IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/see/wpaper/66.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Between vision and reality: promoting innovation through technoparks in Kazakhstan

Author

Listed:
  • Slavo Radosevic

    (UCL School of Slavonic and East European Studies)

  • Marat Myrzakhmet

    (Eurasian National University, Innovation Center, Munaitpasov Street, 010008 Astana, Kazakhstan)

Abstract

A common motivation for the technopark movement is the belief that technoparks promote innovation and economic growth at regional and/or national levels. The paper analyses the role of technoparks as instruments of innovation promotion in Kazakhstan using data from a firm survey and interviews. Our results suggest that, unlike what is assumed in the innovation policy literature, technoparks do not house firms dealing with the commercialisation of innovations that are ready for introduction to the market. Technopark firms are no more innovative than other firms. They are oriented largely towards the local market, and operate in traditional sectors; the frequency and intensity of their external links are more developed than are their internal links. The key motivations for relocating to a technopark seem to be lower rents and the possibility of accessing finance. Overall, Kazakh technoparks seem to be successful in terms of facilitating business incubation, but much les so in terms of innovation promotion and diversification of the economy. Currently, Kazakh industry does not make any demands for local R&D, and its sources of competitiveness lie in non-R&D activities. This suggests that innovation policy should focus on assisting companies to upgrade their technological capabilities to the level that they can articulate their R&D demands. Focusing on technoparks as the main mechanism to improve competitiveness and diversify the economy is an ineffective and uncertain a policy option at this stage of the country's economic development. However, there seems to be significant scope for supporting business incubation. These conclusions are of relevance to other emerging economies.

Suggested Citation

  • Slavo Radosevic & Marat Myrzakhmet, 2006. "Between vision and reality: promoting innovation through technoparks in Kazakhstan," UCL SSEES Economics and Business working paper series 66, UCL School of Slavonic and East European Studies (SSEES).
    • Handle: RePEc:see:wpaper:66
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/17492/1/17492.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mickiewicz, Tomasz & Gerry, Christopher J. & Bishop, Kate, 2005. "Privatisation, corporate control and employment growth: Evidence from a panel of large Polish firms, 1996-2002," Economic Systems, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 98-119, March.
    2. Christopher Gerry & Carmen A. Li, 2004. "Revisiting Consumption Smoothing and the 1998 Russian Crisis," UCL SSEES Economics and Business working paper series 43, UCL School of Slavonic and East European Studies (SSEES).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. David Minguillo & Robert Tijssen & Mike Thelwall, 2015. "Do science parks promote research and technology? A scientometric analysis of the UK," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(1), pages 701-725, January.
    2. Albahari, Alberto & Pérez-Canto, Salvador & Landoni, Paolo, 2010. "Science and Technology Parks impacts on tenant organisations: a review of literature," MPRA Paper 41914, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Lizbeth Martínez Ramírez & Jaime Munoz Flores & Arturo Torres Vargas, 2016. "The Analytical Hierarchy Process: An Optimal Methodology for Research in Entrepreneurship (Metoda Analytical Hierarchy Process – optymalna metodologia badan przedsiebiorczosci)," Problemy Zarzadzania, University of Warsaw, Faculty of Management, vol. 14(62), pages 172-186.
    4. Lizbeth Martinez Ramirez & Jaime Munoz, 2015. "Priority Criteria and Alternatives for University Business Incubators in the Entrepreneurial Process in Mexico (Priorytetowe kryteria i alternatywy stosowane przez akademickie inkubatory przedsiebiorc," Research Reports, University of Warsaw, Faculty of Management, vol. 2(19), pages 95-105.
    5. Adel Ben Youssef & Nawsheen Elaheebocus & Hatem M'Henni & Ludovic Ragni, 2012. "Are Technoparks High Tech Fantasies? Lessons from the Tunisian Experience," Post-Print halshs-01068253, HAL.
    6. David Minguillo & Mike Thelwall, 2015. "Which are the best innovation support infrastructures for universities? Evidence from R&D output and commercial activities," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(1), pages 1057-1081, January.
    7. Schwartz, Michael, 2010. "A Control Group Study of Incubators’ Impact to Promote Firm Survival," IWH Discussion Papers 11/2010, Halle Institute for Economic Research (IWH).
    8. Bauyrzhan Yessengeldin & Diana Sitenko & Gulnaz Murzatayeva & Anar Yessengeldina, 2016. "Scientific Potential as the Basis of Innovation Development of Kazakhstan," International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues, Econjournals, vol. 6(3), pages 1019-1024.
    9. Sungur, Onur & Dulupçu, Murat Ali, 2013. "İşletme Kuluçkaları ve Bölgesel Kalkınma: Kavramsal Çerçeve ve Literatür Bulguları [Business Incubators and Regional Development: Conceptual Framework and Findings from the Literature]," MPRA Paper 51833, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. Laura Lecluyse & Mirjam Knockaert & André Spithoven, 2019. "The contribution of science parks: a literature review and future research agenda," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 44(2), pages 559-595, April.
    11. Kyunga Na & Kwangsoo Shin, 2019. "The Gender Effect on a Firm’s Innovative Activities in the Emerging Economies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-24, April.
    12. Michael Schwartz, 2013. "A control group study of incubators’ impact to promote firm survival," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 38(3), pages 302-331, June.
    13. Anastassiya LIPOVKA & Arman ISLAMGALEYEV & Jeļena BADJANOVA, 2021. "Innovation capability of women and men managers: evidence from Kazakhstan," Access Journal, Access Press Publishing House, vol. 2(1), pages 91-102, January.
    14. Jianghua Zhou & Hao Jiao & Jizhen Li, 2017. "Providing Appropriate Technology for Emerging Markets: Case Study on China’s Solar Thermal Industry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(2), pages 1-21, January.
    15. World Bank, 2008. "Bulgaria - Investment Climate Assessment : Volume 2. Detailed Report," World Bank Publications - Reports 7868, The World Bank Group.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Christopher J. Gerry & Eugene Nivorozhkin & John A. Rigg, 2008. "The great divide: 'ruralisation' of poverty in Russia," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 32(4), pages 593-607, July.
    2. Tullio Buccellato, 2007. "Convergence across Russian regions: a spatial econometrics approach," UCL SSEES Economics and Business working paper series 72, UCL School of Slavonic and East European Studies (SSEES).
    3. Slavo Radosevic, 2006. "Growth, Integration and Spillovers in the Central and East European Software Industry," UCL SSEES Economics and Business working paper series 69, UCL School of Slavonic and East European Studies (SSEES).
    4. Vernikov, Andrei, 2007. "Corporate governance and control in Russian banks," MPRA Paper 10028, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Kate Bishop, 2006. "Knowledge based entrepreneurship in the Czech Republic and Hungary: results from 4 case studies," UCL SSEES Economics and Business working paper series 71, UCL School of Slavonic and East European Studies (SSEES).
    6. Slavo Radosevic, 2007. "Research and Development and Competitiveness in South Eastern Europe: Asset or Liability for EU Integration?," UCL SSEES Economics and Business working paper series 75, UCL School of Slavonic and East European Studies (SSEES).
    7. Burdín, Gabriel & Dean, Andrés, 2012. "Revisiting the objectives of worker-managed firms: An empirical assessment," Economic Systems, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 158-171.
    8. Violetta Parutis, 2006. "Construction of Home by Polish and Lithuanian Migrants in the UK," UCL SSEES Economics and Business working paper series 64, UCL School of Slavonic and East European Studies (SSEES).
    9. Adam Sliwinski, 2006. "Ownership structure and development of Polish life insurance companies - evidence from 1991 to 2004," UCL SSEES Economics and Business working paper series 63, UCL School of Slavonic and East European Studies (SSEES).
    10. Bhaumik, Sumon Kumar & Dimova, Ralitza & Nugent, Jeffrey B., 2011. "Off-farm labor supply and labor markets in rapidly changing circumstances: Bulgaria during transition," Economic Systems, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 378-389, September.
    11. Lami, Endrit & Imami, Drini & Kächelein, Holger, 2016. "Fuelling political fiscal cycles by opportunistic privatization in transition economies: The case of Albania," Economic Systems, Elsevier, vol. 40(2), pages 220-231.
    12. Kenneth Wilson, 2008. "Party-system institutionalization and democracy: the case of Russia," UCL SSEES Economics and Business working paper series 91, UCL School of Slavonic and East European Studies (SSEES).
    13. Zorica Kalezić, 2015. "Ownership Concentration and Firm Performance in Transition Economies: Evidence from Montenegro," Journal of Central Banking Theory and Practice, Central bank of Montenegro, vol. 4(3), pages 5-64.
    14. Karoly Fazekas & Gabor Kezdi (ed.), 2007. "The Hungarian Labour Market 2007," The Hungarian Labour Market Yearbooks, Institute of Economics, Centre for Economic and Regional Studies, number 2007, December.
    15. Ben Salha, Ousama, 2013. "Does economic globalization affect the level and volatility of labor demand by skill? New insights from the Tunisian manufacturing industries," Economic Systems, Elsevier, vol. 37(4), pages 572-597.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:see:wpaper:66. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/csescuk.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.