정책이전 측면에서 바라본 한국 테크노파크 도입결정사례 연구 (A Case Study on Policy Making for Construction of Technoparks in Korea: Using A Policy Transfer Framework)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 한국생산성학회
· 수록지 정보 : 생산성연구: 국제융합학술지 / 31권 / 3호 / 165 ~ 195페이지
· 저자명 : 김상모

초록

By making use of a policy transfer framework, this study examines issues on policy transfer theory and analyzes policy making processes for construction of Korea's technoparks. Major findings are as below.
Firstly, during the 1990s, the megatrends of a worldwide technopark boom and the launch of WTO motivated the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy (MOTIE) to introduce technopark policies voluntarily. These megatrends helped MOTIE overcome traditional sectionalism in Korea which disrupted MOTIE's introduction of technopark policies. The case of policy making for construction of technoparks in Korea involved both voluntary and coercive elements although it falls into the voluntary transfer category.
Before MOTIE introduced technoparks in Korea, the Ministry of Science and Technology(MOST) constructed Daedeok technopolis and planned to construct more technopoleis. The technoparks introduced by MOTIE focus on supporting local companies while the science parks introduced by MOST set a high value on R&D itself. The difference between them was made by the gap between missions of the two ministries.
Secondly, MOTIE tried to build technoparks in their own style. It learned from successful techoparks in the USA, UK, Germany, France, Japan and Taiwan about their construction, size, location, and government support. Critical success factors of technoparks in developed countries include top-tier research universities, advanced technology-based companies, notable venture capital firms, good leaders and strong government supports for them. Every successful technopark has its own merits that make it a successful venture. In the case of Korean technoparks, factors that act as both catalysts and constraints on transfer include policy objectives, actors, characteristics of technoparks and existing policies.
Thirdly, distinctive features of Korean-style technoparks include the establishment of third-sector organizations for technopark constructions, small scale parks, various types of locations including universities and industrial complexes, as well as unique government support tools including tax incentives and financial support. In terms of operating organizations, technoparks in Korea, operated by non-profit third-sector organizations, are similar to Kumamoto Technopolis and Kanagawa Science Park in Japan rather than Stanford Research Park, Hsinchu Science Park and Sophia Antipolis. University-led technoparks tend to be located in universities while local government-led technoparks tend to be located in industrial parks. Although Korean technopark policies are transferred from developed countries, due to path dependence, most of the supporting measures for them originate from existing measures for other policy areas such as industrial complexes.
Fourthly, in the case of Korean technopark policies, the degree of the policy transfer has both the characteristics of emulation and combination. MOTIE learned from Japanese technopoleis and science parks to introduce third-sector type operating organizations.
However, Korean technoparks have not adopted profit-making type organizations for their operation. MOTIE established their own technopark policies transferred from various developed countries.

영어초록

By making use of a policy transfer framework, this study examines issues on policy transfer theory and analyzes policy making processes for construction of Korea's technoparks. Major findings are as below.
Firstly, during the 1990s, the megatrends of a worldwide technopark boom and the launch of WTO motivated the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy (MOTIE) to introduce technopark policies voluntarily. These megatrends helped MOTIE overcome traditional sectionalism in Korea which disrupted MOTIE's introduction of technopark policies. The case of policy making for construction of technoparks in Korea involved both voluntary and coercive elements although it falls into the voluntary transfer category.
Before MOTIE introduced technoparks in Korea, the Ministry of Science and Technology(MOST) constructed Daedeok technopolis and planned to construct more technopoleis. The technoparks introduced by MOTIE focus on supporting local companies while the science parks introduced by MOST set a high value on R&D itself. The difference between them was made by the gap between missions of the two ministries.
Secondly, MOTIE tried to build technoparks in their own style. It learned from successful techoparks in the USA, UK, Germany, France, Japan and Taiwan about their construction, size, location, and government support. Critical success factors of technoparks in developed countries include top-tier research universities, advanced technology-based companies, notable venture capital firms, good leaders and strong government supports for them. Every successful technopark has its own merits that make it a successful venture. In the case of Korean technoparks, factors that act as both catalysts and constraints on transfer include policy objectives, actors, characteristics of technoparks and existing policies.
Thirdly, distinctive features of Korean-style technoparks include the establishment of third-sector organizations for technopark constructions, small scale parks, various types of locations including universities and industrial complexes, as well as unique government support tools including tax incentives and financial support. In terms of operating organizations, technoparks in Korea, operated by non-profit third-sector organizations, are similar to Kumamoto Technopolis and Kanagawa Science Park in Japan rather than Stanford Research Park, Hsinchu Science Park and Sophia Antipolis. University-led technoparks tend to be located in universities while local government-led technoparks tend to be located in industrial parks. Although Korean technopark policies are transferred from developed countries, due to path dependence, most of the supporting measures for them originate from existing measures for other policy areas such as industrial complexes.
Fourthly, in the case of Korean technopark policies, the degree of the policy transfer has both the characteristics of emulation and combination. MOTIE learned from Japanese technopoleis and science parks to introduce third-sector type operating organizations.
However, Korean technoparks have not adopted profit-making type organizations for their operation. MOTIE established their own technopark policies transferred from various developed countries.

참고자료

· 없음