Since the mid-1990s, the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy (MOTIE) has been supporting technoparks to realize the success of Silicon Valley in Korea. Moreover, a number of related highly-funded policy programs were developed in response to the po...
Since the mid-1990s, the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy (MOTIE) has been supporting technoparks to realize the success of Silicon Valley in Korea. Moreover, a number of related highly-funded policy programs were developed in response to the political appeal of hardware installation.
This study analyzes 18 technoparks established nationwide according to the designation of MOTIE and the ‘Act On Special Cases Concerning Support For Technoparks’, and related policies. It will first explore the factors formulated in the period of pre-policy stage (1966-1993) and subsequently influenced the technopark policy. Next the study examines the process of the technopark policy in Korea by dividing the period into three: the period of technopark policy ideas formation (1994-1995), the period of concrete policy formation (1996-1998), and the period of policy implementation (1999-2012).
This study on Korean technopark policy was conducted according to qualitative research progresses. As for the analysis framework, this study used the framework used by Dolowitz & Marsh (1996), based on the fact that technoparks are a typical policy transfer case. In addition, this study supplemented the analysis framework by adopting a new institutionalism perspective based on the comprehensive path-dependence described by North (1990). The main variables include (1) foreign policy sources, (2) policy situations, (3) actor variables, and (4) institutional variables. This study examines the process in which Korean technopark policies are formulated through the complex interactions between variables from (1) to (4).
In order to supplement previous research on technoparks, this study aimed to answer the following research questions. First, why did MOTIE try to take the initiative in technopark policy from the Ministry of Science and Technology, and how was it possible? Second, as Korean technopark policies are different from foreign cases, what variables influenced the policy process? Third, what are the promotional and restrictive factors of Korean technopark policies?
The results of the research are as follows: First, MOTIE enacted the ‘Industial Development Act’ in 1986, abolishing 7 laws supporting industry and developing policies exceeding direct and discriminative measures to support industries. MOTIE highlighted the development of application technology for industrial support in the late 1980s, and succeeded in converting the single research and development system directed by the Ministry of Science and Technology into a shared one.
In 1995, WTO was launched while the technoparks were spreading globally in the period of technopark policy ideas formation (1994-1995). As technological competition intensified, enhancement of technological competitiveness became a large task. In addition, MOTIE was faced with a policy situation where demand for regional development was increasing as the local self-govenment system resumed in the early 1990s. However, MOTIE was no longer able to use discriminative industry support measures. Eventually MOTIE was able to lead the technopark policy transfer by securing the consensus of related ministries to comply with global norms and accepting regional development.
Second, in the period of concrete policy formation (1996-1998), there was a continuous demand for high technology competition as well as for regional development. In 1997, the Asian Financial Crisis swept Korea, and as a response a new policy to promote startup businesses was introduced to transform the structure of domestic industry, later influencing the formulation of technopark policies. MOTIE, recognizing that foreign technoparks were also not just successes but failures as well, pursued emulation of the policies of countries such as Japan and USA, bearing in mind the domestic situations. In the process of policy transfer, the interactions between foreign policy sources, policy situations, actor variables, and institutional variables was analyzed as following:
First, the organization responsible for the creation and operation of technoparks in Korea would take the form of a third-sector foundation corporation. This was largely due to MOTIE’s desire to mobilize and rally policy actors such as local governments and universities. Next, most of the domestic technoparks would take the form of small complexes, mainly due to policy competition with the Ministry of Science and Technology and budget constraints from the Ministry of Strategy and Finance. The complexes include university campus type, industrial complex type, and mixed type. This was also the result of the policy allowing competition among local governments, giving them the rights to choose and apply the complexes. It was also not possible to adopt a preferential treatment for research institutes of foreign enterprises based on the Hsinchu Science Park in Taiwan due to lukewarm responses from policy actors. On the other hand, support measures not found in Japan or other countries were included. A typical case can be found in the enforcement of the foundation system for the technopark corporation, largely supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology and MOTIE.
Third, 18 technoparks have been established nationwide in the period of policy implementation (1999-2012) with about 1,700 companies in operation, and technoparks rising to the region’s central organization. This shows the technopark policy in Korea has achieved successful results from MOTIE’s policy support and the local participants’ commitment. However, the technopark in Korea has gradually become bureacratic causing limitations in autonomy and creativity, the essential figures of a technopark. The policy legacy of the Ministry of Science and Technology, the foundation corporation system is a fundamental cause of the tendency of the Korean technopark towards becoming bureacratic and path dependence still in the present day.
The policy implications of this study are as follows: Policy transfer through emulation of foreign policies affects the policy performance positively. Policy competition among ministries can serve as a motivation for new ideas. It is pointed out that the merits of a particular policy can turn into a great obstacle over time. On the other hand, policy actors tend to pursue change only within existing policies and institutions. Furthermore, policy makers should be aware that as the number of stakeholders in a specific policy increases due to path-dependence, it makes policy innovation more difficult.
The result of the study shows that Korean technopark policy process can be successfully explained through an analysis framework applying a policy transfer framework and new institutionalism. The analysis framework used in this study is expected to be useful in the future for studying policy transfer cases through emulation of foreign policies.