This paper focuses on two regions in the United States that have emerged as high-technology regions in the absence of major research universities. The case of Portland's Silicon Forest is compared to Washington, DC. In both regions, high-technology economies grew because of industrial restructuring processes. The paper argues that in both regions other actors—such as firms and government laboratories—spurred the development of knowledge-based economies and catalysed the engagement of higher education institutions in economic development. The paper confirms and advances the triple helix model of university–government–industry relationships and posits that future studies have to examine degrees of university-region engagement.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ArchibugiD.PiantaM. (1996) Innovation surveys and patents as technology indicators: the state of the art, in: OECD (Ed.) Innovation, Patents and Technological Strategies (Paris: OECD).
2.
AtkinsonR. D.GottliebP. D. (2001) The Metropolitan New Economy Index. Benchmarking Economic Transformation in the Nation's Metropolitan Areas (Washington DC: Progressive Policy Institute)).
3.
BoucherG.ConwayC.Van Der MeerE. (2003) Tiers of engagement by universities in their region's development, Regional Studies, 37(9), pp. 887–897.
4.
BraczykH.-J.CookeP.HeidenreichM. (1998) Regional Innovation Systems: The Role of Governance in a Globalized World (London: UCL Press).
5.
BrubakerB. (2004) Biotech firm building in Prince William, The Washington Post, June 30, p. E05.
6.
CastellsM.HallP. (1994) Technopoles of the World: The Making of 21st Century Industrial Complexes (London: Routledge).
7.
ChappleK.MarkusenA.SchrockG.YamamotoD.YuP. (2004) Gauging metropolitan ‘High-Tech’ and ‘I-Tech’ activity, Economic Development Quarterly, 18(1), pp. 10–29.
8.
CheaT. (2001) Building the ‘Bell Labs’ of biology, The Washington Post, February 1, p. E05.
9.
CortrightJ.MayerH. (2000) The Ecology of the Silicon Forest (Portland, OR: Institute for Portland Metropolitan Studies, Portland State University).
10.
CortrightJ.MayerH. (2001) High Tech Specialization: A Comparison of High Technology Centers (Survey Series) (Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution).
11.
CortrightJ.MayerH. (2002) Signs of Life: The Growth of Biotechnology Centers in the U.S. (Washington DC: The Brookings Institution).
12.
CortrightJ.MayerH. (2004) Increasingly rank: the use and misuse of rankings in economic development, Economic Development Quarterly, 18(1), pp. 34–43.
13.
CrevoisierO.MaillatD. (1991) Milieu, industrial organization and territorial production system: towards a new theory of spatial development, in: CamagniR. (Ed) Innovation Networks: Spatial Perspectives (London: Belhaven Press).
14.
DeVolR. C. (1999) America's High Tech Economy: Growth, Development and Risks for Metropolitan Areas (Santa Monica, CA: Milken Institute).
15.
EtzkowitzH. (2001) The entrepreneurial university and the emergence of democratic corporatism, in: EtzkowitzH.LeydesdorffL. (Eds) Universities and the Global Knowledge Economy: A Triple Helix of University-Industry-Government Relations, pp. 141–152 (New York: Continuum).
16.
EtzkowitzH.LeydesdorffL. (1995) The triple helix of university-industry-government relations: a laboratory for knowledge based economic development, EASST Review, 14(1), pp. 11–19.
17.
EtzkowitzH.LeydesdorffL. (2001a) Introduction: Universities in the global knowledge economy, in: EtzkowitzH.LeydesdorffL. (Eds) Universities and the Global Knowledge Economy: A Triple Helix of University-Industry-Government Relations, pp. 1–8 (New York: Continuum).
18.
EtzkowitzH.LeydesdorffL. (2001b) Universities and the Global Knowledge Economy: A Triple Helix of University-Industry-Government Relations (New York: Continuum).
19.
EtzkowitzH.WebsterA.GebhardtC.TerraB. R. C. (2000) The future of the university and the university of the future: evolution of ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm, Research Policy, 29, pp. 313–330.
20.
FeldmanM. (1994) The university and economic development: the case of Johns Hopkins University and Baltimore, Economic Development Quarterly, 8(1), pp. 67–76.
21.
FeldmanM. (2001) The entrepreneurial event revisited: firm formation in a regional context, Industrial and Corporate Change, 10(4), pp. 861–891.
22.
FeldmanM. (2003) The locational dynamics of the US biotech industry: knowledge externalities and the anchor hypothesis, Industry and Innovation, 10(3), pp. 311–328.
23.
FeldmanM.DesrochersP. (2003) Research universities and local economic development: lessons from the history of the Johns Hopkins University, Industry and Innovation, 10(1), pp. 5–24.
24.
FeldmanM.DesrochersP. (Forthcoming) Truth for its own sake: Academic culture and technology transfer at Johns Hopkins University. Minerva.
25.
FeldmanM.FrancisJ. (2003) Fortune favors the prepared region: the case of entrepreneurship and the Capitol region biotechnology cluster, European Planning Studies, 11(7), pp. 765–788.
26.
FloridaR.KenneyM. (1990) The Breakthrough Illusion: Corporate America's Failure to Move from Innovation to Mass Production (New York: Basic Books).
27.
FogartyM. S.SinhaA. K. (1999) Why older regions can't generalize from Route 128 and Silicon Valley: university-industry relationships and regional innovation systems, in: BranscombL. M.KodamaF.FloridaR. (Eds) Industrializing Knowledge: University-Industry Linkages in Japan and the United States (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).
28.
GarrauJ. (1992) Edge City: Life on the New Frontier (New York: Doubleday).
29.
George Mason University (2004) About the Prince William Campus. George Mason University. Retrieved October 10, 2004, from the World Wide Web: http://princewilliam.gmu.edu/about.html.
30.
GrayM.GolobE.MarkusenA. (1996) Big firms, long arms, wide shoulders: the ‘hub-and-spoke’ industrial district in the Seattle region, Regional Studies, 30(7), pp. 651-616.
31.
GrayM.GolobE.MarkusenA. (1999) Seattle: a classic hub-and-spoke region, in: MarkusenA.LeeY.-S.DiGiovannaS. (Eds) Second Tier Cities: Rapid Growth beyond the Metropolis (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota).
32.
Greater Washington Initiative (2003) Greater Washington Research & Development Facilities Directory (Washington, DC: Great Washington Board of Trace).
33.
GulbrandsenM. (2001) Universities and industrial competitive advantage, in: EtzkowitzH.LeydesdorffL. (Eds) Universities and the Global Knowledge Economy: a Triple Helix of University-Industry-Government Relations, pp. 121–140 (New York: Continuum).
34.
HarrisonB. (1992) Industrial districts: old wine in new bottles?, Regional Studies, 26(5), pp. 469–483.
35.
HirstP.ZeitlinJ. (1991) Flexible specialization versus post-Fordism: theory, evidence and policy implications, Economy and Society, 20(1), pp. 1–56.
36.
JoyceA. (2002) Making Loudoun a center for research, The Washington Post, March 28, p. LZ05.
37.
KittowerD. (1997) Innovation is centerpiece of Prince William success. Washington Business Journal, September 12.
38.
LeeM. M. (1986) Winning with People: the First 40 Years of Tektronix (Portland: Tektronix, Inc).
39.
LeslieS. W. (1993) The Cold War and American Science: the Military-Industrial-Academic Complex at MIT and Stanford (New York: Columbia University Press).
40.
LeslieS. W.KargonR. H. (1994) Electronics and the geography of innovation in post-war America, History and Technology, 11, pp. 217–231.
41.
LeslieS. W.KargonR. H. (1996) Selling Silicon Valley: Frederick Terman's model for regional advantage, Business History Review, 70, pp. 435–472.
42.
LugerM.GoldsteinH. (1990) Technology in the Garden (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press).
43.
LugerM.GoldsteinH. (1997) What is the role of public universities in regional economic development?, in: BinghamR.MierR. (Eds) Dilemmas of Urban Economic Development (Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications).
44.
LundvallB.-A.JohnsonB. (1994) The learning economy, Journal of Industry Studies, 1(2), pp. 23–42.
45.
MarkusenA.HallP.CampbellS.DeitrickS. (1991) The Rise of the Gunbelt: the Military Remapping of Industrial America (New York: Oxford University Press).
46.
MayerH. (2003) Taking root in the Silicon Forest: the role of high technology firms as surrogate universities in Portland, Oregon. Unpublished Dissertation, Portland State University, Portland, OR.
47.
MayerH. (2005a) The homeland security industry and its impact on the Arlington, Virginia, economy[Issue Paper No. 7]. Arlington Economic Development. Retrieved November 21, 2005, from the World Wide Web: http://www.arlingtonvirginiausa.com/docs/homeland_security_short.pdf.
48.
MayerH. (2005b) Taking root in the Silicon Forest: The role of high technology firms as surrogate universities in Portland, Oregon, Journal of the American Planning Association, 71(3), pp. 318–333.
49.
MayerH.HolzheimerT.GliddenH. (2005) Fostering emerging technology sectors in Arlington County: an economic development strategy for knowledge creation and innovation, Economic Development Journal, 4(1), pp. 7–17.
Oregon Business (2004) Research Oregon: A special report on college and university research programs. Portland, OR.
52.
Oregon Council for Knowledge and Economic Development (2002) Renewing Oregon's economy: growing jobs and industries through innovation. A report from the Oregon Council for Knowledge and Economic Development. Portland.
53.
PearlsteinS. (2004) Getting out of biotech's second tier, The Washington Post, September 8, p. E01.
54.
PioreM.SabelC. (1984) The Second Industrial Divide: Possibilities for Prosperity (New York: Basic Books).
55.
PorterM. (2000) Location, competition, and economic development: local clusters in a global economy, Economic Development Quarterly, 14(1), pp. 15–34.
56.
Progressive Policy Institute (2001) The Metropolitan New Economy Index. Retrieved June 27, 2006, from the World Wide Web: http://neweconomyindex.org/metro.
57.
SaxenianA. (1985) The genesis of Silicon Valley, in: HallP.MarkusenA. (Eds) Silicon Landscapes, pp. 20–34 (Boston: Allen & Unwin).
58.
SaxenianA. (1994) Regional Advantage: Culture and Competition in Silicon Valley and Route 128 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press).
59.
SmilorR. W.GibsonD. V.KozmetskyG. (1989) Creating the technopolis: high-technology development in Austin, Texas, Journal of Business Venturing, 4, pp. 49–67.
60.
SmithD.AlexanderR. (1988) Fumbling the Future: How Xerox Invented, then Ignored the First Personal Computer (New York: William Morrow).
61.
State Council of Higher Education for Virginia (2002) Condition of research at Virginia Colleges & Universities.
62.
Virginia Research & Technology Advisory Committee (2003a) Report of the VRTAC Sub-committee on: the creation of new high-technology industries in Virginia.
63.
Virginia Research & Technology Advisory Committee (2003b) Research & development strategies for the Commonwealth of Virginia: a report of the Virginia Research & Technology Advisory Commission.
64.
WalcottS. M. (2002) Analyzing an Innovative Environment: San Diego as a Bioscience Beachhead, Economic Development Quarterly, 16(2), pp. 99–114.
65.
WalshokM.FurtekE.LeeC.WindhamP. (2002) Building regional innovation capacity: the San Diego experience, Industry & Higher Education, 16(1), pp. 27–42.
