and R&D establishments for innovations.
The council will also promote the setting up of state- and sector-specific innovation
councils that will help implement strategies for innovation. The most recent Science,
Technology and Innovation (STI) Policy 2013 envisions the involvement of the entire
Indian scientific community, in both the private domain and the public domain
in achieving faster, sustainable, and inclusive development of people through science,
technology, and innovation. The aim of the policy, therefore, is to redefine innovation
to go beyond formal R&D parameters and facilitate innovative solutions that lead
to inclusive growth for the people and by the people. A strong and viable Science,
Research and Innovation system for High Technology led path for India (SRISHTI)
are the goals for the STI policy.

The policy also seeks the right sizing of gross expenditure on research and de-
velopment by encouraging and incentivizing private sector participation in R&D,
technology, and innovation activities. It aims to trigger an ecosystem for innovative
abilities to flourish by leveraging partnerships among diverse stakeholders and by
encouraging and facilitating enterprises to invest in innovation. It also seeks to
encourage mechanisms for achieving gender parity in STI activities and to gain
global competitiveness in select technology areas through international cooperation
and alliances. India specifically endeavors to address the challenges of energy and
environment, food and nutrition, water and sanitation, habitat, affordable health
care, and skill building and employment through these efforts.

The following box outlines some of the prominent programs of the Government of
India for promotion of innovation.

Source: DSIR website.

Technology Development and Demonstration Program (TDDP)

The DSIR under its plan scheme “Technology Promotion Development and Uti-
lization” (TDPU) is promoting industry's efforts in technology development and
demonstration of indigenous technologies and absorption of imported technologies
so as to stimulate innovation in SMEs that are environment-friendly. Over 150
technologies supported under TDDP are from a variety of industries ranging from
metallurgy; to electrical and electronics, instrumentation, and mechanical engineer-
ing; to earthmoving and industrial machinery; to chemicals, explosives, drugs and
pharmaceuticals, and food processing. The total cost of these projects is Rs. 4 B and
the government's share is around Rs. 600–700 M.
Technopreneur Promotion Programme (TePP)
TePP, a program jointly operated by the DST and DSIR from 1998, aims at promoting
grassroots innovators such as farmers, students, housewives, scientists, engineers,
doctors, and technicians who have an original idea or invention or know-how to
become technology-based entrepreneurs (technopreneurs).

New Millennium Indian Technology Leadership Initiatives (NMITLI)

The NMITLI is the largest R&D scheme that operates in partnership among R&D
institutions, academia, and private industry with government finances playing a
catalytic role. Forty-two R&D projects covering diverse areas, involving 287 partners
with an estimated outlay of Rs. 3 B, have been implemented under this initiative.

Technology Development Board

In order to develop and commercially apply indigenous technology or to adapt
imported technology to wider domestic applications, the Government of India
provides financial assistance in the form of either equity capital or soft loans or
grants through the Technology Development Board. This assistance is provided to
industrial units, R&D laboratories, universities, and academic institutions.

Technology Parks
Technology parks enable interaction of groups of academic and research institutions
and groups of industries and financial institutions to work in harmony to evolve
new technologies starting from inventions. There are 45 software technology parks
in existence set up by the Ministry of Information and Communication Technology
(MICT).

Programs by Technology Information Forecasting and Assessment

Council (TIFAC)
TIFAC under the DST has launched several schemes such as Relevance and Excel-
lence in AChieving new heights in educational institutions (REACH), Sugar Produc-
tion Technology Mission aimed at providing technology upgrade of selected sugar
factories, Advanced Composites Mission for indigenous development of composite
products, and Fly Ash Mission supporting projects towards confidence building in
fly ash disposal/utilization technology.
Pharmaceutical Research and Development Support Fund (PRDSF) Pro-
gram
This program aims to facilitate new drug development and to stimulate skill develop-
ment of human resources in R&D for drugs and pharmaceuticals and to enhance the
nation's self-reliance in drugs and pharmaceuticals sector especially in areas critical
to the national health requirement.

Instrumentation Development Program

National Instrument Development Board (NIDB) was constituted for capacity build-
ing and development of instruments in the country in areas such as Analytical
Instrumentation, Sensors and Allied Instrumentation, Medical Instrumentation and
Healthcare Systems, and Industrial Instrumentation.

Small Business Innovation Research Initiative (SBIRI)

The DBT through SBIRI supports high-societal-relevance projects ranging from
high-risk, preproof-of-concept research to late-stage development in small- and
medium-scale companies led by innovators with science background.

Other promotional programs

Several R&D projects have been initiated and/or supported by the Ministry of
Information Technology through Technology Development Council, the National
Radar Council, the National Microelectronics Council, and Electronic Materials
Development Council. Funding R&D in Electronics in industry (FRIEND) is one more
such initiative.

For peaceful applications of atomic energy and for generating technologies in atomic
energy and nuclear energy, the Department of Atomic Energy has established hori-
zontal linkages with industry. Power generation equipment and radiopharmaceutical
and radioimmunoassay kits for nuclear medicine are examples of such linkages. Sev-
eral spin-off technologies from the department have been transferred to both private
and public sectors in the areas of electronics, nuclear and radiation instruments,
superconductivity, robotics, computers, lasers, electron beam welding, high vacuum
and plasma systems, chemical and metallurgical processes, biosciences, etc.

The Department of Space has transferred over 200 technologies from 1983 to 1997,
and through its Sponsored Research (RESPOND) program, the Indian space pro-
gram has supported 300 research projects at 80 institutions, including universities,
IITs, national laboratories, regional engineering colleges, and public sector indus-
tries. The Department of Space through its commercial venture “Antrix Corporation
Ltd” transfers technology and provides consultancy services in India and export of
space products and services.

The Ministry of Environment & Forests operates several research programs such as
Man and Biosphere, Environmental Research Program, Action Oriented Research
Programme for Eastern and Western Ghats, and Climate Change.

The Ministry of New and Renewable Energy, Department of Mines, and Ministry of
Steel are other ministries that have instituted programs and initiatives to promote
and support new technologies and R&D.

The following table, Table 5.2, gives an overview of the innovation budgets of the
main departments and agencies of the Government of India as reported in a mini
country report on India by INNO-Policy TrendChart with ERAWATCH. Except for the
DST, the DSIR, and the DBT, formal announcements of innovation policy measures
have not been made by government departments, although various departments
and ministries are involved in innovation and commercialization of research-related
activities. Individual innovation program budget estimates are available for these
departments, but an overall budget estimate for innovation is not available (Krishna,
2011).

Table 5.2. Innovation Budgets of the Main Departments and Agencies of the Gov-
ernment of India

Name of the Organiza- Number of Staff Re- Innovation Budget Estimated Share of
tion sponsible for Innova- Managed Budget Earmarked for
tion Measures (% of Specific Policy Mea-
Total) sures
Department of Science 10% 15% of total budget About 5% of total bud-
and Technology (DST) get
http://www.dst.gov.in/
Department of Sci- 12% 15% of total budget About 10% of total bud-
entific and Industri- get
al Research (DSIR)
http://dsir.nic.in/
Department of 5% 20% of total budget About 10% of total bud-
Biotechnology (DBT) get
http://dbtin-
dia.nic.in/index.asp
Indian Space Re- 20% 25% of total budget NA
search Organisation,
Department of Space
http://www.isro.org/
Department of Atomic 15% NA NA
Energy
http://www.dae.gov.in/
Department of 10% 10% 3–4%
Telecommunications
http://www.dot.gov.in/
Ministry of New and 5% 20% 15%
Renewable Energy
http://www.mnre.gov.in/
Department of 5% 20% About 10%
Information
Technology
http://www.mit.gov.in/
National Innovation 40% 60% About 25%
Foundation (NIF)
http://www.nif.org.in/
Ministry of Health 3% 15% 10%
and Family Welfare
http://mohfw.nic.in/

Figure 5.1 gives a pictorial description of various government departments involved

in R&D and innovation. Although the government has been playing a proactive role
in R&D in India, it has to take steps to increase R&D efforts and the impact of public
R&D expenditures and to strengthen commercialization of knowledge in order to
fully exploit India's R&D potential.

Figure 5.1. Key public institutions involved in R&D and R&D expenditure
2003–2004.Source: Dahlman et al. (2007).

Some of the actions suggested by Dahlman et al. (2007) and Krishna (2011) in this
direction are:

(i) reviewing existing Early-Stage Technology Development (ESTD) programs so

as to introduce measures to consolidate and expand such programs;
(ii) increasing resources for civilian research as most of the public R&D is not
civilian-oriented;
(iii) providing more support for university R&D;

(iv)
strengthening initiatives to commercialize publicly funded R&D by setting up(v)
a robust technology transfer mechanism for pubic R&D institutions and for
promoting mobility between public R&D labs, universities, and industry;
replicating the success of Software Technology Parks of India (STPI) and setting(vi)
up more technology parks and incubators for other industries;
creating an appropriate institutional environment for innovation within min- (vii)
istries and departments by increasing number of staff members devoted
to innovation and related activities and implementing appropriate human
resource development policies;
introducing risk capital and venture capital funds for innovation across various(viii)
R&D and S&T institutions;
creating and supporting a global industrial partnership program.

> Read full chapter

Interrelationships in China and India's

software industries
JOHN MCMANUS, ... DEEPENDRA MOITRA, in China and India, 2007

Role of the government and organisations in Bangalore

In contrast with China's government-driven approach to IT development, the Indian
government has been less interventional: ‘until 1991–1992, there was virtually no
policy support at all for the software sector. Even the term “benign neglect” would
be too positive a phrase to use in this connection.’18 But the government did
facilitate the industry by creating infrastructure support. The Software Technology
Parks (STP) scheme introduced by the Department of Electronics (DoE) in the early
1990s insured that the infrastructure and administrative support for exporting were
available in India, and therefore the STP scheme facilitated a gradual shift away from
on-site to offshore service provision in the 1990s.

The roles played by NASSCOM have been critical for the development of the Ban-
galore cluster: it has successfully brought together businesses and the government,
addressed the common needs of all the businesses such as infrastructure, overseas
connections etc. The active role of NASSCOM in shaping policy distinguishes the
software industry from the computer hardware and other older Indian industries.
NASSCOM has been influential in shaping the DoE strategy of working with software
companies to provide critical infrastructure, while explicitly avoiding more detailed
regulation or intervention. For example, the DoE's decision to organise the STPI
program as an autonomous unit and eventually to privatise it has been influenced
by the lobbying of NASSCOM.19

> Read full chapter

Science Parks: A Triumph of Hype over

Experience?
John Phillimore, Richard Joseph, in The International Handbook on Innovation, 2003

Rationales for Science Parks

Massey et al. (1992 p. 21,) list three main classes of science park objectives: economic
development, local benefits, and transfer of technology. Castells & Hall (1994 p.
224,) amend these slightly in listing three motivations for the establishment of
technopoles (their generic term for science and technology parks): reindustrializa-
tion, regional development, and the creation of synergies.

The first two of these objectives are fairly straightforward, and could alternatively be
described as technology development and urban or regional renewal respectively.
The third aim is less clear. At its narrowest, it could be seen simply as the promotion
of technology transfer from universities to companies. However, Castells & Hall
describe it in more detail as ‘the generation of new and valuable information through
human intervention’ to the extent that an ‘innovative milieu’, which generates con-
stant innovation, is created and sustained (Castells & Hall, 1994 p. 224).

In the U.K., with the onset of urban decline in many cities in the 1980s, the second
of these three motivations was predominant. Local authorities and universities
established science parks as a form of urban redevelopment. In other countries,
decentralization of economic and technological activities was an important aim. In
both Japan and Korea, for example, the national government's ambition to shift activ-
ities away from Tokyo and Seoul respectively was a strong factor in determining the
direction (and subsequent location) of science park developments in those countries.
This involved a policy that required particular government research agencies to move
from the capital and become core tenants in regional science parks (Castells & Hall,
1994; Shin, 2001).

In Australia by contrast, the first motivation was more prominent, with technology
park development in the 1980s being an integral aspect of government (high)
technology policy in many States. This was partly due to the relative absence of the
urban problems facing Britain, but also because of the greater role undertaken by
State governments in developing technology parks in Australia. These governments
had a responsibility for, and interest in, industry development.

In all countries, however, technology transfer has been an avowed aim of science
park development—in particular, the encouragement of knowledge transfer from
universities and government research institutions to the commercial sector. How-
ever, Castells & Hall's more comprehensive notion of knowledge and information
networking was, until relatively recently at least, less evident. The language and ra-
tionale behind most parks tended instead to reflect a uni-directional flow of research
emanating from universities and being commercialized by park-based companies.
Measuring the extent of technology transfer from university and research centers
to park-based companies has formed the core of most academic assessments of
science park performance—and of most of the criticism of this performance.

A further rationale for the establishment of science parks has been their real estate
potential. As property-based ventures, the real estate component of science parks
is ever-present, especially in privately owned and managed parks where generating
income through rent and property sales is crucial to the park's (and the manager's)
commercial future. This may necessitate a relaxation of ‘selection’ criteria for park
tenants (i.e. allowing tenants without a commitment to R&D or an interest in
accessing nearby universities or research centers) (Westhead, 1997 p. 57,). Indeed,
it has been argued that science parks can too easily become glorified business
parks, attracting firms for reasons of prestige and image rather than any substantive
benefits in terms of linkages with university research (Shearmur & Doloreux, 2000
p. 1067,). Westhead (1997 p. 57,) considers that ‘property-based initiatives which
link with a local HEI (higher education institution) for solely promotional reasons do
the Science Park movement a disservice’, and that science park associations should
be stricter in applying conditions to those parks wishing to use the ‘science park’
label. But such moves will clash with pressures to improve the commercial success
of science parks.

Image and prestige are not only of concern to companies considering locating on a
science park. They are also very important to park owners and sponsors, especially
governments, who are keen to demonstrate their commitment to modern tech-
nology development through showcase developments such as science parks. From
this perspective, science parks can be seen as a ‘place marketing’ tool, promoting
the virtues of a certain location in competition with other localities trying to entice
inward investment to the park. The competition may be intra- or inter-metropolitan,
and may or may not result in a net increase in investment for the state or country
in which the science park is located. As a consequence, it has been argued that ‘the
popularity of science parks may be more fruitfully analyzed from this local political
perspective than from a more aggregate perspective’ (Shearmur & Doloreux, 2000
p. 1079,).
In assessing the effectiveness of science parks and the extent to which they are
meeting their objectives, it is important to keep in mind these various possible
rationales behind their establishment.

> Read full chapter

Qatar
S.R. Salman, in International Encyclopedia of Education (Third Edition), 2010

Performance Monitoring, Evaluation, and Research

The general education quality indicators are monitored by governmental agencies,
such as the Planning Council (GSDP), MoE, and SEC. At present, all independent
schools and their performance and programs are evaluated by the Evaluation Insti-
tute. All those evaluation and assessments programs are based on data gathered by
different agencies such as SEC, MoE, and Qatar Bureau of Statistics. Educational
research is carried out either by the MoE or SEC.

Research programs at QU and QF universities are funded by government grants

and private companies. Two years ago, the QF created priority-research initiative and
developed an ambitious program. The Emir of Qatar allocated 2.8% of the GDP for
research. The QF stated that “Research is an essential component in QF strategy to
make EC a world-class center for innovative education. QF Research, Science and
Technology Division, with EC branch campuses and Research Centers, is aiming at
pursuing cutting-edge research and development.” The QF mission is “to organize
Research around core platforms of Medicine, Biotechnology, Information and Com-
munication Technologies, Environmental Sciences, Energy, Molecular Sciences and
Nanotechnology. Qatar Science & Technology Park QSTP will be an incubator for
private companies to partner with government agencies and academic institutions
to develop research for commercial applications.”

Increasingly, overall system performance is judged using international and national

performance indicators. Dropouts from schools range between 1.3% and 2.1%
for females in primary schools compared to 1.3–8.7% for males. For preparatory
years, the percentage ranges between 1.9% and 2.6% for females and 4.7–5.5% for
males. For secondary schools, the percentage increases for both genders; so, for
the females, it ranges from 3.7% to 7.3% and 8.6–13.0% for males. For secondary
religious, trade, and industrial schools (only for males), it ranges from 14.3% to
20.8%.
The Evaluation Institute carries out student assessment using four elements: a na-
tional test of student’s achievement, a process for regular administration, a process
for monitoring of these tests, and a process for producing reports on student’s
achievement at the national, school, and individual level. Student assessment is done
according to a system known as Qatar Student Assessment System (QSAS). The SEC
developed new curriculum standards for Qatar in Arabic, English, mathematics, and
science. Students in night and illiteracy schools totaled 3271 in 1998, and 3041 in
2004.

All universities at the QF are accredited. In the case of professional schools at the
QU, the College of Engineering received the Accreditation Board for Engineering
and Technology (ABET), in 2005, for four of its programs; most colleges and depart-
ments at QU are, at present, working toward applicable accreditation in their fields.
The College of Business and Economics is, at present, nearing completion of its
accreditation by the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business AACSB.

> Read full chapter

Advancing Theory and Practice of

Smart Specialization: Key Messages
Slavo Radosevic, in Advances in the Theory and Practice of Smart Specialization, 2017

Challenge of Identifying Country- and Region-Specific Sources

of Technological Opportunities
Second, the overall design and procedures of SS formally encourage identification of
region- and country-specific sources of new technological opportunities. In fact, it
is at the core of SS to encourage regions and countries to reexamine their approach
to R&D and innovation. The process of SS is designed in a way that it can be
applied in all types of regions; from the most developed to the least innovative.
The entrepreneurial discovery process is perceived as a mechanism that can ac-
commodate different technology-upgrading challenges. Indeed, as demonstrated
in the case of Scandinavian regions (see Chapter 4) competitive advantage through
SS can be promoted in all types of industries based on the industry-specific modes
of innovation and knowledge bases. Asheim et al. (Chapter 4) show the importance
of both STI mode of innovation, as well as of the experience-based innovation
implemented by DUI mode. So, nominally SS shows how a policy that goes beyond
“one size fits all” models can be applied to accommodate the needs and potential of
heterogeneous European regions.
However, it seems that the identification of region- and country-specific opportu-
nities has been much more of a challenge in less-developed countries and regions.
In Southern Europe, past and current funding goes overwhelmingly to ubiquitously
improved scientific infrastructure and scientific output in less-favored regions (see
Chapter 6 by Tsipouri). This has led to several scientific Pockets of Excellence built
over the past years in this area, which are currently challenged to find the best way
of commercializing that knowledge.

In both the East and the South of the European Union, significant research
infrastructure has been built or is in the process of being built. A nonnegligible
number of Research Centers of Excellence, Centers for Collaborative Research, a
Network of Technological Centers, and Technology Parks have been created; al-
though in a context of limited demand for their knowledge and services. These
potential strengths appear disconnected from the productive system. This is leading
or has already resulted in dual R&D and innovation systems: government-financed
and basic research oriented academic R&D systems verses less dynamic business
sectors with limited demand for academic R&D (see Chapter 12 by Karo et al. and
Chapter 6 by Tsipouri).

The linear R&D model of technology upgrading, which is implicit in policies focused
on triple-helix actors, captures only a part of the spectrum of technology-upgrading
activities. Elsewhere, we show the differing nature of innovation activities in the EU
core and periphery (Radosevic, 2016). For example, the share of R&D in innovation
expenditures in the European Union “North” (developed European Union) is 73%,
while in the EU South and East it is 39% (2010–12). In addition, the shares of the
business sector in 2013 were 61, 39, and 35% in the EU North, EU South, and EU
East, respectively (ibid., 2016).

The strong R&D focus and neglect of non-R&D innovation can be explained by the
fact that academic interests seem to have been better organized, while business
participation has usually been weaker and uneven (see Chapter 12 by Karo et al.).
SS processes led by ministries or regional agencies for R&D are more likely to result
in academic bias and “science push”–based approaches (see Chapter 12). However,
this is also due to the neglect of the SS rules and guidelines to take differences in
drivers of growth across regions and countries much more into account. Lin points
out in Chapter 8 that a different specialization/strategy is needed at varying stages
of development. Finally, this is the core assumption of both the neo-Schumpeterian
approach as elaborated by Lee in Chapter 9 and of the Schumpeterian approach of
Aghion et al. (2011) (see Chapter 2). A new approach should be much more explicit
regarding the differences in technology-upgrading challenges across EU28 regions.
This should bring into focus-neglected types of innovation, such as practice-based
innovation, engineering, workplace innovation, and management practices as the
source of firm-level productivity improvements.
 Hence, the umbrella role of the entrepreneurial discovery process, as a mechanism
promising to embrace a variety of different technology-upgrading paths, should be
supplanted. It should be replaced by a much more explicit recognition, inspired
by Schumpeterian and neo-Schumpeterian theory, that the countries’ and regions’
differing distances from the technology frontier strongly affect the scope and type
of their innovation and industrial policies. Lin’s typology (see Chapter 8) is quite
illustrative for less-developed EU regions, as it is based on an industry’s distance to
the global technological frontier and points to the different facilitating roles of policy
in each of the five paths.

> Read full chapter

ScienceDirect is Elsevier’s leading information solution for researchers.

Copyright © 2018 Elsevier B.V. or its licensors or contributors. ScienceDirect ® is a registered trademark of Elsevier B.V. Terms and conditions apply.