지역혁신과 과학 및 산업기술 정책 비교 -미국,영국과 그리스의 사례 = A Comparative Study for Regional Innovation and the Policy of Science and Industrial Technology -on the cases of the U.S.,England and Greece

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

These days, the theories on regional innovation system and cluster are variously deployed, referring to regional development as well as scientific and technological R&D. Above all, the 4th Generation R&D recently highlighted has given emphasis on reciprocal learning and tacit knowledge in the process of R&D, making itself a R&D having a close connection with regional innovation. The regional innovation related to technological development denotes two different meanings in view of regional sphere. One is the concept of ``islands of innovation``, which pays no regard to regional development in balance, placing much emphasis on metropoleis. The other one tries to lessen regional inequality of opportunity and to disseminate production factors far and wide. The policies of science and technology take different shapes according to the political and economical system of each nation as well as the situation of ages. The Silicon Valley and Route 128 in the U.S., and some part of the Cambridge Science Park in England are referred to the defence industry and high-technology. Greek industrial technology, however, is far from the defence industry, and related not only to high-tech, but also various living industry. In Greece, techno-parks began to be created around 1990 with the support of the European Community which purported to realize regional balance, devising a social redistribution policy for undeveloped countries. There are common points as well as differences between the advanced countries, U.S. and England, and undeveloped Greece, in view of the factors which decide success and failure of the regional innovation and the policy of science and industrial technology, and of the desirable strategies in the future. First, in Route 128 of MIT and the Cambridge Science Park, the large emterprises, being connected with government funds, lost the flexibility of entreprise management which was necessary for forstering competitiveness and innovational development. They declined gradually by isolation against each other, concealment of technology, and the ignorance of market information. In the midst of creating Silicon Valley, however, the enterprises repeat infinite divisions and consolidations, and lots of small companies were in a constant alignment by innovational technological development. This environment, which seemed chaotic and divergent, has been regarded by the scholars of later generations as a factor promoting successful regional innovation, assuming the hothouse for regional innovation based on reciprocal interaction, networking and learning. Like Silicon Valley, Greece in the 1990`s, with the close cooperation with the European Community, sought after regional innovation and entreprise management based on the common ownership and distribution of technology and information. The Thessaloniki Techno-Park, a representative one in Greece, however, still denotes immature cooperation between companies and research institutes, and exclusivity against each other. Theses features are partly due to inertia of enterprises and a small scale. Thence, a more comprehensive and effective program of regional innovation, such as extending the a social system composed of interacting antities, that is the knowledge application and exploitation entity and the knowledge generation and diffusion entity, to all the area of Greece as well as all the territory of European Unity. Secondly, in Route 128 and the Cambridge Science Park, the large entreprises of the defence industry lost competitiveness by assuming special favour of political authority. Beginning with the defence industry, however, Silicon Valley had less beaurocratic abuses, because creative and small companies there infinitely spin off. In Greece, with the support of both the government of the country itself and the European Community, more effective development of industrial technology and regional innovation has been pursued since the second half of the 1990`s. The innovation policy from above might lead to collision with the regional government, ignoring regional particulars. Then, there are still some issues to be solved. Decentralization of governmental finance and administration should be fairly realized to promote voluntary and creative cooperation in the level of regions. On the other hand, regional or private initiatives should also be balanced with the control and check of the governmental authorities as well as the European Communitty. Thirdly, the horizontal, sectorial support, and the upbringing of some limited regions by the policy of selection-concentration strengthen competitiveness and effectiveness. They might result in, however, much more inequality among regions and social classes in less developed countries, while not causing any serious problems in advanced countries. On the contrary, the policy seeking after regional balance could do harm to the effective innovation and technological development which could be successfully accomplished by selection and concentration. Then, it is inevitable, especially in less developed countries like Greece, that the various potency of each region should be unearthed in the long run, to get rid of temporary regional inequality caused by selection and concentration. The way could apply to us, today`s Korea, in the same degree.