A Place for R&D? The Singapore Science Park - NUS - Home

Urban Studies, Vol. 40, No. 4, 707–732, 2003

A Place for R&D? The Singapore Science Park

Su-Ann Mae Phillips and Henry Wai-chung Yeung

[Paper first received, July 2001; in final form, July 2002]

Summary. In the context of the globalisation of R&D activities, many urban and regionaleconomies have attempted to create specific places in the hope of developing and embedding theseactivities. In this paper, it is argued that it is insufficient for such places to provide just physicalinfrastructure and investment benefits. Understanding actor-specific strategies and their enrol-ment in innovation networks and enabling institutional pre-conditions are equally important inembedding R&D activities. Based on a study of one such place—the Singapore Science Park—this paper explores the realities of science park formation. It is found that adequate institutionalthickness and local embeddedness apply only to a small number of R&D firms in the Park. Thepaper also examines the myth that spatial proximity to R&D institutions and organisationsautomatically results in collaborative R&D efforts. The study shows that, for science parks to bemore than a form of glorified property development, there is an urgent need for a fundamentaltransformation in the prevailing thinking of economic planning, R&D policies and urbandevelopment.

1. Introduction

The contemporary urban landscape in manyadvanced industrialised economies is oftenfilled with property developments that aim tofoster a relentless drive towards the informa-tional and high-tech society. These projectsof urban development focus on developingendogenous capacity in innovative activitiesthrough supporting high-tech start-up busi-nesses and their research collaborations withrelevant educational and public research in-stitutions. In the context of the acceleratedglobalisation of research and development(R&D) activities during the past two decades(Cantwell, 1995; 1998; Simon, 1995;

Dicken, 1998; Pearce, 1999), many suchprojects also cater to grounding transnationalflows of R&D investments orchestrated byglobal corporations to tap into wider pools ofspecialised resources and to share costs thatare attractively accessible in different citiesand regions.1

In the urban studies literature, such prop-erty developments have a plethora of names,including enterprise zones, business parks,technology parks, research parks, innovationparks and science parks. In this paper, sci-ence parks are of particular interest becauseof their explicit aims to foster the develop-

Su-Ann Mae Phillips is in the Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore, 460 Alexandra Road, PSA Building, No. 18–00, Singapore119963. E-mail: Su-Ann Mae [email protected]. Henry Wai-chung Yeung is in the Department of Geography, National Universityof Singapore, 1 Arts Link, Singapore 117570. Fax: 65 6777 3091. E-mail: [email protected]. The authors would like to thank alltheir interviewees for sharing with them their insights into Singapore’s Science Park. Mrs Lee Li Kheng kindly drew Figure 2 forthe authors. Three anonymous referees of Urban Studies offered very helpful comments on the earlier version of the paper. None ofthem, however, should be responsible for any errors or mistakes in this paper.

0042-0980 Print/1360-063X On-line/03/040707–26 2003 The Editors of Urban StudiesDOI: 10.1080/0042098032000065263

SU-ANN MAE PHILLIPS AND HENRY WAI-CHUNG YEUNG708

ment of innovative new companies and theirR&D activities in an urban setting.2 Thedefinitions of science parks are elusive asthere are a variety of terms used by differentauthors and organisations. For example,Massey et al. (1992, p. 14) noted that the UKScience Park Association (UKSPA) definesscience parks as initiatives that

—have formal operational links with auniversity;

—encourage on-site formation and growthof knowledge-based businesses; and

—manage the transfer of technology andbusiness skills to on-site businesses.

Some organisations prefer a more functionalbut open-ended definition. Defined by theSingapore Science Council (1987)—the pre-decessor of the National Science and Tech-nology Board—a science park should havethe objective of accommodating whollyR&D-oriented organisations and operationswhose activities and/or manufacture of tech-nology include a substantial amount of R&D.By neither defining what is meant by“accommodating” nor what are “substantialamounts of R&D”, this kind of statementgives much leeway for planners to manipu-late.

One major problem confronting the analy-sis of science parks as a place for innovativeactivities, however, is the question of spatialscale. Some authors refer science parks to theconstruction of cities (for example, Inkster,1991), while others situate science parks inregions or clusters or corridors (for example,Broadbent, 1989). Still, some recent litera-ture considers learning and innovation as amultiscalar process that go beyond a singularscale of analysis (Bunnell and Coe, 2001;MacKinnon et al., 2002). For example,technopoles, described by Castells and Hall(1994) as a form of planned development of“innovation milieux”, can be divided intothree types of development at different spa-tial scales: regional industrial complexes ofhigh technology firms (such as Silicon Val-ley); science cities that are strictly researchcomplexes (such as the creation of Taedok inSouth Korea); and, intraurban technology

parks that are deliberately created to estab-lish high-tech businesses resulting fromgovernment or university-related initiatives.In this paper, the intraurban scale is usedsuch that a science park refers to an urbanproperty development with explicit aims toprovide an amenable physical place for thecommercialisation of new ideas and knowl-edge resulting from R&D activities. Put sim-ply, a science park is meant to be a place forR&D within an urban context.

Curiously, policy and academic interest inscience parks has declined somewhat in the1990s, partly because the broader urban andregional structures in which science parks areembedded are recognised as far more import-ant determinants of local economic develop-ment (Gertler et al., 2000; Bunnell and Coe,2001; see also Hudson, 1999; Sternberg andArndt, 2001). By the same token, the urbangovernance literature has moved beyondplace-specific hegemonic projects to investi-gate the rescaling of broader political andinstitutional structures (Harvey, 1989; Good-win and Painter, 1996; Brenner, 1999;MacLeod and Goodwin, 1999; MacLeod,2001). This research into the nature and ex-tent of R&D activities in the Singapore Sci-ence Park, however, offers two potentiallyimportant insights into the role of spatialscale and the effectiveness of state-driveninitiatives in high-tech development. First,the fact that Singapore is simultaneously anation-state (national scale) and a global city(urban scale) with a territorial size of about647 sq km points to a highly exceptional casein our understanding of science parks as aproperty development embedded in broaderurban and regional structures. Conceived inscalar terms, the Singapore Science Parkepitomises the national/urban drive towardsexcellence in research and technology, thecommercial interest of a particular govern-ment-linked property developer and theR&D activities of tenant firms (foreign andlocal). This juxtaposition of different spatialscales (national-urban-developer-firms) inthe production and evolution of the Singa-pore Science Park allows for an analysis ofthe complex interplay between national/ur-

A PLACE FOR R&D? 709

ban economic policies and firm-specificstrategies in (dis)enabling the role of scienceparks as a place for R&D activities. In thissense, one might expect significant differ-ences in the pattern of innovative R&D activ-ities between the Singapore Science Park andother science parks elsewhere that are em-bedded in wider regional innovation systems.For example, given the focal role of the Parkin Singapore’s national science and technol-ogy plan, one would expect high levels oflocalised interaction among tenants, high in-tensity of R&D activities and significant syn-ergies through spatial proximity.

Secondly, unlike its counterparts else-where in industrialised economies, the Singa-pore Science Park represents a deliberate andstate-driven attempt to attract the location ofR&D activities by global corporations(Laffitte, 1985; Wong, 1995; Goh, 1998).Aiming to create specific places for capturingglobalising R&D activities, the Singaporegovernment has contributed to the Park’sformation through various initiatives to gen-erate agglomeration economies for R&D ac-tivities (for example, superior physicalinfrastructure, generous financial incentivesand the nearby location of universities andresearch institutes). These initiatives arepredicated on specific assumptions about thespatiality of innovation inherent in the sci-ence park model: that R&D activities typi-cally cluster in geographically favourablelocations; that there should be spatial conti-guity or closeness between those elements ofthe innovation process located in the sciencepark and the academe; and, that major pro-duction facilities should not be located in thePark. One would imagine that such agglom-eration economies and cluster advantagesmight be better enhanced through deliberategovernment policies at the national scale, asevident in Singapore’s relative success inindustrialising the nation (see Rodan, 1989;Chiu et al., 1997; Perry et al., 1997; Low,1998). There is, however, now increasingrecognition in the literature that the empiricalcoincidence of universities and high-technol-ogy industry does not necessarily implydense patterns of linkage (see Sternberg,

1999; Gertler et al., 2000). Saxenian criti-cally noted that

Spatial clustering alone does not createmutually beneficial interdependencies. Anindividual system may be geographicallyagglomerated, and yet have limited ca-pacity for adaptation. This is overwhelm-ingly a function of organisationalstructure, not of technology, or firm size(Saxenian, 1994, p. 161).

In their extensive study of UK science parksduring the 1980s and the 1990s, Massey etal. (1992, p. 42) observed “a strong ware-housing and sales orientation” of those al-leged R&D firms in science parks. Someestablishments were essentially “marketingunits” and others merely “marketed bought-in hardware and software with minimalmodification by the park firm”. One parkcompany even admitted being “a commercialoperation with no innovation … effectively asales’ office”. Not all establishments charac-terised themselves as “leading edge” andsoftware-oriented firms tended to be main-stream producers of applications, rather thanthose being involved in the R&D of soft-ware.

In Singapore, most policy research intoscience parks takes them as examples oflearning experiences and therefore runs thedanger of treating firms and actors as passiveentities responding positively to the plannersof these places (for example, Wang, 1994;Wong, 1995; Ang and Teo, 1997). Some ofthese studies take a policy-evaluation view-point to prescribe ‘essential ingredients’ for ascience park. They sometimes revealconflicting results, again reflecting the differ-ent possibilities of a park. For example,Muthusamy (1988) shows how tenants inSingapore place more emphasis on thefinancial and social environment. In contrast,tenants in UK science parks place more em-phasis on such abstract attributes as prestige.Yong (1984) traces the locational factors thatattract tenants to the Singapore Park andnotes that having an intellectual base and anucleus of scientific activity are more im-portant than the aesthetic appeal or support


services of a park. Others are interested inmathematically formulating its propertymanagement (Lim, 1995) or the role of mar-keting in creating demand for R&D spaceswithin it (Chin, 1991; Phua, 1993). One com-mon problem in these studies is their as-sumption that with some pre-determinedfactors, R&D activities in the Singapore Sci-ence Park could be enhanced and the Parkwould succeed.

This exploratory paper aims to explain thenature and extent of R&D activities amongtenants in the Singapore Science Park and toevaluate these activities in relation to the‘innovative milieu’ of the Park. While thePark and tenant firms are taken as the mainunit/scale of analysis, this is not withoutcognisance of the multiscalar processes andnetworks in which the Park and its tenantsare embedded. Based on an analysis of em-pirical results from corporate surveys andinterviews with tenants in the Singapore Sci-ence Park3, it is argued that the evidencedoes not fully support the popular myth ofthe science park model that the synergies ofR&D culture in a place will certainly rise upwith a suitable location and an impressiveproperty development, peppered with thickinstitutions and benefits and incentives. Theempirical findings show that, even though theSingapore Science Park fulfils many of thesepositive criteria, the extent of R&D activitiesand collaboration among tenant firms tendsto be relatively low. Their embeddedness inthe institutional fabric of the Park is alsorather shallow. These findings reflect thePark as little more than a form of glorifiedproperty development in one of the mostoutward-oriented global cities. More impor-tantly, they show the urgent need to go be-yond science-park-specific (local) factors inassessing the R&D activities of tenant firmsbecause a narrow focus on these factors andconditions within such localised territorialensembles as science parks tends to overlookthe broader linkages and interrelationshipscross-cutting different spatial scales of R&Dactivities. To place science parks within theirappropriate “spaces of innovation” (Bunnelland Coe, 2001, p. 577), it is necessary to

explore the non-local/decentralised networksthrough which actors such as tenant firmsengage in R&D activities with other firmselsewhere (see, for example, the case of Tai-wan’s Hsinchu High Tech Park in Hsu andSaxenian, 2000; Saxenian and Hsu, 2001).These non-local innovation networks mayexplain the relatively low level of R&D ac-tivities in the Singapore Science Park. In thisway, place may be conceptualised as a“product of the networks, interactions, juxta-positions and articulations of the myriad ofconnections” through which “social phenom-ena are lived out” (Allen et al., 1998, p. 50).

This paper is organised into four mainsections. The next section highlights thetheoretical foundations of the study. After abrief discussion of the origin of the Singa-pore Science Park, the nature of R&D activi-ties among firms in the Singapore SciencePark are investigated. The penultimate sec-tion discusses the relevance of institutionalthickness and local embeddedness in promot-ing the Park and sheds light on the relation-ship between spatial proximity and firmsynergies. The concluding section discussessome implications of the findings for R&Dplanning and policy.

2. Unpacking Science Parks as a Place forR&D Activities

To understand why science parks are con-ceived by their planners and advocates as aplace for R&D activities, it is necessary tounpack the different ‘logics’ and rationalityof actors participating in their formation andthe complex interaction among these actors.This analytical focus on science parks doesnot necessarily imply a theoretical departurefrom the multiscalar conceptualisation of in-novative activities. Rather, through the ana-lytical lens of science parks, it may bepossible to appreciate better the ways inwhich spatial scales matter in the construc-tion and promotion of innovative activities.Figure 1 presents such a theoretical frame-work to analyse the formation of scienceparks in relation to actors and processes op-erating at different spatial scales. To begin,


Figure 1. A theoretical framework for analysing science park formation.

science parks are conceptualised as spatiallydelimited places for R&D activities. Theframework shows the binding forces that en-able such actors as firms, research scientistsand engineers (RSEs), and other institutionsto coalesce in specific territorial ensemblesknown as science parks. Two major groupsof actors are recognised, together with theirstrategic rationality and efforts.

Non-local actors refer to various cross-national or even global stakeholders who willpotentially benefit from science park forma-tion in different urban and regional econom-ies: R&D firms, global corporations,innovation networks and international re-search institutions. These actors have accessto strategic resources and assets that cross-cut differentiated networks at various spatialscales. Successful global corporations, forexample, are capable of taking advantage oftheir home-country characteristics (such astechnological sophistication, abundant capi-tal, corporate governance and supplier net-works) and blending their local operations toexploit host-ountry variations in local knowl-edge, business networks and so on (see Bar-lett and Ghoshal, 1989; Dicken et al., 1994;Nohria and Ghoshal, 1997; Doremus et al.,1998). These non-local actors are interestedin science park formation insofar as these

parks facilitate their extra-local R&D activi-ties and other strategic imperatives (such asmarketing and information-gathering initia-tives).

Local actors, on the other hand, vary withthe specific science parks in question. Gener-ally, they comprise firms in the host urbanand/or regional economies, government insti-tutions and research organisations. These ac-tors are ‘local’ to the extent that they havethe resources and institutional will to partici-pate directly in the creation of science parksas a place for R&D activities. These re-sources and institutions are often locally de-pendent because of their embeddedness inlocalised norms, conventions, practices andrules (see Cox and Mair, 1998; Cox, 1988).These localised relations, in turn, determinetheir rationales and efforts to create R&Dplaces (represented in Figure 1 by the circu-lar lines connecting local actors with theirrationales and efforts). To government agen-cies and research institutions, science parksare often rationalised as a critical physicalsetting to promote indigenous R&D capabili-ties and to spearhead urban and regionaleconomic growth. Early conceptualisationsof innovation diffusion and growth-pole the-ory point to a direct relationship betweenR&D activities and regional development


(Higgins and Savole, 1987). Recent econ-omic theories of agglomeration and cluster-ing advantages explain why clusters areeconomically advantageous (Porter, 1990;1998; Ellison and Glaeser, 1999). In manyeconomies, the establishment of R&D placesprecedes an understanding of agglomerationand clustering dynamics. The rationales forattracting potential tenants in places vary, butthey mostly relate to the advantages of costsavings, convenience, proximity to marketsand suppliers, and the sharing of information(Westhead and Batstone, 1998).

The combined effects of sharing infor-mation, technology and facilities withinspecific territorial ensembles lend weight totheories on regional development—the de-velopment of places with specific functions(Storper, 1997; Cooke and Morgan, 1998;Scott, 1998; see also MacKinnon et al.,2002). More specifically, many scholars havehighlighted the emerging role of technologythat, together with capital, spearheads re-gional development (Gertler, 1987; Castells,1989; Castells and Hall, 1994; Erickson,1994). According to them, technology playsa self-reinforcing role in developing regionsthat respond to the rise of the informationaleconomy. The idea of planning and develop-ing science parks has strong underpinningsin this technology-driven view of urbanand regional development. Aptly called‘technopoles’ that are justified by growth-pole theories of urban and regional develop-ment, Castells (1996, p. 10) argued that the“processes of formation of innovation indus-trial milieux” might lead to a “truly dynamicregional or economic growth”. The preva-lence and location of the physical place maybe accounted for by this kind of economictheory. But the theory only explains whythese places exist; it does little to explainhow and why they develop and evolve overtime.

To elucidate further the complex forma-tion of science parks, it is necessary to recog-nise different layers of institutional thicknessand embeddedness through which such localand non-local actors as firms and institutionsmediate their strategic goals and rationality

in specific places (see also Yeung, 2000;Amin, 2001; Jessop, 2001; MacLeod, 2001).Referring to Figure 1, at the centre of interac-tions that mediate the realities of a sciencepark are the twin concepts of institutionalthickness and local embeddedness. Institu-tional thickness, according to Amin andThrift (1994, pp. 14–15), may be broadlyinterpreted in four dimensions: a strong, ob-vious institutional presence; high levels ofinteraction amongst institutions in a localarea; development of sharply defined struc-tures of interaction and coalition; and, mutualawareness of being involved in a commonenterprise. Despite its original application tothe regional scale of analysis, the concept‘institutional thickness’ can be utilised toexplain science park formation. This is be-cause science parks are embedded within thebroader urban and regional institutionalstructures (and, in Singapore’s case, the na-tional institutional structure). Figure 1 high-lights the role of local actors in contributingto the institutional thickness of particularscience parks. Collectively, they work to-gether to create an institutional context thatmay appear to be ‘thick’ and beneficial toboth local and non-local actors (such as R&Dfirms) so that they choose to locate theirR&D facilities and activities in the park. Inthis sense, institutional thickness may con-tribute to the territorialisation of firm activi-ties (see Dicken et al., 1994; Dicken andMalmberg, 2001).

Although institutional thickness maycapture the character of local agglomera-tions, Amin and Thrift (1994, p. 17) arguedthat there is a need to “problematise therelationship between institutional thicknessand economic development” because ofits “uneven geography of local developmentprospects and possibilities”. Further toproblematise this relationship is to introducethe idea of embeddedness within a place.Drawing upon Polanyi’s (1944) work,Granovetter argues that

the behaviour [of firms] and institutions tobe analyzed are so constrained by ongoingsocial relations that to construe them as


independent is a grievous misunderstand-ing (Granovetter, 1985, p. 482).

The argument here is that institutional thick-ness does not necessarily ensure the localembeddedness of R&D firms (local and non-local). In Figure 1, economic institutions(such as R&D firms) are conceived as em-bedded in wider social relations such thatthey are spatially bound by these relations intheir locational and organisational strategies,as well as constrained by the influence ofproximity in their R&D activities. Under-standing their economic geographies requiresmore than an analysis of economic and loca-tional factors. More importantly, it requiresan examination of the complex ways throughwhich these economic institutions are entan-gled in webs of social relationships and busi-ness networks that may cross-cut differentspatial scales and reach. Hence, these econ-omic institutions are conceptualised not asmerely economic machines responding to ex-ternal market and cost conditions (see alsoTomer, 1998), but rather as social construc-tions by individuals “whose action is bothfacilitated and constrained by the structureand resources available in the social net-works in which they are embedded” (Gra-novetter, 1991, p. 78).

For these theoretical reasons, the presentauthors believe that there is a need to under-stand tenants’ relationships and linkages inR&D places, as these have a significant im-pact on their R&D tendencies and propensi-ties (see also Turok, 1993; Leung and Wu,1995; Jasinski, 1997; Pavlınek and Smith,1997; Pearce, 1999; Lyons, 2000). FollowingZukin and DiMaggio (1990), it is recognisedthat actors are involved in the mediation ofembeddedness as institutions of collectivebargaining, policies, social balance and em-ployees’ willingness to tolerate change. Sim-ilarly, Dicken and Thrift (1992, p. 289) haveemphasised the “profound influences” trans-mitted by corporate organisations throughtheir networks of “intra- and inter-firm trans-actional relationships”. In Figure 1, R&Dfirms and/or global corporations are concep-tualised as integral to the formation of sci-

ence parks, whether these firms/corporationsare ‘domestic’ or ‘foreign’ to the scienceparks concerned. As non-local actors, thesefirms/corporations interact within the sameplace-setting with other local actors—namely, the host economy (urban and/or re-gional) and other tenants in the park. Here,both actors and places (dis)enable R&Dactivities as the result of their dynamicinteractions through the operations of normsand conventions—infamously known as“untraded interdependencies” after Storper(1997). Places that support R&D activitiesare in effect deliberately created localities toanchor global flows of R&D investment.This is exactly the kind of science park thatSingapore seems to be creating—one thatestablishes and promotes high-tech societiesas described by Castells and Hall (1994).

If, in the case of some science parks,places are deliberately constructed to developand anchor R&D activities (for example, spe-cial R&D facilities), it would seem that theability to construct and mediate realities isvery much dependent on the degree of insti-tutional thickness and local embeddedness.The host economy and institutions may use avariety of means to embed these tenants andin turn to create a favourable place for R&Dactivities. In Figure 1, benefits and incen-tives, facilities and infrastructures, and firmlinkages are conceived as potential mecha-nisms to embed R&D firms in specific sci-ence parks. Ultimately, however, whatdetermines the precise activities of tenants ina science park may go beyond their embed-dedness in the park. This paper examines theassertion that embedded tenants enable R&Dactivity. It is argued that the decision bytenant firms to increase R&D activities oftenlies beyond the scope of the host urban/re-gional economy, a reflection of the non-locallinkages in which these firms are involved.There is thus no necessary a priori relation-ship between a tenant’s decision to locate ina science park and his/her willing or evencapability to conduct R&D activities. Tenantfirms can be attracted to science parks for avariety of reasons that may not have anythingto do with R&D intention and activities.


Hence such terms as ‘institutionalflexibility’, ‘path dependency’ and ‘resist-ance’ are possible outcomes of these prob-lematic relationships (Dicken and Thrift,1992). It is these dynamic relationshipsamong firms, institutions and physical land-scapes within place-bound contexts that formthe key issues in the following empiricalsections.

3. Creating R&D Places: The SingaporeScience Park

The Singapore Science Park is a specificstate-driven exercise to bring R&D to Singa-pore. As a newly industrialised economy anddependent fast-follower of technology, Sin-gapore has invested significantly in R&Dsince the 1980s (Wong, 1995; Goh, 1998).Its national expenditure on R&D has beenincreasing steadily from 0.54 per cent ofGDP in 1984 to 1.47 per cent in 1997 and1.89 per cent in 2000 (http://www.a-star.gov.sg; accessed in July 2002). Table 1shows that Singapore’s R&D activities dur-ing the 1985–95 period were not too far fromthose in industrialised economies. Heraldingthe ‘Second Industrial Revolution’ in Singa-pore (Rodan, 1989), the year 1979 saw thefirst sign of establishing a national R&Dprogramme (The Business Times (Singa-pore), 8 June 1979). Singapore’s state philos-ophy was simple and clear: to prepare aconducive R&D environment that will helpSingapore to “maintain a competitive en-vironment” in the light of increasing compe-tition in the global economy (Ministry ofTrade and Industry, 1991, p. 60). From itsconception, the Singapore government dupli-cated the successfully tried-and-tested Singa-pore style of industrial estate development inJurong

(1) the nature of R&D according to guide-lines is development, or “mission-oriented” research (The Straits Times,14 September 1992);

(2) the directives will be government-led;and

(3) there will be a heavy reliance on for-eign R&D firms.

The establishment of such institutions as theNational Science and Technology Board(NSTB) was meant to support R&D activi-ties in Singapore.4

The National Technology Plan (NTP) in1991 maps out a technology corridor alongthe south-western area of Singapore in linewith the Strategic Economic Plan (Ministryof Trade and Industry, 1991). In Figure 2, theconcept plan for a technology corridor hascontributed to the spatial integration of sci-ence habitats, business parks and tertiary in-stitutions. There is thus nothing coincidentalabout the location of the Singapore SciencePark in this corridor. Figure 2 shows thelinks that the Park can share with tertiaryinstitutions and other major research institu-tions, as it is located within a 1 km radius ofthe National University of Singapore, theNational University Hospital and such re-search institutions as the Institute of SystemsScience and the Institute of Molecular andCell Biology. There is no doubt that the Parkcan potentially benefit from such geographi-cal advantages as physical proximity andagglomeration economies. Funding for R&Dhas frequently increased, with the latestfigures at S$2 billion annually for the 1996–2001 period, reflecting the Singapore’sgovernment commitment to R&D (TheStraits Times, 22 July 1996).5 In 1995, theNSTB targeted R&D expenditure to be at 2per cent of Singapore’s GDP, with the pri-vate sector accounting for the majority share(NSTB, 1991, p. 30). In 2000, gross expendi-ture on R&D (GERD) grew by 13.3 per cent,from S$2.66 billion to S$3.01 billion. Theprivate sector accounted for 62.0 per cent ofthe total national GERD (http://www.a-star.gov.sg; accessed in July 2002). Further-more, an elaborate plan to develop Singaporeinto an innovation hub was announced inearly 1998 (The Straits Times, 8 January1998). In the same year, the governmentreleased a plan to develop a S$5 billionscience hub in the South Buona Vista areaalong the Ayer Rajah Expressway that lies at


Table 1. R&D activities in selected countries, ranked by R&D expenditures

Expenditures on Number of High—technology exportsR&D as a percentage RSEs per

of GNP million people Percentage ofCountry 1985–95 1985–95 $ millions manufactured exports

Sweden 3.4 3714 21 969 34Japan 2.9 6309 152 431 38Korea 2.8 2636 44 433 39Finland 2.5 2812 8 797 26US 2.5 3732 197 657 44France 2.4 2584 68 655 31UK 2.2 2417 95 755 41Denmark 1.9 2647 8 174 27Norway 1.8 3678 2 703 24Australia 1.7 3166 6 415 1.7Belgium 1.7 1814 — —Canada 1.6 2656 33 608 25Italy 1.1 1325 32 747 15Singapore 1.1 2728 74 585 71India 0.8 149 2 654 11Indonesia 0.8 — 4 474 20South Africa 0.7 938 — —Brazil 0.6 168 5 175 18China 0.5 350 33 344 21Argentina 0.4 671 1 355 15Malaysia 0.4 87 39 490 67Mexico 0.4 213 29 692 33Hong Kong (China) 0.3 98 7 392 29Philippines 0.2 157 6 249 56Thailand 0.1 119 17 758 43

Note: Not all countries are reflected in the table here as there are more than 250 countries in the originalsource.

Source: http://www.statistics.com; accessed in July 2002.

the lower right-hand area within the technol-ogy corridor shaded in Figure 2 (The StraitsTimes, 16 September 1998). It will be a placewhere “ideas born within a scientific com-munity are cradled, nurtured and developedinto commercial products”, creating a “focalpoint for R&D and developing an innovativemilieu” (The Straits Times, 16 August 1998).

In this national context of promoting re-search and innovation, the Singapore SciencePark was set up in 1980 as a place whereR&D can converge and create synergies withinstitutions and firms alike, and researcherscan work anytime, meet and share ideas.6

The Park’s establishment can be read as the“first positive indication” of the govern-ment’s recognition of linking R&D activitiesto its economic policy (Goh, 1998, p. 60).

The Economic Development Board (EDB)and the Jurong Town Corporation (JTC),both national economic institutions spear-heading economic development since the1960s, were directly involved in the planningand creation process of the Singapore Sci-ence Park. According to the former manag-ing director of Arcasia,7 the Park wasliterally a brainchild of the former chairmanof the Jurong Town Corporation

Before the 1980s, there was very littleresearch job being done in Singapore. Sin-gapore was basically a production base. Atthat time, the Government realised thatSingapore cannot just depend on pro-duction. Production requires low cost inorder to be attractive and hence R&D was

716 SU-ANN MAE PHILLIPS AND HENRY WAI-CHUNG YEUNG

Fig

ure

2.T

helo

catio

nof

Sing

apor

e’s

Scie

nce

Park

and

Tec

hnol

ogy

Cor

rido

r.


introduced into the Singapore environ-ment. There was no venture capitalist atthe time doing R&D when we started.There was no budget even in the thenNational Science Council to carry outR&D work. There were only a few peoplerunning it. EDB and JTC were contemplat-ing about this idea of R&D. The thenChairman of JTC found that the oppor-tunity to get some attention on ScienceParks is very great. Out of the blue, hesold the idea of Science Park without go-ing through the proper channels. He wastaking a risk. To him, you should strike theiron while it is still hot. It was around1981 and 1982. He said it should be lo-cated near to the National University ofSingapore. We then have to look for theland in order to develop. At that time, thispiece of land was occupied by the Army.Due to the good publicity, the entire pro-cess got started. In the shortest possibletime, we managed to get the Army tovacate. We then set up this Science Parkafter going overseas to look at about 10science parks (interview; 16 December1998).

The Jurong Town Corporation continued tomanage the Park until the incorporation ofArcasia in 1990. The advantage of transfer-ring the Park’s management to its subsidiaryis that Arcasia offers “the flexibility, in termsof ease of changing policies and coming upwith innovative products. Government agen-cies can change things but at a slower pace.We also wish to subject ourselves to moreprivate sector’s disciplines” (former manag-ing director of Arcasia; interview, 16 Decem-ber 1998).

However, this idea of a science park inSingapore received mixed reactions. Initiallyat its first mention in the early 1980s (againwhen the NSTB announced its NationalTechnology Plan in 1991 and recently, withthe current debate on nurturingtechnopreneurship; see Coe and Kelly, 2000,2002), there were many arguments for andagainst the formation of the Singapore Sci-ence Park and the Science Hub (see The

Business Times, 16 April 1984; The StraitsTimes, 27 August 1980, 25 May 1990, 17September 1998, 23 September 1998). Thesearguments ranged from poor public percep-tion, to a lack of critical mass in RSE, a totaltransformation of the education system and achange in attitude towards failure, risk-takingand creativity. The general thread was thatSingapore is not ready to move towards aknowledge-based economy. One responsehighlighted the pitfalls on efforts to becomethe Silicon Valley of the East as it misses outthe very spirit of entrepreneurship

It would be a mistake to expect a certainoutput of high-tech entrepreneurs in apredicable, mechanistic manner, just be-cause there has been so much investment,facilities and people put into the effort.The long-term consequence … is that thisnation will be far less directed by thegovernment and more market-driven(quoted in The Straits Times, 29 December1998).

A report by the Political Risk and EconomicConsultancy based in Hong Kong, contrast-ing Taiwan’s environment to Singapore’s,concluded that although Singapore has bettertechnological infrastructure, Taiwan is moretolerant of failure and has a vibrant en-trepreneurial atmosphere. The report went onto criticise Singapore’s openness to newtechnology as “big on substance but short onflair”. Although a “master at creating andmaintaining very high quality infrastructure”,Singapore is finding it “very difficult to nur-ture the sort of vibrant, freewheeling atmos-phere necessary to transform the country intoa centre for technological innovations”(Quoted in The Straits Times, 13 October1989).

More than two decades since its inception,the 65-hectare Park (I, II and III) now claimsto house more than 200 institutionsregistered as ‘research facilities’ (307 com-panies in total in 2000; http://www.sciencepark.com.sg, accessed in July 2002). Com-prising both local and non-local actors asconceptualised in Figure 1, the tenants con-stitute the biggest and most influential group


of actors involved in the production of Singa-pore’s R&D activities. The Park’s tenantsinclude such global players as Sony, ExxonChemical, Silicon Graphics and LucentTechnologies, as well as small and mediumenterprises (SMEs) and start-ups. LocalR&D facilitators, such as the Productivityand Standards Board (PSB) and the Info-comm Development Authority (IDA) makeup the second group of diverse, but active,actors in the Park. The function of theseorganisations is to support R&D activities inthe Park and in Singapore. The EconomicDevelopment Board provides R&D benefitsand incentives to the Park’s tenants, whilethe NSTB encourages all R&D activities inSingapore. Arcasia is responsible for thePark’s overall property development, market-ing and management (amongst other indus-trial and business parks in Singapore). TheNational Technology Plan identifies sevenmain R&D areas: information technology(IT), manufacturing and engineering technol-ogy, pharmaceuticals, telecommunications,chemicals, electronics and, lately, the lifesciences (http://www.sciencepark.com.sg;accessed in July 2002). The differentiatedability of these groups of actors to mediatetheir strategic goals and objectives results ina production of the Park as an R&D placethat may not resemble its original intendedrole and functions. The next section exam-ines in greater detail the nature of R&Dactivities among actors in the Park.

4. The Nature of R&D in the SingaporeScience Park

4.1 Factors for Locating in the SingaporeScience Park

The industrial distribution of the 166 tenantsin the Park is indicated in Table 2. Thenational push for an ‘information-basedeconomy’ explains why the population com-prises a significant number of IT firms.About 50 per cent of the tenants are foreignfirms. In terms of their origins, 27 per centare American, 11 per cent are European, 9per cent are Japanese and 3 per cent come

from other countries. Most local firms aresmall and medium enterprises (70 per cent);23 per cent are start-ups; and the rest areresearch institutes.8 From the survey, the av-erage size of firms in the Park is between 5and 30 staff. The average duration in thePark is 6 years. These variables can, to acertain extent, explain the nature of R&Dactivities by the Park’s tenants. Generalguidelines provided by the Park’s manage-ment are insufficient to ensure that tenantsconduct a substantial amount of R&D work.Some of these guidelines require tenants: tobe involved in some R&D work; to have anR&D manpower profile; and, to incur a pro-portion of R&D expenditure. The admissioncriteria for tenants, nevertheless, are veryflexible. For example, tenants are not re-quired to have a high R&D profile to beaccepted by the Park. According to Arcasia’sspokesperson, tenants who can justify theirability to “add catalytic value to other ten-ants” are also considered. Although Arcasiais not the watchdog for non-performing R&Dfirms, it is not surprising to find firms that getby through a variety of R&D work such astesting and inspection services, or by provid-ing technical support to their parent firms(mostly located outside Singapore).

Table 3 summarises the reasons cited bytenants for choosing to locate in the Park.Two key findings emerge. First, the spatialproximity rationale does not seem to appealto many tenants located in the Park. Thereasons for locating in the Park are basedmore on such science park perks as ‘image’and ‘infrastructure’, rather than on govern-ment incentives for the cluster rationale. ‘At-tractive infrastructure and support services’has the highest response at 33.3 per cent,followed far behind by such reasons as ‘in-vited to establish in the park’ (12.8 per cent),‘convenient location’ (12.8 per cent) and‘close to similar activities’ (12.8 per cent).None felt that the ‘links with suppliers andindustries’ was an important considerationfor establishing themselves in the Park. Sec-ondly, when asked what aspects of the sci-ence park they liked best, most respondentschose ‘facilities’ and ‘physical landscapes’.


Table 2. Profile of firms in the Survey and Tenant Directory, 2000

Survey sample firms All firms in the Tenant Directory

Nature of industry Local Foreign Total (percentage) Total Percentage

Information technology 6 2 8 (24) 72 43.4Chemicals 1 4 5 (15) 19 11.4Telecommunications 2 2 4 (12) 10 6.0Engineering 1 2 3 (8.7) 16 9.6Food/Flavours 0 3 3 (8.7) 7 4.3Life sciences 1 2 3 (8.7) 6 3.6Pharmaceuticals 2 1 3 (8.7) 5 3.0Others 1 2 3 (8.7) 14 8.4Electronics 1 1 2 (5.8) 17 10.3

Total 15 19 34 (100) 166 100

Sources: Tenant directory (http://www.sciencepark.com.sg; accessed in January 2000) and authors’survey.

These responses imply that the Park has onlybeen successful in appealing to tenants whoare attracted to the image of the Park, but notits functioning aspects (such as research linksand collaboration). The efforts by local ac-tors to create an attractive physical place (seeFigure 1) seem to be realised, although theexact tenants may not be what they had inmind. This unintended outcome may be ex-plained by the overt focus of the plannersand developer on the physical aspects ofother science parks they visited before build-ing the Singapore Science Park. As the for-mer managing director of Arcasia explained

At the beginning, we were very fresh anddid not focus on the research part. Wewere focusing on the real estate develop-ment part of it. We were more concernedwith the looks of the building, the land-scape, the types of finishes that they [otherscience parks] used and the amenities thatthey had. Subsequently, those other peoplewho took charge of the Science Park wentdeeper into the actual requirements andlooked into providing more value-addedservices to the potential investors (inter-view; 16 December 1998).

4.2 Realities of R&D Activities in the Park

A recent report describes the Singapore Sci-ence Park’s surroundings as “lush green to

nurture the brainy with its oasis-like land-scaping and diversions like movies” (TheStraits Times, 24 July 1998). Apart from theserenity, the Park retains a “reclusive image”because of its “backwater remoteness” andthe “stark, forbidding lines of its spaceshiparchitecture”. The Park’s website even boaststhat it is “South East Asia’s most prestigiouslocation for R&D” (http://www.sciencepark.com.sg, accessed in July 2002). Thequestion is whether R&D is done, despite theimpressive image of the Park. Based onfindings from the survey, it is argued thatcreating a place for R&D is far less predict-able than providing for it. To measure thenature of activities is challenging in a contextwhere there are tremendous variations in in-dustries and corresponding research and/ordevelopment processes. A systematic de-scription of such variables include input indi-cators (proportion of R&D expenditure andnumber of RSEs) and output indicators (list-ing of major developments and number ofpatents). These indicators may offer someglimpses into the Park’s activities, althoughthe realities are far more complicated andless predictable than what is normally sug-gested in local newspapers or publicspeeches.

When asked to describe the main activityof their firm, 12 respondents (35 per cent)indicated R&D, another 6 (18 per cent) indi-

720 SU-ANN MAE PHILLIPS AND HENRY WAI-CHUNG YEUNG

Tab

le3.

Rea

sons

for

tena

nts’

loca

tion

inth

eSi

ngap

ore

Scie

nce

Park

Res

pons

es

Cat

egor

yFa

ctor

sN

umbe

rPe

rcen

tage

Scie

nce

Park

perk

sA

ttrac

tive

infr

astr

uctu

rean

dsu

ppor

tse

rvic

es26

33.3

Supp

ortiv

em

anag

emen

t3

3.8

Low

erco

sts

45.

1

Tot

al33

42

Gov

ernm

ent

bene

fits

and

ince

ntiv

esIn

vite

dto

esta

blis

hin

park

79.

0Su

ppor

tive

gove

rnm

ent

polic

ies

79.

0

Tot

al17

30

Spat

ial

prox

imity

Clo

seto

mar

ket/d

eman

d3

3.8

Con

veni

ent

loca

tion

1012

.8L

inks

with

supp

liers

and

indu

stri

es0

0

Tot

al23

28

Tot

al70

100

Not

es:

Firm

sw

ere

allo

wed

toch

oose

mor

eth

anon

eop

tion.

All

perc

enta

ges

are

roun

ded

off.

Sour

ce:

Aut

hors

’su

rvey

.


Figure 3. Summary of tenant firms’ main activities. Source: Authors’ survey.

cated ‘marketing and sales and R&D’. Thisresults in a total of 18 firms (53 per cent) thatconsidered R&D to be their main activity(see Figure 3). There are tenant firms that areactively involved in R&D activities andthose that are not. A total of 16 (47 per cent)firms indicated no R&D activities and 11 (69per cent) of them are foreign firms. Onesmall food/flavours Japanese local salesoffice replied that “There is only my bossand myself. R&D is done in Japan. Overhere, we sell the R&D products”. A Japaneseelectronics firm, with a rather large presencein the Park (in terms of office space), onlydevotes a proportion of its activities to R&D.The majority of its activities are to provide“software and support services” to their com-pany in Japan.9 This finding confirms thefindings of other studies of Japanese elec-tronics and computer firms—that they tend tohave closer relationships with their parentfirms than with the host economy. TheirR&D activities are either to duplicate theirparent companies or to localise products(Florida and Kenney, 1994; Angel and Sav-age, 1996). If so, this implies that Japanesefirms (that make up 9 per cent of all tenantsin the Park) would contribute lesssignificantly to groundbreaking R&D activi-ties in the Park. Revisiting Figure 1, it issuggested that the non-local innovative net-works in which foreign subsidiaries in vari-ous locations play different functional andstrategic roles largely determine the natureand extent of their R&D activities in thePark. These non-local strategic influences,

measured in what might be termed ‘relationalproximity’ (Amin and Cohendet, 1999), areperhaps more significant than local condi-tions and physical proximity in shaping thesort of R&D activities in the Park. Thisempirical finding certainly resonates wellwith Bunnell and Coe’s suggestion that

Shifting the focus of research towards so-cial networks between appropriate peopleand groups, in turn embedded in particularplaces, may improve our understanding ofinnovation processes in a way that territo-rially restricted studies cannot (Bunnelland Coe, 2001, p. 578).

A seemingly encouraging number of firmsdescribed their main activity to be R&D(Figure 3). But they are involved in varioustypes of R&D activities. Results from boththe surveys and interviews indicate that thenature of R&D activities ranges from mostlyapplied R&D activities to the organisation ofthese activities. In Table 4, 14 firms out of 34(42.1 per cent) described a total of 34 majordevelopments. These 14 firms have spent anaverage of 7.3 years in the Park. These de-velopments tend to be new products (n � 10or 71.4 per cent) and fewer are new andimproved processes (n � 4, or 28.5 per cent).Only 8 (23 per cent) out of 25 are patented.A large number of these firms spent above 75per cent of their total expenditure on R&Dactivities. This tentatively implies a positiverelationship between R&D expenditure andR&D developments.


Table 4. Comparison of local and foreign firms by proportion of R&D expenditure

Percentage of expenditure on R&D

Type of firms With major R&D developments Above 75 50–74 Below 50

Local firms 8 (N � 15) 5 2 1(Percentage) (33.3)

Foreign firms 6 (N � 19) 3 3 1(Percentage) (40)

Total 14 (N � 34) 8 (N � 14) 4 (N � 14) 2 (N � 14)(Percentage) (42.1) (57) (29) (14)

Notes: Total number of foreign firms in the survey � 19; total number of local firms in the survey � 15.Source: Authors’ survey.

From the in-depth interviews, however, itseems that there are other kinds of R&Dactivities by tenants in the Park. One respon-dent from a pharmaceutical start-up de-scribed their activity as the “organisation ofclinical research and testing drugs to provetheir effectiveness”. In other words, they dothe “software to prove the claims that thedrugs work”. The hardware—or the testing—is done in North Asia, while the office inSingapore provides the venue where theyinteract with clients. The main reason for thelack of R&D hardware in Singapore, therespondent explained, is that Singapore at-tracts pharmaceutical business headquarters,not R&D-based operations. Although thecommercialisation of the pharmaceutical in-dustry has taken off, the research communityin Singapore remains small. This highlightsan earlier concern about Singapore’s need toachieve a critical mass in RSE to supportR&D activities. This question of whetherSingapore has enough researchers, accordingto Arcasia’s marketing manager, is the mostcommon and difficult one when it tries tosecure new tenants (interviewed; 16 Decem-ber 1998). In the IT industry, it is difficult toassess the nature of R&D activity because ITfirms are only set up when there is productdevelopment. An IT SME described its activ-ities as the development of ideas. Pure re-search occurred only when the director hadan idea—that made him set up the firm.10

Among tenants that are actively involved

in R&D, it is not an easy task to makeresearch pay for itself. An example is re-search institutes. They make up a group oftenants who seem more embedded in thePark than other tenants because of their insti-tutional origins as national research institutes(see Figure 1). One reason why these re-search institutes can be actively involved inR&D is that the Singapore government fundsthem. The 2 national research institutes inter-viewed have on average produced 6 majordevelopments, received a number of benefitsand employed more than 40 RSEs (inter-views with marketing directors of researchinstitutes, 28 February 2000). Although theyare able to list a number of major develop-ments, to make research pay for itself is stillvery demanding. Both research instituteshave an average turnover of S$10–29 mil-lion, but their rising expenditure has forcedthem to balance expenditure and income.While the interviewees described their mainactivity to be R&D, the “more mundanechores” come in the form of providing test-ing and inspection services to private firms.This is quite a substantial proportion of theirdaily operations, but the income from theseservices “keeps them in the blue”.

5. Embedding R&D Activities in Places?

The lack of significant R&D activities in theSingapore Science Park can be explained bythe extent to which R&D firms are embed-


ded, as conceptualised in Figure 1. It is ar-gued that, despite concerted and often state-driven efforts to create an ‘innovative milieu’in/around the Park (see section 3), the levelof institutional thickness and local embed-dedness remains low. This reality of the Parkin turn reduces the possibilities for R&Dfirms (local and non-local) to reap the advan-tages of geographical clustering—synergies,the sharing of information and special linksand relationships. To a large extent, the Parkfails as a place for the agglomeration andenhancement of R&D activities. This sectionpostulates that the relationships among actors(local and non-local) significantly affect theirdifferential degrees of institutional thicknessand local embeddedness.

5.1 The Role of Institutional Thickness

In a bid to promote R&D activities in thePark, many government-linked institutionswere set up in the hope of establishing col-laboration between local universities and in-dustries. Despite their clearly definedstructures, the relationships among these in-stitutions are not always compatible and co-hesive. For example, there is a gap betweenthe NSTB, an organisation that promotesR&D activities in Singapore and Arcasia, thedeveloper and manager of the Park. It seemsto be more a matter of too sharply definedstructures that result in a gap between thetwo organisations’ responsibilities. TheNSTB’s responsibilities include providing,encouraging and supporting R&D. Arcasia’sresponsibilities include property develop-ment of technology parks in Singapore, andthe provision and maintenance of physicalinfrastructure.11 As one interviewee ob-served, the “musical chair arrangement” ofthe roles played by the NSTB and Arcasiathroughout the years leaves an institutionalvoid in that few firms (particularly foreign)are exactly sure to whom to turn for assist-ance.

SMEs and start-up firms particularly ex-perience this problem. Beyond applying forbenefits and incentives and maintenance of

facilities, many firms are not sure whichinstitutions to ask for assistance when theyneed to look for venture capitalists, patentingprocedures, loans and clarification of suchpolicies as labour issues. Others felt that,although there are meetings and annual sur-veys conducted by Arcasia, the organis-ation’s laid-back approach contradictspromises made by the Singapore govern-ment—a sign of incompatibility betweenproactive state/national policies and the dailyrealities of the Park’s management practices.As the result, some firms felt “disillusioned”with the way things are managed in thePark.12 In the survey, the lack of governmentsupport was ranked as a major concern, onlyafter the internal concern of ‘rising costs ofoperations’. Interestingly, the lack of a sup-portive management is much less a concernfor tenants (ranked second to last), simplybecause “they [Arcasia] take charge of thebuildings, not us”.13

The on-going debate between research in-stitutions and the national university nearbyis another example that indicates a rift inbuilding institutional thickness through themutual awareness of common goals. Accord-ing to Hang (1999, p. 33), the former deputydirector of the NSTB (now deputy chairmanof A*Star) and deputy vice chancellor of theNational University of Singapore, it is essen-tial that research institutes serve as the train-ing-ground for postgraduate researchstudents. He added that an institute that onlyhas a single dimension of industry collabora-tion is underutilising its vast resources. How-ever, interviews with two research institutessuggest that there is a stark difference be-tween their understanding of their respectiveroles and functions, as compared with thoseof the university. A respondent from a re-search institute explained

We have had university staff come inhere … They used our facilities freely andexpected us to wait for them … What theydidn’t understand is that we are not here toserve them. We were set up for the indus-try (interview with a research institute’smarketing director; 28 February 2000).


The physical presence of institutions doesnot necessarily imply ‘thickness’ (see alsoAmin and Thrift, 1994; Raco, 1998; Keebleet al., 1999). Although these research insti-tutes engaged in a fair amount of R&D,synergies between research (pursued by theuniversity) and development (pursued by re-search institutes) may be missing.

In a bid to woo tenants to the Park, a greatamount of investment was made to providean attractive environment through the pro-vision of elaborate physical infrastructureand facilities. The cost of infrastructure de-velopment in the Singapore Science Parkproject was estimated to be S$750 million(The Straits Times, 10 January 1981) and theSingapore Science Park II cost anotherS$291 million (The Straits Times, 15 October1993). These permanent facilities run at highcost regardless of use. As mentioned earlier,26 firms (33.3 per cent) chose to locate in thepark because of its attractive infrastructure.‘Facilities’ were ranked as the top aspect thattenants like about the park (see Table 3).Firms that use expensive facilities tend to beinvolved in a greater amount of R&D andfeel ‘tied down’ to the place. For example,the use of expensive machinery by researchinstitutes in a way, explained one intervie-wee, binds them to R&D activities, andjustifies the need to pursue marketable R&Din order to pay for their capital investment.

But there are also firms that occupy spacesin the Park irrelevant to their activities, asthese spaces are meant for heavy R&D. Thepresence of such firms also implies that theydo not feel a deep sense of local embedded-ness because there is no real need for them tobe in the Park. For example, a foreign soft-ware development firm has been located for11 years in a building meant for heavy R&D.The firm, fortunately, does not see the needto move out simply because they feel‘comfortable’. But their continual expansionin a building constructed for heavy R&Daggravates the underutilisation of resources.There is also some leasing out to temporarytenants in these buildings equipped to handleheavy R&D activities (especially in SciencePark I). One such tenant (the dean of a

foreign business school) who was inter-viewed, explained their presence in the Parkto be a “temporary one” until their newschool is completed. The Park was chosenneither for its facilities nor for its R&Dreputation. It was suitable because the schoolwas close to the Park and the university. Thisbusiness school currently takes up 5 units ofoffice space in the Park, each of about 4000square feet.

In addition, the attraction of infrastructureand facilities applies only to certain indus-tries—namely, the engineering, electronicsand telecommunications industries. On theother hand, the seven ‘placeless’ IT firms inthe survey did not consider the Park’s facili-ties attractive. It is highly unlikely that theseIT firms—constituting a fair number of thePark’s tenants in Table 2—would feel deeplyembedded. The locational attraction of otherR&D and non-R&D places, both within andoutside Singapore, also decreases their localembeddedness in the Park. This is especiallytrue for SMEs and foreign firms. For exam-ple, 20 out of the 34 (58.8 per cent) respond-ing firms had considered other locationsbefore deciding to locate in the Park. Out ofthese 20 firms, 14 of them (70 per cent)considered other commercial buildingswithin Singapore as alternatives. Based ontheir greater likelihood to consider other lo-cations, SMEs are least likely to be embed-ded in the Park. The common reasons forconsidering other locations are high costs(n � 12 or 44.4 per cent) and location notideal (n � 9 or 33.3 per cent). These firmstend to exhibit the spatial logic described byYeung (1998, p. 229) as “territorial tenden-cies of capital” rather than the agglomerationtendencies of R&D or science parks.

Although there exist some good reasonsthat may make tenants stay (such as a goodscientific image or prestigious address), twochallenges remain for this kind of local em-beddedness. First, it is possible to duplicatethe Singapore Science Park image. Technol-ogy and business parks have been sproutingup all over the island. Consequently, theability of the Singapore Science Park to re-tain its tenants remains in doubt. According


to the Arcasia spokesperson, the manage-ment wishes to present to the world a prem-ier address for R&D in south-east Asia. Butthis image is not easily achieved becausewhat makes an address desirable is some-thing intuitive and intangible (see Malaysia’sambitious attempt in the context of its Multi-media Super Corridor project; Bunnell,2002). The only way for Arcasia is to satisfythe needs of existing tenants who coinciden-tally may not be very interested in conduct-ing innovative R&D activities. The secondissue relates back to the central theme of thispaper—that is, the provision for R&D activi-ties does not necessitate these activities. Bythe same token, a higher degree of localembeddedness does not equate with R&Dactivities. Out of the three tenants inter-viewed that will stay in the Park, one de-scribed the firm’s main activity as the“organisation of R&D activity for the indus-try”. The other admitted that it is “spendingvery little on R&D”. The third, in a predica-ment, will have to stay, but does not seem toconduct a lot of R&D activities. Instead, it isthe regional headquarters for technical ser-vices. This European firm indeed had prob-lems looking for a suitable alternativelocation. No commercial buildings in Singa-pore would accept it because the food/flavours firm deals with flammable goodsand emits odours during its testing process.But the Park was happy to oblige on thegrounds that the parent company in Europehas a “high R&D culture” (interview; 18February 2000)!

5.2 Synergies of Spatial Proximity

A true place for R&D activities needs acertain level of formal and informal syner-gies among tenants for the cross-fertilisationof ideas and knowledge. Synergies may besimply defined as the synthesis of differentadvantages to produce greater collaborativeefforts. While it is problematic to determinehow informal synergies can affect R&D ac-tivities, formal synergies in the form of proj-ect collaborations and linkages can beempirically measured (see also Gertler et al.,

2000; Sternberg and Arndt, 2001). There aremany efforts to promote synergies in thePark, but the most obvious effort is to en-hance its spatial proximity to nearby institu-tions and universities (see Figure 2). In fact,the nation-state of Singapore is small enoughin size that spatial proximity exists through-out the entire island. Other large-scale effortsto promote synergies include letters of under-standing between the government and institu-tions to promote R&D projects. There arealso small efforts to create some synergies inthe form of seminars and meetings organisedby such institutions as Arcasia and theNSTB.

The general attitude towards spatial prox-imity as an effort to promote synergies is thatit is neither very useful nor harmful. Table 3has already shown that not many firms con-sidered locational links as their prime reasonfor locating in the Park. Yet being close tosimilar firms does not constitute competitionfor the firms. Moreover, it is impossible tocreate spatial proximity for everyone in thePark due to their different needs. For exam-ple, four respondents considered other loca-tions because they wanted to be “nearactivities not found in the Park”. Revisitingthe rift between research and academic insti-tutes, one interviewee from a research insti-tute explained why developing collaborativelinks with universities is often more a discur-sive ideal than a practical reality

Having collaborations are good because itgives us a presence among a high intellec-tual community … [It’s] bad in the sensethat sometimes, we have to be differenti-ated between a research lab and a univer-sity … Universities are interested inexploring knowledge, but we are inter-ested in developing products.

Similarly, another interviewee felt that thereis a great difference between research anddevelopment arising from the competitivenature of industries

After an idea has been proven within theacademic world theoretically, to change itinto something marketable is very differ-


Table 5. Collaborations among tenants in the Park

R&D project developments Product development Testing and inspection

Number of firms 22 (65) 15 (44.1) 18 (40.9)(percentage)

Firms in ParkYes 13 4 9No 9 11 9

StatusOn-going 5 9 12Once only 17 6 6

Note: Total number of firms in survey � 34.Source: Authors’ survey.

ent. Being close to the university has prob-lems. Some ask why we don’t collaborate,despite being so close. The reason beingwe are different. We can do researchprojects, but they cannot do developmentprojects. In the university, there cannot besuch projects because of the competitivenature of industries … No one would passaround such knowledge to universities be-cause one never knows where it will endup.

As a result, these research institutes wouldrather ‘sell’ their R&D capabilities by link-ing up with foreign firms than with localuniversities—more empirical evidence tosupport our claim that non-local innovativenetworks might be more important in deter-mining the nature and extent of R&D activi-ties in the Park. This directly contradicts theexpectation that the institutional presence ofuniversities will spur R&D activities in thePark. Synergies between academic and re-search institutions do not seem to piece to-gether adequately the R&D puzzle, despitethem being geographically next to one an-other.

Table 5 summarises the collaborative ef-forts among surveyed tenants. Of the 34 ma-jor developments described earlier, 29 weredone in collaboration (85.2 per cent). Anencouraging number of tenants (n � 22 or 65per cent) have collaborated on R&D projects,

but most have done so only on a one-offbasis (17 out of 22 or 77.2 per cent). Collab-orations occur quite equally among tenantswithin and outside the Park, highlighting thedilemma of R&D firms’ strategic desires tobe both locally embedded and globallylinked (Patel and Pavitt, 1991; Todtling,1994; Patel, 1995; Perry and Tan, 1998).Ironically, despite these encouraging collabo-rative efforts, the survey shows that ‘linkageswith institutions’ (31 out of 98 or 32 percent) is the most agreed upon aspect of thePark that can be improved. This finding im-plies that there are tenants who wish to col-laborate with institutions, but thatopportunities have not yet arisen.

One final observation from tenants in-volved in collaborative projects is that onlysome enjoy substantial synergies. Whilethere are tenants collaborating amicably,there are those that are unable to collaboratewith anyone at all. The reasons vary verystrongly according to the type of industry.Two out of the three pharmaceutical firmssurveyed do not engage in any collaborationbecause there are no matching or relevantfirms. In contrast, three out of the four food/flavours firms indicated some attempt atR&D collaboration. But these collaborationsoccur at the margins of significant R&Dactivities: they range from the supply of rawmaterials, to the use of facilities, to the test-ing of local flavours.14


6. Conclusion and Implications

This paper presents some empirical findingson the role of the Singapore Science Park asa place for R&D activities. First, there is astark difference between firms that are ac-tively involved in R&D and those that arenot. Of those that are involved in R&D, mosttend to focus on the ‘development’ aspect.There are positive relationships betweensome firm-specific variables (for example,size of RSEs and expenditure on R&D, dur-ation of stay in the Park, and nationalorigins) and major developments. Secondly,foreign (non-local) firms are most likely tobe involved in a variety of activities otherthan R&D. This is consistent with other stud-ies of foreign R&D activities in host econ-omies (for example, Florida and Kenney,1994; Angel and Savage, 1996; Gertler et al.,2000). Foreign firms in the Park commonlydescribed their activities as the localisationand organisation of R&D activities and theprovision of R&D support. Data from in-depth interviews show that the presence ofmany interrelated institutions does notnecessarily enhance the R&D activities ofthe Park’s tenants. While the state and thePark’s management have clearly put a lot offinancial and physical resources into embed-ding R&D firms in the Park, the extent towhich they have succeeded remains unclear.Factors that hinder local embedding of firmsinclude the lack of carefully matched pro-vision of infrastructure and firms’ concernswith the rising cost of operations. Govern-ment-funded and invited firms/institutionsseem the most embedded tenants in the Park.One potential embedding factor is the Park’sscientific image and address. But the likely-hood of its being replicated in Singapore andelsewhere greatly reduces its potential forincreasing local embeddedness. Moreover,embedding a firm does not automatically in-crease its level of R&D activities. Despite alarge number of developments done in col-laboration, improving linkages with institu-tions is the most-agreed-upon task for thePark’s management. Spatial proximity is nei-ther useful nor harmful to most firms. Being

close together does not entail any potentialcompetitive threat among tenants. AsCastells and Hall (1994, p. 230) pointed outalmost a decade ago, only a certain kind ofuniversity and a very specific set of linkagescan create the “innovative milieu”.

What then are the implications of thisstudy for the understanding of R&D activi-ties and the formation of science parks? First,the study supports the logic of approachingR&D in planned places as R&D businesses,but it does not end there. There needs to bean extensive and detailed application of busi-ness and research concepts in R&D. Some ofthese include the wider appreciation of theimportant role of actor networks (local andnon-local) in promoting innovations andR&D activities. Creating places for R&Dactivities might not be very difficult from ahost economy’s point of view, since it ofteninvolves investment in physical infrastruc-ture. Making these places really work ascentres of innovation and R&D activitiesmight be a totally different activity, entailingplugging these places strategically into inno-vation networks cross-cutting different spa-tial scales. From this point of view,developing R&D places such as scienceparks requires a lot of ‘strategic selectivity’in attracting a certain kind of firms and insti-tutions. Only if these firms and institutionscan work together in a truly synergistic waythrough co-operation and competition, will agenuine place for R&D activities be formed.

Secondly, this study highlights the import-ance of questioning planning ideologies be-fore planning actually takes place. As sciencepark formation is mainly a long-term com-mitment of vast resources, it will be counter-effective to assume that elaborate facilities,benefits and incentives or even spatial prox-imity will encourage the specific plannedfunctions. This implication brings us back toMassey et al.’s (1992) critical study of sci-ence parks as “high-tech fantasies”. Futureplanning for science parks must take intoaccount the wider relations between the roleof R&D activities in host economies and the(urban and regional) institutional fabric inwhich technological innovations are embed-


ded. Planning for science parks also needs toanticipate and incorporate social needs—both initial and changing ones. With an indi-cation of how ‘fault areas’ may be identified,the onus now is to identify, repair and fostersocial relations that are so critical to thedynamism and success of a science park.Although science parks vary in function andform, there are two distinct phases of parkdevelopment in almost all of them: the insti-tutional and the entrepreneurial phases (Cox,1985, p. 20). The former phase is fairly pre-dictable, associated with the addition of ser-vices and facilities to attract smaller researchfacilities. The latter phase develops later andis less predictable as its development de-pends on many variables. The ability of apark to survive on its own with as littlesupport as possible will depend on its devel-opment success during the entrepreneurialphase. There are too many science parks inthe world that are still caught in the institu-tional phase of development. The greatestchallenge ahead for most of them is to moveinto the entrepreneurial phase of develop-ment. Otherwise, these places will remain asno more than “high-tech fantasies” in aglobalising world of rapid technologicalchanges and greater economic uncertainties.

Notes

1. The Organisation for Economic Co-oper-ation and Development (OECD, 1982)defines R&D as

The creative work undertaken on a sys-tematic basis in order to increase the stockof knowledge, including the knowledge ofman (sic), culture and society and the useof this stock of knowledge to devise newapplications.

R&D consists of four main types: basic re-search—the search for new knowledge; ap-plied research—determining means to meetthe new concept; development—productionof useful materials; and, product and pro-cess—development of product. The type ofR&D conducted is a crucial consideration inthe evaluation of the impact of R&D activi-ties on the host economy. Such a workingdefinition, however, is far from complete. Itassumes that R&D activities are consecutive

(Myers and Rosenbloom, 1996) and that ef-fective research (improving the knowledgebase) equates to productive research (organi-sational capabilities needed to realise vision)in a linear process. While the present authorsdo not subscribe to the linearity in definingR&D activities, they accept the above fourdimensions of R&D activities that must beseen as mutually constitutive and interre-lated. In this sense, it is hard to imagineresearch without development and viceversa. R&D is therefore taken as an integralterm in this paper that refers to innovativeactivities leading to new ideas and knowl-edge.

2. The science park notion was pioneered in theUS in the 1950s, after Stanford Universitysuccessfully allocated part of its campus forcommercial developments by university sci-entists in 1951. The concept emerged in theUK in the 1960s and, by the mid 1980s, hadbecome a fashionable policy in local andregional economic development in NorthAmerica, Europe and parts of Asia (see, forexample, OECD, 1982; Gibb, 1985; Monck,1985; Wang, 1994).

3. Studies of R&D activities often rely on inter-views and public information (Gassmann andZedtnitz, 1999). Conducting surveys bestcovers the empirical aspects of the researchwork. Interviews are useful for understand-ing actors’ responses to daily operations (seeEisenhardt, 1989; Demirag, 1996; Nu-magami, 1998). In this study, a combinationof survey and interview method was used. Atotal of 166 postal survey questionnaireswere sent to all tenants of the SingaporeScience Park in early 2000. The samplingcriterion was that the firm’s mailing addresshad to be located in the Singapore SciencePark. Only firms in technical operations wereregistered. Such facilities as eateries andchildcare centres were omitted. The Singa-pore Science Park directory on the internetserved as the primary list (http://www.sciencepark.com.sg). The Park’s ten-ants were telephoned subsequently to ensurea greater survey return, during which itemerged that 12 firms were no longer inoperation, 2 companies indicated that theywere ‘dormant’, and another 2 were in theprocess of moving out of the Park. Thisreduced the effective survey sample size to150 firms. In all, 34 (22.7 per cent) responseswere received. This survey was followed by12 in-depth interviews with firms, 2 withresearch institutes and 2 with organisationsdirectly related to the Park. These firms wereselected on the basis of their differences inorigin, type of firm, employment, industry,


main function and proportion of R&D ex-penditure. All 16 interviews were recordedand transcribed.

4. With effect from 1 January 2002, the NSTBhas been renamed as the Agency for Science,Technology and Research (A*Star; see http://www.a-star.gov.sg).

5. The exchange rate in July 2002 was aboutUS$1 to S$1.8.

6. Interview with the NSTB spokesperson; 29February 2000.

7. A wholly-owned subsidiary of the JurongTown Corporation since its incorporation in1990, Arcasia is the developer and managerof the Singapore Science Park. It was re-named as Ascendas on 8 January 2001 fol-lowing its merger with JTC International,another subsidiary of the JTC.

8. Interview with Arcasia’s spokesperson; 1March 2000.

9. Interview with an R&D facilities manager;19 February 2000.

10. Interview with an IT project director; 24February 2000.

11. Interviews with the NSTB spokesperson, 29February 2000; and Arcasia’s spokesperson,1 March 2000.

12. Interviews with an IT SME and a Germanengineering SME.

13. Interview with the facility manager of a USchemical firm, 23 February 2000.

14. Interestingly, awareness of other firms in thesame industry is most distinct in the food/flavours industry, as observed from the threefirms interviewed. The typical response fromthe interviews indicates little awareness ofother firms within the same industry.

References

ALLEN, J., MASSEY, D. and COCHRANE, A. (1998)Rethinking the Region. London: Routledge.

AMIN, A. (2001) Moving on: institutionalism ineconomic geography, Environment and Plan-ning A, 33(7), pp. 1237–1241.

AMIN, A. and COHENDET, P. (1999) Learning andadaptation in decentralised business networks,Environment and Planning D, 17(1), pp. 87–104.

AMIN, A. and THRIFT, N. (Eds) (1994) Globalisa-tion, Institutions and Regional Development.Oxford: Oxford University Press.

ANG, J. and TEO, T. S. H. (1997) Singapore:staying competitive with advanced manufactur-ing technologies, Science and Public Policy,24(5), pp. 327–335.

ANGEL, D. P and SAVAGE, L. (1996) Global local-ization? Japanese research and development

laboratories in the USA, Environment andPlanning A, 28, pp. 819–833.

BARTLETT, C. A. and GHOSHAL, S. (1989) Manag-ing Across Borders: The Transnational Sol-ution. London: Century Business.

BRENNER, N. (1999) Globalisation as reterritoriali-sation: the European re-scaling of urban gover-nance in the European Union, Urban Studies,36(3), pp. 431–451.

BROADBENT, J. (1989) The technopolis strategyversus deindustrialisation: high-tech develop-ment sites in Japan, in: M. P. SMITH (Ed.)Pacific Rim Cities in the World Economy, Com-parative Urban and Community Research Vol.2, pp. 231–253. New Brunswick, NJ: Trans-action Publishers.

BUNNELL, T. G. (2002) Multimedia utopia? Ageographical critique of high-tech developmentin Malaysia’s multimedia super corridor, An-tipode, 34(2), pp. 265–295.

BUNNELL, T. G. and COE, N. M. (2001) Spacesand scales of innovation, Progress in HumanGeography, 25(4), pp. 569–590.

CANTWELL, J. (1995) The globalisation of technol-ogy: what remains of the product cycle model?.Cambridge Journal of Economics 19, 155–174.

CANTWELL, J. (1998) Technology and the firm,Research Policy, 27(5), pp. iii–v.

CASTELLS, M. (1989) The Informational City: In-formation Technology, Economic Restructuringand the Urban-Regional Process. Oxford: BasilBlackwell.

CASTELLS, M. (1996) The informational mode ofdevelopment and restructuring of capitalism,in: S. FAINSTEIN and S. CAMPBELL (Eds) Read-ings in Urban Geography, pp. 72–101. Cam-bridge, MA: Blackwell.

CASTELLS, M. and HALL, P. (1994) Technopoles ofthe World: The Making of 21st Century Indus-trial Complexes. London: Routledge.

CHIN, L. C. (1991) Analysis of R&D space inSingapore Science Park. Unpublished aca-demic exercise, School of Building and EstateManagement, National University of Singa-pore.

CHIU, S. W. K., HO, K. C. and LUI, T. L. (1997)City-states in the Global Economy: IndustrialRestructuring in Hong Kong and Singapore.Boulder, CO: Westview.

COE, N. M. and KELLY, P. F. (2000) Distance anddiscourse in the local abour market: the case ofSingapore, Area, 32(4), pp. 413–422.

COE, N. M. and KELLY, P. F. (2002) Languages oflabour: representational strategies in Singa-pore’s labour control regime, Political Geogra-phy, 21(3), pp. 341–371.

COOKE, P. N. and MORGAN, K. (1998) The Associ-ational Economy: Firms, Regions and Inno-vation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

COX, K. R. (1998) Spaces of dependence, spaces


of engagement and the politics of scale, or:looking for local politics, Political Geography,17(1), pp. 1–23.

COX, K. R. and MAIR, A. J. (1988) Locality andcommunity in the politics of local economicdevelopment, Annals of the Association ofAmerican Geographers, 78, pp. 307–325.

COX, R. N. (1985) Lessons from 30 years ofscience parks in the USA, in: GIBB, J. M. (Ed.)Science Parks and Innovation Centres: TheirEconomic and Social Impact, pp. 18–24. Am-sterdam: Elsevier.

DEMIRAG, I. (1996) From commonsense to shorttermism: reflections on R&D manager’s per-ception, in: A. BELCHER, J. HASSARD and S. J.PROCTER (Eds) R&D Decisions: Strategy, Pol-icy and Innovations, pp. 125–153. London:Routledge.

DICKEN, P. (1998) Global Shift: Transforming theWorld Economy. London: Paul Chapman.

DICKEN, P. and MALMBERG, A. (2001) Firms interritories: a relational perspective, EconomicGeography, 77(4), pp. 345–363.

DICKEN, P. and THRIFT, N. (1992) The organiza-tion of production and the production of organi-zation, Transactions of the Institute of BritishGeographers, 17, pp. 279–291.

DICKEN, P., FORSGREN, M. and MALMBERG, A.(1994) The local embeddedness of transna-tional corporations, in: A. AMIN and N. THRIFT

(Eds) Globalization, Institutions and RegionalDevelopment in Europe, pp. 23–45. Oxford:Oxford University Press.

DOREMUS, P. N., KELLER, W. W., PAULY, L. W.and REICH, S. (1998) The Myth of the GlobalCorporation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univer-sity Press.

EISENHARDT, K. M. (1989) Building theories fromcase study research, Academy of ManagementReview, 14(4), pp. 532–550.

ELLISON, G. and GLAESER, E. L. (1999) The geo-graphic concentration of industry: Does naturaladvantage explain agglomeration?, AmericanEconomic Review, 89(2), pp. 311–316.

ERICKSON, R. A. (1994) Technology, industrialrestructuring, and regional development,Growth and Change, 25, pp. 353–379.

FLORIDA, R. and KENNEY, M. (1994) The global-ization of Japanese R&D: the economic ge-ography of Japanese R&D investment in theUnited States, Economic Geography, 70(4),pp. 344–369.

GASSMANN, O. and ZEDTNITZ, M. (1999) Conceptsand trends in international R&D organisation,Research Policy, 28 (2/3), pp. 231–250.

GERTLER, M. S. (1987) Capital, technology andindustry dynamics in regional development,Urban Geography, 8(3), pp. 251–263.

GERTLER, M. S., WOLFE, D. A. and GARKUT, D.(2000) No place like home? The embeddedness

of innovation in a regional economy, Review ofInternational Political Economy, 7(4), pp. 688–718.

GIBB, J. M. (Ed.) (1985) Science Parks and Inno-vation Centres: Their Economic and SocialImpact. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

GOH, C. B. (1998) Creating a research and devel-opment culture in southeast Asia: lessons fromSingapore’s experience, Southeast Asian Jour-nal of Social Science, 26(1), pp. 49–68.

GOODWIN, M. and PAINTER, J. (1996) Local gover-nance, the crises of Fordism and the changinggeographies of regulation, Transactions of theInstitute of British Geographers, 21(4),pp. 635–648.

GRANOVETTER, M. (1985) Economic action, andsocial structure: the problem of embeddedness,American Journal of Sociology, 91(3), pp. 481–510.

GRANOVETTER, M. (1991) The social constructionof economic institutions, in: A. ETZIONI and P.R. LAWRENCE (Eds) Socio-economics: Towarda New Synthesis, pp. 75–81. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.

HANG, C. C. (1999) What it takes to sustainresearch and development in a small, developednation in the 21st century, in: L. LOW (Ed.)Singapore: Towards a Developed CountryStatus, pp. 25–34. Singapore: Oxford Univer-sity Press.

HARVEY, D. (1989) From managerialism to en-trepreneurialism: the transformation in urbangovernance in late capitalism, Geografiska An-naler B, 71(1), pp. 3–18.

HIGGINS, B. and SAVOLE, D. J. (1987) (Eds) Re-gional Development: Essays in honour of Fran-cois Perroux. Boston, MA: Allen and Unwin.

HSU, J. Y. and SAXENIAN, A. (2000) The limits ofguanxi capitalism: transnational collaborationbetween Taiwan and the USA, Environmentand Planning A, 32(11), pp. 1991–2005.

HUDSON, R. (1999) The learning economy, thelearning firm and the learning region: a sym-pathetic critique of the limits to learning, Eu-ropean Urban and Regional Studies, 6(1),pp. 59–72.

INKSTER I. (1991) The Clever City: Japan andAustralia and the Multifunction Polis. Sydney:Sydney University Press.

JASINSKI, A. H. (1997) New developments in sci-ence–industry linkages in Poland, Science andPublic Policy, 24(2), pp. 93–99.

JESSOP, B. (2001) Institutional re(turns) and thestrategic-relational approach, Environment andPlanning A, 33(7), pp. 1213–1235.

KEEBLE, D. E., LAWSON, C., MOORE, B. andWILKINSON, F. (1999) Collective learning pro-cesses, networking and ‘institutional thickness’in the Cambridge region, Regional Studies,33(4), pp. 319–332.


LAFFITTE, P. (1985) Science parks in the Far East,in: J. M. GIBB (Ed.) Science Parks and Inno-vation Centres: their Economic and Social Im-pact, pp. 25–36. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

LEUNG, C. K. and WU, C. T. (1995) Innovationenvironment, R&D linkages and technologydevelopment in Hong Kong, Regional Studies,29(6), pp. 553–546.

LIM, T. Y. (1995) Property management of theSingapore Science Park. Unpublished aca-demic exercise, School of Building and EstateManagement, National University of Singa-pore.

LOW, L. (1998) The Political Economy of a City-state: Government-made Singapore. Singapore:Oxford University Press.

LYONS, D. (2000) Embeddedness, milieu, andinnovation among high-technology firms: aRichardson, Texas, case study, Environmentand Planning A, 32(5), pp. 891–908.

MACKINNON, D., CUMBERS, A. and CHAPMAN, K.(2002) Learning, innovation and regional de-velopment: a critical appraisal of recent de-bates, Progress in Human Geography, 26(3),pp. 293–311.

MACLEOD, G. (2001) Beyond soft institutional-ism: accumulation, regulation, and their geo-graphical fixes, Environment and Planning A,33(7), pp. 1145–1167.

MACLEOD, G. and GOODWIN, M. (1999) Space,scale and state strategy: rethinking urban andregional governance, Progress in Human Ge-ography, 23(4), pp. 503–527.

MASSEY, D., QUINTAS, P. and WIELD, D. (1992)High Tech Fantasies: Science Parks in Society,Science and Space. London: Routledge.

MINISTRY OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY (1991) TheStrategic Economic Plan. Singapore: SNP.

MONCK, C. (Ed.) (1985) Science Parks: TheirContributions to Economic Growth. West Mid-lands: CSP Economic Publications.

MUTHUSAMY, P. (1988) Performance of the Singa-pore Science Park. Unpublished academic ex-ercise, School of Building and EstateManagement, National University of Singa-pore.

MYERS, M. B. and ROSENBLOOM, R. S. (1996)Rethinking the role of industrial research, in: R.S. ROSENBLOOM and W. J. SPENCER (Eds) En-gines of Innovation: US Industrial Research atthe End of an Era, pp. 209–228. Boston, MA:Harvard Business School Press.

NOHRIA, N. and GHOSHAL, S. (1997) The Differen-tiated Network: Organizing Multinational Cor-porations for Value Creation. San Francisco,CA: Jossey-Bass.

NSTB (NATIONAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

BOARD) (1991) Science and Technology: Win-dows of Opportunities, National TechnologyPlan. Singapore: SNP.

NUMAGAMI, T. (1998) The infeasibility of invari-ant laws in management studies: a reflectivedialogue in defense of case studies, Organiza-tion Science, 9(1), pp. 2–15.

OECD (ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC COOPER-

ATION AND DEVELOPMENT) (1982) Science andTechnology Policy for the 1980s. Paris: OECD.

PATEL, P. (1995) Localised production of technol-ogy for global markets, Cambridge Journal ofEconomics, 19, pp. 141–153.

PATEL, P. and PAVITT, K. L. R. (1991) Large firmsin the production of the world’s technology: animportant case of ‘non-globalisation’, Journalof International Business Studies, 22(1), pp. 1–21.

PAVLıNEK, P. and SMITH, A. (1997) Internationali-sation and embeddedness in east-central Eu-ropean transition, Regional Studies, 32(7),pp. 619–638

PEARCE, R. D. (1999) Decentralised R&D andstrategic competitiveness: globalised ap-proaches to generation and use of technology inmultinational enterprises, Research Policy,28(2/3), pp. 157–178.

PERRY, M. and TAN, B. H. (1998) Global manu-facturing and local linkage in Singapore, En-vironment and Planning A, 30(9),pp. 1603–1624.

PERRY, M., KONG, L. and YEOH, B. (1997) Singa-pore: A Developmental City State. London:John Wiley.

PHUA, M. T. (1993) Marketing plan for SingaporeScience Park Phase 2. Unpublished academicexercise, School of Building and Estate Man-agement, National University of Singapore.

POLANYI, K. (1944) The Great Transformation.New York: Holt, Rinehart.

PORTER, M. E. (1990) The Competitive Advantageof Nations. London: Macmillan.

PORTER, M. E. (1998) On Competition. Boston,MA: Harvard Business School Press.

RACO, M. (1998) Assessing ‘institutional thick-ness’ in the local context: a comparison ofCardiff and Sheffield, Environment and Plan-ning A, 30(6), pp. 975–996.

RODAN, G. (1989) The Political Economy of Sin-gapore’s Industralization: National State andInternational Capital. London: Macmillan.

SAXENIAN, A. (1994) Regional Advantage. Cul-ture and Competition in Silicon Valley andRoute 128. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univer-sity Press.

SAXENIAN, A. and HSU, J. Y. (2001) The SiliconValley–Hsinchu connection: technical com-munities and industrial upgrading, Industrialand Corporate Change, 10(4), pp. 893–920.

SCOTT, A. J. (1998) Regions and the World Econ-omy: The Coming Shape of Global Production,Competition and Political Order. Oxford: Ox-ford University Press.


SIMON, D. F. (1995) Globalisation, regionalisationand the Pacific Rim, in: D. F. SIMON (Ed.) TheEmerging Technological Trajectory of thePacific Rim, pp. 3–27. New York: ME Sharpe.

SINGAPORE SCIENCE COUNCIL (1987) Window onthe Future: A Status Report on the SingaporeScience Park. Singapore: Singapore ScienceCouncil.

STERNBERG, R. (1999) Innovative linkages andproximity: empirical results from recent sur-veys of small and medium sized firms in Ger-man regions, Regional Studies, 33(6),pp. 529–540.

STERNBERG, R. and ARNDT, O. (2001) The firm orthe region: what determines the innovation be-havior of European firms?, Economic Geogra-phy, 77(4), pp. 364–382.

STORPER, M. (1997) The Regional World: Terri-torial Development in a Global Economy. NewYork: Guilford Press.

TODTLING, F. (1994) The uneven landscape ofinnovation poles: local embeddedness and glo-bal networks, in: A. AMIN and N. THRIFT (Eds)Globalisation, Institutions, and Regional De-velopment in Europe, pp. 68–90. Oxford: Ox-ford University Press.

TOMER, J. F. (1998) Beyond the machine model ofthe firm: toward a holistic human model, Jour-nal of Socio-Economics, 27(3), pp. 323–340.

TUROK, I. (1993) Inward investment and local

linkages: how deeply embedded is ‘SiliconGlen’?, Regional Studies, 27(5), pp. 401–417.

WANG, K. (Ed.) (1994) Science and TechnologyParks: Selected Successful Experience in AsiaPacific Region. Taipei: Pacific Economic Co-operation Council.

WESTHEAD, P. and BATSTONE, S. (1998) Indepen-dent technology-based firms: The perceivedbenefits of a science park location, Urban Stud-ies, 35(12), pp. 2179–2219.

WONG, P. K. (1995) Singapore’s technology strat-egy, in: D. F. SIMON (Ed.) The Emerging Tech-nological Trajectory of the Pacific Rim,pp. 103–130. New York: ME Sharpe.

YEUNG, H. W. C. (1998) Capital, state and space:contesting the borderless world, Transactionsof the Institute of British Geographers, 23,pp. 291–309.

YEUNG, H. W. C. (2000) Organising ‘the firm’ inindustrial geography I: networks, institutionsand regional development, Progress in HumanGeography, 24(2), pp. 301–315.

YONG, K. S. (1984) The Singapore Science Park.Unpublished academic exercise, School ofBuilding and Estate Management, NationalUniversity of Singapore.

ZUKINS, S. and DIMAGGIO, P. (Eds) (1990) Struc-tures of Capital: The Social Organisation of theEconomy. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.

A Place for R&D? The Singapore Science Park - NUS - Home

Documents

Transcript of A Place for R&D? The Singapore Science Park - NUS - Home