“transformation in the higher education - utm library...

47
Perpustakaan Sultanah Zanariah ARTICLES FOR UTM SENATE MEMBERS “Transformation In The Higher Education" TITLE SOURCE Managing Transformation Towards An International Research University :Lesson- Learned From Gadjah Mada University Academic Source Building An Innovation Hub : A Case Study Of The Transformation Of University Roles In Regional Technological And Economic Development Elsevier Database Globalization, University Transformation And Economic Regeneration : A UK Case Study Of Public/Private Sector Partnership Emerald Database 2 Jun 2010 SOURCE : PERPUSTAKAAN SULTANAH ZANARIAH

Upload: others

Post on 11-Oct-2019

2 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Per pust ak aan Su l t anah Z an ar i ah

ARTICLESFOR

UTM SENATE MEMBERS

“Transformation In The Higher Education"

TITLE SOURCE

Managing Transformation Towards An International Research University :Lesson- Learned From Gadjah Mada University Academic Source

Building An Innovation Hub : A Case Study Of The Transformation Of University Roles In Regional Technological And Economic Development

Elsevier Database

Globalization, University Transformation And Economic Regeneration : A UK Case Study Of Public/Private Sector Partnership

Emerald Database

2 Jun 2010SOURCE : PERPUSTAKAAN SULTANAH ZANARIAH

Per pust ak aan Su l t anah Z an ar i ah

TITLE SOURCE

Managing Transformation Towards An International Research University :Lesson-Learned From Gadjah Mada University

Academic Source

MANAGING TRANSFORMATION TOWARD AN INTERNATIONAL

R E S E A R C H U N I V E R S I T Y : Lesson-Learned From Gadjah Mada University

Purwo Santoso Gadjah Mada University, Indonesia

[email protected]

Abstract

Benefited from liberalization policy, the tradition of autonomous research communities within Gadjah Mada University gathered momentum in improving its institutional capacity to perform as a world-class research university.

Reviewing how the university dealing with internal problems as well as external challenges allows us to important lessons. This is particularly important to situate a leading university in the developing country within international research system.

The ability of GMU in boosting its research capacity relies on its ability to bring together a sense of well-managed institution and autonomous atmosphere. Having restructure the management scheme, the governing body gears at employing a market-based instruments by the way of standardizing research quality and research institutions, and ensuring the supply side (research activities within the university) meet external demand. In doing so, GMU has no luxury competing with Research University in the developed countries, which perform as vanguard of science and technological development. Research capacity building at GMU means enhancing the capacity to solve the problem its counterparts in particular and resolving the pertaining problems of developing countries.

The best way for enhancing GMU's research capacity is by the way of facilitating internal reform which eventually improve its ability to deal with developing country’s issue.

To be presented in UNESCO Forum on Higher Education, Research and Knowledge

Colloquium on Research and Higher Education Policy, 29 November – 1 December 2006, UNESCO Fontenoy, Paris.

1

1. Introduction

The policy of Indonesian government to liberalize education sector, precisely to leading universities such as Gadjah Mada University (GMU) with ample autonomy in running education process has been responded with high enthusiasm. A pledge to improve its research capacity was made, namely to be a world-class research university. Numerous activities are currently undertaken and further challenges lies ahead. There are valuable lessons lie behind it.

GMU has all the potentials to. The heart of the potential is a dense network of research groups, which are loosely organised and interact almost autonomously. A delicately-designed scheme is needed for allowing the existing networks of research communities to consolidate the existing potentials, prior to depart on cultural transformation.

2. Coming to Terms With An “Organised Anarchy”

GMU is the oldest university in Indonesia.1 As it grows fast, it also known as the largest and influential university within the country.2 What makes GMU influential, however, is not its stringent in management. Its ability to perform was not due to the function of central command and strict planning. Given the size of the university, it is surprising to know that, for so long GMU has been working without effective control of the rector.3 It nonetheless, well performs due to the functioning of network-based governance.4

Each unit within it are highly autonomous. Former rector on the GMU, Prof. Ichlasul Amal, used to call his own university as an

1 It was established in 1949, namely 5 years after Sukarno-Hatta proclaim Indonesian

Independence.

2 As of April 2005, the university facilitates intellectual engagement of its 41,509 students, 2,213 lecturers, supported by 2,269 administrative staff. Composition of the students is the following: doctorate level 840 students, master level 10,029, undergraduate 25,000 students, and diploma 5,108 students. Among the teaching staff 613 are Ph.D holder, 1,165 are holding master degree and the other 127 holding professional degree, and the remaining 435 are graduate. Universitas Gadjah Mada, Buku Wisuda: Lulusan Program Sarjana Universitas Gadjah Mada, 19 Mei 2005, Yogyakarta 2005.

3 Interview with Prof. Ichlasul Amal, Rector for the period of 1998-2002, 9 October 2006. The fact that rector in the past was having to effective control to the entire organization been confirmed by Prof. Sofian Effendi, Rector for the period of 2002-2007.

4 Walter J.M. Kickert, Erik-Hans Klijn and Joop F.M. Koppenjan (eds.), Managing Complex Nertworks: Strategies for the Public Sector, Sage Publication, London 1999. See also, Erik-Hans Klijn and Joop F.M. Koppenjan, “Public Management and Policy Network”, in Public Management, Vol. 2. Issue 2, 2000. Also, Eva Etzioni-Halevy, “Network Governance As a Challenge to Democratic Elite Theory”, Paper to be presented on Democratic Network Governance, Copenhagen, May 22-23, 2003.

2

‘organised anarchy’5. Judging from a formal perspective, the the way the organisation within the university works, somehow, is anarchical.6 Each unit, so to speak, find their own way in achieving their objective or solving their problems. Each of them indeed receives quite amount of resource provided by the government, but their ability to develop has been dependent on their ability to set out and extent their own network.

The seemingly anarchical community within the GMU share a number of fundamental values and identity, if not sub-cultre. Their dynamics has been driven by small-group initiatives and management, as oppose centrally controlled strategic plan. Given the diversity of the interests within such a large organisation, university central office typically left one-step behind in setting up framework.7

A brief description on the way research centres work, would be good for illustration. There are 27 research centres within the university. Many of them have overlapping area of interest. Why don’t they merge themselve into one research centre ? The initiative to establish the research centre has been based on small-group initiatives. Each of them has their own counterpart as well as external funding, and hence only minimally relies on the headquarter office. As they have their own source of funding, and the university was unable to monitor, let alone control, there was no need for coordinating reseach. In many cases, the rector come notice such contract only because the counterpart of the research centres sent a complain.8

Not every initiative to establish a research centre ends up with success story. Many of them have a poor performance (See Figure 1). Within the period of 2002-2004, 7 out of 27 did not do any research activities or their researches were not recorded at university administration. On the other hand, there were five research centres, which manage to conduct more than 15 researches at the same period. Majority research contract conducted at GMU at that period was conducted by Centre for Transport and Logistic [PUSTRAL], Centre for

5 Interview, 9 October 2006.

6 There are 18 Faculties or 73 Departments operate within GMU. Moreover, there are 28 research centers. Some are bigger than the other; some are more developed than the other.

7 For example, the Faculty of Medicine took early initiative to computerize it library system. It manages to set up everything on its own, and it works well. A serious problem was encountered as the University aimed to set up a university-wide library system. Why ? The software was not compatible. It turned out that redeveloping the software is much cheaper than converting the existing one into the one which compatible with the university-wide software. Similar problem has been encountered as the university attempted to set up academic information system.

8 Sofian Effendi, interview, 11 October 2006.

3

Regional Planning and Development [PSPPR], Centre for Disaster Study [PSBA] as well as Centre for Population and Public Policy [PSKKP]. These are most developed research institute in terms of research management and external network. In term of amount of contract, two of them, namely Centre for Transport and Logistic [PUSTRAL], and Centre for Population and Public Policy [PSKKP] are the most dominating (See Figure 2).

Each faculty also entitle to conduct research. In fact, researchers who work in each research centres are also lecturers from various

Figure 2 Volume of Contract Conducted by Research Centres at GMU, 2002-2004 (Million Rp)

(RESEACH CENTRE) Source: Institute for Research and Community Service, GMU

Figure 1 Number of Research Conducted by Research Centres at GMU, 2002-2004

(RESEACH CENTRE) Source: Institute for Research and Community Service, GMU

4

faculties.9 This creates a tension. Some deans fell that their human resources drained into other agencies. Each faculty also gain an ample autonomy from Rector. They engage in various research activities, not only for enhancing education process within it but also for other purpose. Moreover, they are entitled to sign contract with external agencies. Their performance in research and well as their ability to secure external funding are also diverse. The gap among faculty is also quite extensive.10

As education sector was reformed along the line of liberalization following a severe financial and economic crisis in mid 1990s, Ministry of

Education grant GMU—along with other prominent universities11—with

extensive degree of autonomy in managing the university. They are exempted from the typically ineffective university governance. GMU remains a state-owned university, and retain high amount of state’s finance. GMU is listed as universities, which operate autonomously within the scheme of University as a State’s Legal Entity.12

3. Toward A World-Class Research University

The idea of ‘world-class research university’ is chosen to guide policy direction for the newly established and autonomous university governance. Prof. Sofian Effendi, who leads the university within the period of 2002-2007, is the first who was recruited in accordance with the new arrangement. In this regard, it is important not to understate the challenge for the GMU to face. Given the size and complexity of the university, internal reform within the GMU has been lengthy and painstaking. The current rector, Prof. Sofian Effendi, suggests that it takes at least three five-year terms to set GMU as a world-class research university. His personal mission is “simply” to set the foundation for the university to develop well in the future.13

9 This doesn’t mean that every lecture in each faculty affiliated to a particular research centre.

Research centre are design to melt researcher from various discipline in to a particular research area. Research centre are expected to apply a multidisciplinary, if not an interdisciplinary approach.

10 Kantor Wakil Rektor Bidang Penelitian dan Pengabdian kepada Masyarakat Universitas Gadjah Mada, Riset di Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, 2005.

11 They are: University of Indonesia (UI), Bandung Technological University (ITB), Bogor Agricultural University (IPB) and Indonesian University of Education (UPI).

12 See Government Regulation No. 153 of 2000 on the Entitlement of Gadjah Mada University as State’s Legal Entity.

13 Interview, 11 October 2006.

5

To indicate the deep-seated challenge, let us take a brief observation on two important issues: planning and quality assurance. The university use to be target of national planning scheme under the control of the Ministry of Education. Hence, it has not been experiencing to work according to a stringent planning system under it own control.14 The first-term of Prof. Sofian Effendi leadership has been the period when GMU install strategic planning system. It starts with installing planning system at central office and then moves downward along the formal hierarchy. Since preoccupation with planning allowed a neglect on quality assurance. For this reason, GMU at the same period geared at developing a system for quality assurance. These moves receive national and international appreciation.15 Some serious problems such as the research competent of the teaching staff, the vigour of research culture, availability laboratory remain unresolved yet.

a. Setting a Modes and Agreeable Ambition

Setting itself to be world-class university seems very ambitious. By a deeper look, however, it appears be realistic. Each university in Indonesia is officially bound to work within three-fold missions: education, research and community service. Given education is at the core of the mission, GMU decided not shift it. Being a research university means two things. First, to give more prominence to research by devoting more of the limitedly available resources (fund, manpower and facility). Second, to ensure that research serves as the primary basis for education process and community service.16

It is worth to mention that, GMU obsession for reaching a world-class university does not necessarily mean forcing itself to be a replica of research institute in the developed world. We know that research serves as the vanguard of scientific and technological development, but GMU does not intent in anyway to compete with university in the developed countries, particularly is seeking theoretical breakthrough or technological

14 In this regard, it is important to not that GMU known as university with commitment: such

as in term of nationalism, pro-poor or pro-rural.

15 According to ASEAN University Network Program, the Quality Assurance Scheme at GMU, along with that of Chulalongkorn University in Thailand, are the best two universities in ASEAN, to implement European Qaulity Assurance System.

16 Retno S. Sudibyo, “Sambutan” [Preface] in Kantor Wakil Rektor Bidang Penelitian dan Pengabdian kepada Masyarakat Universitas Gadjah Mada, Riset di Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, 2005.

6

advance. It, instead aims to make sure that GMU getting more relevant to its people, providing solution to local and national problems.17

b. Internal Reform: Trust Building and Consensus Crafting in.

Given the extent of the autonomy of units within the university, internal reform deserves dedicated treatment. Autonomous atmosphere within academic community co-exists with high suspicion to the governing body. The governing body were perceived as the agent of the Ministry of Education. Ironically, the rector even did not has adequate information each on going program within the university, let alone knowing exact resources being used by each units. Only recently, and only after such laborious effort, do rector Prof. Sofian Effendi, be able to figure out the number of accounting units in the university.18 No one dare to take risk in setting up a system within this situation.

That was ambivalence in governing GMU. There is tension between the requirement to work according to centralized set out by the Ministry and the need for autonomy for allowing academic (including research engagement to be productive) has been allowing a sub-optimum performance. The challenge therefore is to reconcile the competing mode of university governance: the centralized vs. the decentralized one. On the one hand there was a strong need for decentralized mode which allow small unit to exercise of autonomy, on the other hand there was a need make sure that research and any academic engagement conducted by any units goes to the desired direction.

Reaching consensus on university vision, namely to be a word-class research university, is far easier than agreeing on how to achieve it.19 Systematizing the network for is foreseeable, but centralistic resource control is not acceptable. In dealing with this puzzle, the governing body of GMU came up with a framework called (SADA) sentralisasi administrasi dan desentralisasi akademik (centralizing administration and decentralizing the academic (including research activities).

The first five-year term of Prof. Sofian Effendi’s leadership has been devoted to transform the university along this principle.

17 Prof. Sofian Effendi, interview, 11 October 2006. This interpretation of research university

is shared by the former Rector: Prof. Ichlasul Amal. (Interview, 9 October 2006).

18 Interview, 11 October 2006. Each unit in the university established their own accounting scheme; none of them regularly report it to Rector. He figures out that there are 314 accounting unit within the university. So far, he estimate, some 80% of management unit within the university willing to disclose their financial status and the remaining 20% are playing “wait and see” tactic.

19 The vision was formulated a long the line technocratic approach, which most university technocrat easy to agree on.

7

Technocratic instruments—such as database and information system, detailed annual planning for each unit, audit, organization restructuring

etc—has been rapidly developed, yet so much problems emerges at the surface. Consensus on the detailed and technical arrangement has been gradual consensus achieved as the GMU governing body intensively engage in a university wide debate and discussion.

c. Internal Reform: Consolidating Compliance Through Facility-Provision

The university leaders aim to have research activities getting more coordinated. For this reason, the coordinating body for research activities, namely the Research Institute, was redesigned and backed up with more authority and resources. Moreover, Community Service Institute, which traditionally in charge of running community service scheme, was merged in one unit and it has direct access to vice rector responsible for this affairs. The new unit is called Institute for Research and Community Service. The Institute also consolidate the existing diverse faculty into four clusters: science-technology, health-medicine, agro and socio-humanity.20 Each cluster, then decide a particular research priority as a basis for directing the distribution of research budget of the university. The important question to ask here is what makes the typically suspicious community comply with the initiative of the governing body.

First, the governing body has to demonstrate it commitment in serving and facilitating the research community. It, for example, begun to invest for establishing a bridging institution, called Techno-Centre. This institution is assigned to facilitating the marketing and enhancing external linkages to industry and research user. Secondly, the governing body apparently engage in some sort trading with its research communities, having convinced that those initiatives are strategic in bridging them with the wider counterparts. It doing so, the governing body within the Institute has to keep a strict rule: it does not conduct any research activities. Keeping this rule is important extremely important, otherwise the Institute loosing trust from research communities within research centres and faculties.

d. Reaching the first milestone

In the 2005 Annual Report, the rector of GMU writes with a pride. The following is my translation to the interesting part of the report. “Within its 56th year in service, along with 2.375 higher learning institution all over the world the GMU attending the invitation of Britain’s daily, The Times, to participate in selection of 100 best university in the world. … For the

20 The site-plan of the university, I fact has been set up in this way.

8

first time in the country’s history, a national university reach the world record, as GMU is within the World’s Top 100 on Art and Humanities.”21

4. Lesson Learned

Anyone attempt to enhance research capacity would have to encounter with external environment, structural factor which serves as hardware and cultural factor which serve as software for allowing research community engage in a political dynamics.22 GMU has been equipping itself with both software and hardware to make the prevailing dense networks of research community to perform better in reaching international standard.

GMU is in the position to be part of and offering solution to problem pertaining in developing world. It has been highly praised as a pro-poor and pro-rural university. New reputation as an international research university is attainable only by keep improving understanding on problem of the local community and offering solution to it through research. Indeed, research is the core activity and what important is not access to international funding, but its ability to solve.

Managing transformation is not merely pursuing a predetermined objective guided by particular vision. It also a matter of managing tension among different group and objectives. Managing controversy is an important process in agenda setting, and practical scheme in transforming the university is doable only in so far exist a certain degree shared-understanding. This is a condition for arriving at various breakthroughs, and transforming weakness into advantage.

Academic communities within GMU are highly political. Hence, managerially determined transformation schemes are unacceptable unless it is politically sensible. Technocratic rearrangements, such as establishing a thorough and systematic planning scheme, are highly needed and resisted at the same time. Such technocratic scheme would be abandoned unless it is acceptable within whole bunch of networks of academic communities. The network has been entrapping them in a particular sub-culture. What really important is not merely new mechanism, improvement of budget on research, incentive scheme for research an so

21 Universitas Gadjah Mada, Laporan Tahunan 2005, Universitas Gadjah Mada, 2006.

22 On Management Ltd., “Assessing Organizational Research Capacity: Notes from a Workshop”, Sponsored by: Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research, held at Banff Centre for Management, Banff, Alberta in October 4th and 5th, 2002.

9

on, but also a scenario and instrument for cultural transformation. Transformation takes place through reinvention of new tradition within a particular group and horizontal learning among them. The transformation would no make any progress unless the research community engage in the process of co-creation. Given the pervasiveness of informality within academic community, formalistic approach is met with resistance. The challenge is to establish and maintain a sense of community among the researcher. The most difficult challenge is to consolidate concerted actions and establishing new habit, and establishing namely new habit based research oriented.

The strategic role of the governing body channel external resources and opportunity with internal potential. GMU is hardly able set research agenda for it its own research community. Long-term process of co-creating in establishing institutional infrastructure will be the most obvious internal agenda for bolstering it ability in producing relevant research.

Reference:

Erik-Hans Klijn and Joop F.M. Koppenjan. 2000. “Public Management and Policy Network”, in Public Management, Vol. 2. Issue 2,.

Eva Etzioni-Halevy. 2003. “Network Governance as a Challenge to Democratic Elite Theory”, Paper to be presented on Democratic Network Governance, Copenhagen, May 22-23,.

Kantor Wakil Rektor Bidang Penelitian dan Pengabdian kepada Masyarakat, Universitas Gadjah Mada. 2005. Riset di Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta.

On Management Ltd. 2002. “Assessing Organizational Research Capacity: Notes from a Workshop”, Sponsored by: Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research, held at Banff Centre for Management, Banff, Alberta in October 4th and 5th,.

Republic of Indonesia. 2000. Government Regulation No. 153 of 2000 on the Entitlement of Gadjah Mada University as State’s Legal Entity.

Universitas Gadjah Mada. 2005. Buku Wisuda: Lulusan Program Sarjana Universitas Gadjah Mada, 19 Mei 2005, Yogyakarta.

Universitas Gadjah Mada. 2006. Laporan Tahunan 2005, Universitas Gadjah Mada.

10

Walter J.M. Kickert, Erik-Hans Klijn and Joop F.M. Koppenjan (eds.). 1999. Managing Complex Nertworks: Strategies for the Public Sector, Sage Publication, London.

Interview:

Prof. Ichlasul Amal, 9 October 2006.

Prof. Sofian Effendi, 11 October 2006

Per pust ak aan Su l t anah Z an ar i ah

TITLE SOURCE

Building An Innovation Hub : A Case Study Of The Transformation Of University Roles In Regional Technological And Economic Development

Elsevier Database

Research Policy 37 (2008) 1188–1204

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Research Policy

journa l homepage: www.e lsev ier .com/ locate / respol

Building an innovation hub: A case study of the transformation ofuniversity roles in regional technologicaland economic development

Jan Youtiea,∗, Philip Shapirab,c

a Enterprise Innovation Institute, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332-0640, USAb Manchester Institute of Innovation Research, Manchester Business School, University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, UKc School of Public Policy, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332-0345, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Available online 4 June 2008

Keywords:UniversitiesRegional innovationTacit knowledgeBoundary spanning

a b s t r a c t

Universities have assumed an expanded role in science and technology-based economicdevelopment that has become of interest to catch-up regions as well as to leading innovationlocales. This paper examines how the role of the university has evolved from perform-ing conventional research and education functions to serving as an innovation-promotingknowledge hub though the case of Georgia Institute of Technology (Georgia Tech). This caseis discussed in the context of state efforts to shift the region from an agricultural to anindustrial to an innovation-driven economy. Central to the transformation of Georgia Techas a knowledge hub is the emergence of new institutional leadership, programs, organi-zational forms and boundary-spanning roles that meditate among academic, educational,entrepreneurial, venture capital, industrial, and public spheres. Comparisons between Geor-gia Tech’s experiences and those of university roles in selected other catch-up regions in

the southern United States highlight the importance to the case of networked approaches,capacity building, technology-based entrepreneurial development, and local innovationsystem leadership. Insights on the transformation of universities and the challenges of

transfo

fostering a similar

1. Introduction

Albeit often gradually, the roles that universities under-take in society change and evolve over time. “The medievaluniversity looked backwards; it professed to be a store-house of old knowledge. . . The modern university looksforward, and is a factory of new knowledge.” So wrote the

English biologist Thomas Henry Huxley in 1892 (Huxley,1892), remarking on the transformation that industrialsociety had stimulated in long-established functions of uni-versities.

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 404 894 6111; fax: +1 404 894 1447.E-mail addresses: [email protected] (J. Youtie),

[email protected] (P. Shapira).

0048-7333/$ – see front matter © 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.respol.2008.04.012

rmation in regional economies are offered.© 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

In this paper, we examine the case of one universityand how it has undergone a further transformation, fromthat of a knowledge factory to a knowledge hub, to advancetechnological innovation and economic development in itsregion. One of the hallmarks of a knowledge hub is thatit serves as a boundary-spanning organization that accu-mulates mediating functions for the exchange of tacit aswell as codified knowledge between academia and localbusiness and financial communities. The case of GeorgiaTech illustrates how one university has benefited fromuniversity leadership and the accumulation of boundary-

spanning programs. These programs seek to develop newtechnology-oriented business capabilities among academicfaculty, startup ventures, mature companies, and indus-try clusters. Evaluations of these programs suggest thattheir explicit elements are most likely to be measured

arch Pol

awAtwfe

2

rlfCdl2

asiHurpt1dclia

siu(epacttsaUbtt

IaoaCa

cd

J. Youtie, P. Shapira / Rese

nd reported, even though tacit knowledge sharing ishat is most valued by participants and stakeholders.fter comparing the approaches to leveraging universi-

ies in other rising innovation regions in the US South,e then explore the implications for university trans-

ormation in stimulating an innovation-based regionalconomy.

. Role of intermediaries in the innovation process

The earliest models of universities highlighted theiroles as “accumulators” of knowledge—a function that wasargely separated from the rest of society. This was signified,or example, in medieval universities (such as Oxford andambridge), where scholars and students housed in resi-ential colleges lived and learned apart from the public at

arge, leading at times to “town v. gown” clashes (Brockliss,000).

Beginning in the nineteenth century, the rise of a morective role was heralded for universities. The pursuit ofcientific research based on rational inquiry and exper-mentation grew, as seen in the formation of Berlin’sumboldt University, which then became a model for otherniversities. Universities also assumed roles in conductingesearch and training in technical disciplines (as well asurely academic ones) and in educating students to meethe needs of industry (Graham and Diamond, 1997; Noll,998; Mowery et al., 2004). Examples here include theevelopment of “red brick” universities and local techni-al institutions in the industrial cities of Britain, and stateand-grant universities and private technological institutesn the US, all of which stressed the value of practical subjectsnd the application of research.1

University institutions continued to expand on bothides of the Atlantic in the twentieth century. Follow-ng World War II, government and industry funding forniversity research was greatly expanded, with supportparticularly from government) provided both for basic sci-nce and applied technology development. In the 25-yeareriod, 1954–1979, US university R&D expenditures grewt an average rate of 8.1% per year in real terms, signifi-antly higher than the annual rate of growth of 5.3% forhe economy as a whole. In the subsequent 25-year periodhrough to 2004, the average rate of growth of univer-ity R&D in the US slowed to 5.0% annually in real terms,

lthough this was still a higher rate than for the overallS economy (3.9%). In 2004, US academic R&D totaled $42illion or about 14% of all US R&D, up from about 10% inhe 1970s.2 Enrollment in all types of higher education inhe US increased from 6.9 million students in 1967 to 15.7

1 A prominent example is the incorporation of the Massachusettsnstitute of Technology by the Massachusetts legislature in 1861, as

“. . . a school of industrial science [aiding] the advancement, devel-pment and practical application of science in connection with arts,griculture, manufactures, and commerce” (Acts of General Court of Theommonwealth of Massachusetts, 1861, Chapter 183, Section 1, availablet http://web.mit.edu/corporation/charter.html).2 Source: National Science Foundation (2006). Authors’ calculations of

onstant dollar compound annual growth rates in R&D spending based onata in Appendix Table 4-4.

icy 37 (2008) 1188–1204 1189

million in 2001.3 Moreover, the decades immediately fol-lowing World War II have been viewed as an era in whichindustrial mass production was preeminent in the US andother advanced economies (Piore and Sabel, 1984). Thefeatures of linear organization, scale economies, and ded-icated systems that characterize mass production have atleast some analogies in the growth and orientation of uni-versities in the mid-to-late twentieth century, particularlyfor high-enrollment campus institutions. In rudimentaryterms, such “knowledge factories” developed inputs (e.g.,students and research funding) into outputs (prospectiveemployees and research papers) in batches, with set meth-ods, raising comparisons with assembly-line production.

Training students and conducting research to pro-duce new knowledge remains the “bread and butter” ofthe modern university. However, we suggest (see Fig. 1)that a third model of the university has emerged inrecent decades—one in which the university functions as a“knowledge hub” that seeks to animate indigenous devel-opment, new capabilities, and innovation, especially withinits region (Shapira and Youtie, 2004; see also Newlands,2003). In this model, universities become even more deeplyembedded in innovation systems, seeking to actively fosterinteractions and spillovers to link research with appli-cation and commercialization, and taking on roles ofcatalyzing and animating economic and social develop-ment. Processes of the creation, acquisition, diffusion, anddeployment of knowledge are at the core of these functions,hence the terminology of knowledge hub. The university,of course, always has been an institution of knowledge,but in this third mode, the institution seeks actively to useknowledge to promote indigenous development and newcapabilities in its region and beyond.

There are multiple forces influencing this transition andevolution in university roles. They include the underly-ing shifts in advanced economies away from traditionalmass production and linear transfer relationships topost-industrial, knowledge-driven, open, and more inter-active innovation systems (Florida, 1995; OECD, 1996;Chesbrough, 2003). These shifts challenge universities toreorganize research (for example, to address new devel-opments in technology which require interdisciplinarityand collaboration), to evolve educational missions andmethods (to meet demands for new qualities in humancapital development), and to reconsider the ways in whichthey develop and exchange knowledge (including theirknowledge-based interactions and networks with indus-tries and communities). Related to these shifts are newexpectations by government about the performance andcontribution of universities. In the US, state governments(which operate large public university systems and fundteaching) increasingly request that their institutions fos-ter economic development and innovation within theirlocalities. Federal policy encourages university technology

transfer (including through the Bayh-Dole or Universityand Small Business Patent Procedures Act of 1980 and otherlegislation), while federal agencies, which fund most uni-versity research, also increasingly look for economic and

3 National Science Foundation (2006), Appendix Table 2-3.

1190 J. Youtie, P. Shapira / Research Policy 37 (2008) 1188–1204

ons. Sou

Fig. 1. Evolving University Contexts and Missi

social returns on their R&D investments. Similar trends topromote the linkage of universities to technology trans-fer, innovation and local development are seen in Europe,Japan, and other advanced economies. The examples ofMassachusetts Institute of Technology and Stanford Uni-versity (both private institutions, although each receivingsignificant public R&D funding) in stimulating regionalhigh-technology development are often highlighted foremulation. Other new approaches to integrating univer-sities with regional and community development havebeen advanced which seek to foster broader impactson localities beyond high-technology startups, includ-ing addressing opportunities for diverse populations andtargeting research to current economic, social, and envi-ronmental problems (Forrant, 2001; Crow, 2002). Effortsto imbue these new design attributes into universities arenot unproblematic: besides issues of institutional inertiaand resistance to change within the ranks of academia,concerns have been raised about the balance of publicvs. private interests in university research and technologytransfer, and indeed whether unrealistically high expecta-tions are being raised about the ability of universities togenerate economic transformation (Mowery, 2005; Fischer,2007). Nonetheless, it does seem that university leaders,government policy makers, business groups, and otherstakeholders in the US and elsewhere are actively pro-moting new university innovation roles and knowledgerelationships.

While there are historical parallels, particularly withthe establishment of technology-oriented institutes byindustrialists and government in the late nineteenthcentury, there are essential differences in orientationand mechanisms that reflect today’s post-industrialknowledge-driven context and efforts to foster institutionsthat are motivators of innovation. One important featureof the third model of the university is the attention paidnot only to the formal or codified knowledge (that whichcan be written down, peer reviewed or examined), but alsoto developing and transferring tacit and embodied knowl-

edge. In the recent literature on technological and economicdevelopment, much has been written about the role oftacit knowledge in the attainment of competitive advan-tage, particularly by businesses and localities (Maskell andMalmberg, 1999). Tacit knowledge confers context-based

rce: Adapted from Shapira and Youtie (2004).

and hard-to-replicate capabilities to an organization orcollection of organizations in a geographic setting. It isoften compared with codified or explicit knowledge whichcan be more readily conveyed through formal training,documents, databases, and other computerized informa-tion technologies. Of course, too sharp a contrast betweentacit and explicit knowledge can be misleading becausethere are interrelationships between them (Amin andCohendet, 2000). Using codified knowledge well invariablyrequires related tacit knowledge. Similarly, accumulationsand applications of tacit knowledge, particularly thoserelated to science and technology, invariably draw on cod-ified knowledge.

Our conjecture is that in an increasingly knowledge-based environment, high-performing institutions are thosewhich have capabilities not only to develop, acquire anduse codified knowledge, but also to effectively advance,distribute and recombine tacit knowledge. In the case ofuniversities, we propose that institutional transition fromthe second mode (“knowledge factory”) to the third mode(“knowledge hub”) is associated with increased attentionand weight to tacit knowledge especially in technologytransfer and regional interactions. This does not mean thatsecond mode institutions do not develop and use bothkinds of knowledge—they surely do. Rather, in the thirdmode, there is a more conscious and deliberate recog-nition of the role of tacit knowledge, and strategies areput into place to operationalize this recognition and toadd value to the organized knowledge that the institutioncreates. Such strategies may include the attraction or devel-opment of particular kinds of human capital and talent, theembodiment of a significant emphasis on tacit knowledgein technology transfer programs, and the engagement ofrelational knowledge enablers that seek out tacit knowl-edge and link it with other individuals and organizationsto exploit it, thus integrating the university in new rela-tionships that foster innovation within the region (see alsoGertler, 2003).

We further suggest that one of the critical ways

through which third mode universities facilitate the value-added exchange of knowledge is through the creation andaccumulation of boundary-spanning roles. A boundary-spanning activity typically involves communication ofknowledge across boundaries within and external to

arch Pol

aiavEaafrrcbaonikoHsaacDvaoan(ecfdpggssI(ha

mwttiTtddhtncaif(

J. Youtie, P. Shapira / Rese

n organization. Internal boundaries within universitiesnclude those among intra-organizational units such ascademic departments, R&D laboratories and centers, ser-ice and extension programs, and administrative branches.xternal boundaries are defined by the multiple sectors andctors operating in economic, governmental, educationalnd community spheres. Boundaries can inhibit the trans-er of knowledge by blocking its transmission or at leasteducing the speed of communication, introducing misrep-esentation, omitting certain knowledge, limiting scanningapabilities, and fostering inward looking biases. Whileoundaries do have positive aspects in regulating behaviornd establishing frameworks for relationships, knowledge-riented development is likely to be accelerated whenegative boundary hindrances are overcome. This is seen

n the emergence of spanning roles such as scanning, bro-erage, liaison, and meditation, to facilitate the transferf knowledge (Guston, 2001; Tushman, 2002; Aldrich anderker, 1977). These roles may be filled by boundary-

panning individuals. Academic “star scientists” can serves boundary spanners who distribute research knowledgend specialized information about new breakthroughs thatan be commercialized by private-sector firms (Zucker andarby, 1996). Similarly, academic leaders (such as uni-ersity presidents), industry executives and governmentgency heads may fulfill boundary-spanning roles basedn their interactions in scientific, technological, business,nd public policy councils and boards. Additionally, orga-izations may carry out boundary-spanning roles. Guston2001) notes that such organizations can address knowl-dge exchange problems across boundaries by creating newommunication methods and tools, garnering participationrom representatives on different sides of a boundary, oreveloping expertise in delegated areas along the lines ofrincipal-agent theory. The US agricultural extension pro-ram, which involves universities and federal and stateovernment agencies, is a long-established boundary-panning mechanism active in translating and transferringcientific discoveries to farmers (Carr and Wilkinson, 2005).n their “triple helix” model, Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff2000) highlight the importance of innovation-fosteringybrid organizations at the interface of university, industry,nd governmental segments.

In the linear model in which knowledge transfer was for-erly conceived, the research commercialization processas segmented and fewer boundary-spanning organiza-

ions may have been needed. Current models portrayechnology transfer as a more complex and iterative activ-ty, involving feedback loops across multiple dimensions.his more complex model creates the need for organiza-ions that can take a more panoptic view and performiscursive networking functions across boundaries. Theevelopment of the technology transfer office has beenighlighted as a boundary-spanning organization betweenhe research and entrepreneurial and industrial commu-ities. It houses technology transfer specialists with the

apabilities to determine which results are patentablend how to market these discoveries to industry, andt develops policies and practices to enhance incentivesor faculty participation in commercialization activitiesGuston, 1999; Siegel et al., 2004). Significantly, as Siegel

icy 37 (2008) 1188–1204 1191

et al. observe in their study of new university technol-ogy transfer activities, boundary-spanning occurs througha combination of adjustments in organizational forms (suchas the technology transfer office), organizational practices(including intellectual property management), and behav-ior (for instance, the willingness of faculty to engage withindustry, which in turn is influenced by actual and per-ceived incentives and barriers).

However, there are limits to the extent to which orga-nizations or individuals can fulfill boundary-spanningrequirements. Tushman (1977) finds that the accumulationof more boundary roles per se may not always be produc-tive. Likewise, although boundary organizations tend to beless likely to suffer from myopia because they have multiplestakeholders, the breadth of their knowledge spanning canstill be limited, especially in places without a long tradi-tion of diverse knowledge constituencies. Moreover, thereis a risk of limited long-term stability despite the abilityof boundary-spanning organizations and elites to draw onmultiple constituencies on both sides of the boundary forindependence and survival.

Despite these limitations, we maintain that the ability tofacilitate the exchange of tacit as well as codified knowledgethrough boundary spanning is a fundamental characteristicof third mode universities. Given the varieties of knowl-edge and the multiplicity of interests and stakeholders tobe addressed, there are multiple ways through which uni-versities can do this. Luger and Goldstein (1997) suggestthat universities can have multidimensional impacts ontheir regional economies through research and knowledgecreation, education and human capital formation, know-how transfer to improve existing industry, technologicalinnovation to commercialize and spinoff technologies,infrastructure development, knowledge-flow improve-ments, leadership to address regional problems, and thecreation of a favorable regional milieu. In essence, theuniversity has embodied the role of a boundary-spanningorganization in the fulfillment of its knowledge-hub func-tion.

While many universities now seek to make a transitionto some variant of the knowledge-hub model and thus havea greater impact in regional innovation, there is diversity inthe ways in which this is pursued and the results achieved.Some have observed the growth of entrepreneurial uni-versities that actively engage in the development of theirregion through commercialization of research, spinoffs ofnew companies, and work with regional economic devel-opment agencies (Slaughter and Leslie, 1997; Shane, 2004).Building on Jaffe’s (1989) work which showed that uni-versity R&D positively impacts industry R&D and patents,Audretsch and Feldman (1996) found that knowledgespillovers from university research, industry R&D, andskilled labor were associated with a clustering of localizedinnovative activity. Zucker and Darby (1997) demonstratedthat biotechnology firms seek to locate near “star scientists”at universities to facilitate knowledge transfer to their R&D

units. University leadership itself is also a factor. Breznitz etal. (2008) argue that events following the arrival of the newpresident at Yale University in the early 1990s had a sub-stantial influence on the development of a biotechnologycluster around the university.

arch Pol

1192 J. Youtie, P. Shapira / Rese

There are also examples where universities haveexpanded efforts to foster knowledge flows and technol-ogy transfer, but have not had a great impact on theirregional economies. This is often the case of universi-ties in small communities which lack the critical massof industry to absorb university research outputs, but itis also true in urban universities. For example, Feldman(1994) did not find an anticipated high level of spilloverfrom Johns Hopkins University into the Baltimore econ-omy. And even though public universities have a missionfocused on spurring local economic development, Hegde(2005) found that public universities were less likely thanprivate universities to have localized citations of theirpatents.

In addition, there is the issue of the constellation ofresearch institutions to consider. In the US, the lead-ing regions for innovation are often those with multiplenodes of research strength including universities, gov-ernment laboratories, non-profit research organizations,and private-sector R&D units. However, in other regions,there may be only a single dominant university and alack of other kinds of research and industrial partnerswith advanced capabilities with whom the university caninteract. Local regions in economic catch-up positions andwhich lack multiple nodes of knowledge generation hopethat their university will serve as an “anchor tenant” toattract other private-sector R&D facilities (Agrawal andCockburn, 2002). However, there is also a risk – if a sin-gle university becomes all-prevailing – of an “Upas treeeffect” where a dominant institution crowds out otherplayers in the regional innovation system (Checkland,1981).

In this paper, we examine the case of one university inthe context of its region, focusing on the transformation ofthe university as a knowledge hub able to advance technol-ogy and economic development in its region. The universitycase is that of the Georgia Institute of Technology (GeorgiaTech), a public university in Atlanta, Georgia. Georgia Tech’smission is “to provide the state of Georgia with the scientificand technological knowledge base, innovation, and work-force it needs to shape a prosperous and sustainable futureand quality of life for its citizens” (Georgia Tech, 2002).Georgia Tech is not an “Ivy League” university, it does nothave a large endowment, and it is in the South—not tra-ditionally one of the leading areas for innovation in theUnited States. To the extent that Georgia Tech has securedresources and national and international recognition forresearch, education, and innovation impact, it has beenthrough processes of strategic choice, institutional adapta-tion and development, and leadership. It is thus of interestto understand the Georgia Tech model, how the univer-sity evolved from a knowledge factory to a knowledge hub,how it has accumulated boundary-spanning functions, andwhat complementary actions facilitated this transforma-tion. These elements are explored in the context of the USSouth and the emergence of contrasting models in other

universities in the broader region. After discussing theregional context, we then focus on the Georgia Tech caseand explore the implications for university transformationand their roles in stimulating an innovation-based regionaleconomy.

icy 37 (2008) 1188–1204

3. Regional context: contrasting university modelsin the US South

In undertaking studies of universities and economicdevelopment, regional context is very important. Amongthe most well-known models of US regions where uni-versities have had powerful influences on innovationand local economic development, are Silicon Valley (inNorthern California) and Route 128 (Boston metropoli-tan region in Massachusetts). Silicon Valley and Bostonboth have multiple, well-established, top-ranked researchuniversities and complementary assets for commercial-ization in their regions. Other regions – particularlythose which are not yet well-established locations forresearch and commercialization – can and do observethese two prominent models, but they are unlikely to beable to replicate them. Rather, customization – if not thedevelopment of new approaches – relevant to particularregional contexts will be needed. Indeed, as observed bySaxenian (1996), there are important differences betweenthe Silicon Valley and Boston in industry organiza-tion, networking, and culture, and these are reflectedin the ways in which university–industry relationshipshave materialized in each of these two high-technologyregions.

In the last decades, there have been many new effortsto leverage universities for regional economic develop-ment, including in the rapidly growing Sunbelt regionsin the United States. The emergence of mediating uni-versities in the Sunbelt is of interest because this regiondoes not have a long tradition of alternative organiza-tions to fulfill this mediating function. The southern regioncontains three prominent examples of innovative regionaleconomic development: the Research Triangle (North Car-olina), Austin (Texas), and Atlanta (Georgia). All three ofthese areas were – in the mid-20th century – catch-upregions relative to the nation as a whole. Each of theseexamples illustrates diverging approaches to the exploita-tion of key universities to stimulate knowledge-baseddevelopment in the local region (see Table 1).

The Research Triangle has the longest history. Theinitiative was anchored around three universities in thePiedmont region of North Carolina (the University of NorthCarolina at Chapel Hill, Duke University in Durham, andNorth Carolina State University in Raleigh) and influencedby post-World War II ideas of new green-field high-technology research parks. No major metropolises wereinvolved; rather multiple medium-sized cities formed thebasis of the endeavor which was centered on what was thena predominantly rural area. As a result of a planned state-level effort by the leaders from government, business andthe universities, the Research Triangle Park broke groundin 1959. In the 1960s, two R&D branch facilities – IBM andthe National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences –located in the research park. From that point, the park grewas various information technology and biopharmaceutical

firms set up branch facilities in the park. Smaller technologystartups eventually emerged (Link, 1995, 2002).

In Austin, economic transformation was rooted in thesuccessful recruitment of high-tech branch facilities andindustry consortia. The Austin approach reflects planned

J. Youtie, P. Shapira / Research Policy 37 (2008) 1188–1204 1193

Table 1Three models of university-leveraged technology development in the US Sunbelt

Regions Research Triangle Austin Atlanta

Locational anchors Medium-sized cities of Raleigh,Durham, and Chapel Hill

Austin metropolitan area Atlanta metropolitan area

University-based leadership University of North Carolina(Chapel Hill), Duke University,North Carolina State University

University of Texas Georgia Tech, Georgia ResearchAlliance

Time frame 1950s and 1960s to present 1980s to present 1980s and 1990s to presentEconomic development strategy R&D branch facilities, spinoffs

followR&D branch facilities andindustry consortia, spinoffsfollow

University spinoffs, capabilitiesbuild up

Planning Top-down, state initiatedapproach using research park

Bottom-up chamber initiatedapproach

Bottom-up university initiatedapproach

K

bcTeatfeoeR

yctcmfiocbs

4k

GwtnTiAlAtao2isu

modeley high-technology employers IBM, EPA, Cisco, Burroughs

Wellcome, GlaxcoSmithKline

ottom-up efforts of the local chamber of commerce inombination with city government and the University ofexas at Austin. Two major industry consortia – Micro-lectronics and Computer Technology Corporation (MCC)nd Sematech – were recruited to Austin. In the sameimeframe, Dell was formed and Austin attracted branchacilities of Advanced Micro Devices, and 3M among oth-rs. A high-tech incubator was established at Universityf Texas in 1989 that generated further technology-basedntrepreneurial activity (Gibson et al., 2004; Gibson andogers, 1994; Henton et al., 1997, Smilor et al., 1988).

We will show that the Atlanta, Georgia, case representset a third approach of university transformation in theontext of an already growing large metropolis. Althoughhere are a few technology-based branch facilities in theity, the attraction of out-of-area R&D centers was not aajor focus of this approach (although attraction of outside

acilities has been the mainstay of economic developmentn the state of Georgia as a whole). Atlanta’s is a storyf university-initiated efforts and knowledge and humanapital capacity building put forth in an effort to try andecome a technology-based startup location. The followingection describes this approach in detail.

. Evolution of the role of Georgia Tech as anowledge hub

At the close of the US Civil War in 1865, the state ofeorgia was a poor and war-ravaged agricultural regionith an economic base inherited from the pre-war planta-

ion system. By 1929, the state was still poor, relative to theation, with per capita income only 49% of the US average.oday, the state has emerged as among the fastest growingn the nation and a leader in the continuing expansion of themerican Sunbelt region. More than 8.8 million people now

ive in Georgia (2004 estimates from the US Census Bureau).fter a period of convergence over the past two decades,

he state’s per capita income is now 91% of the nationalverage, although Georgia still ranked 29th relative to

ther US states as of 2004 (Bureau of Economic Analysis,005). Georgia has a growing high tech sector, particularly

n knowledge-based services (e.g., telecommunications,oftware publishing, internet services) rather than man-facturing (AeA, 2005). Still, Georgia is not viewed as a

Dell, Motorola, IBM, AdvancedMicro Devices, AppliedMaterials

Scientific Atlanta, Lucent,CNN/Turner, BellSouth

traditional place for innovation. Its public educational (ele-mentary and high school) performance has ranked amongthe lower two-fifths of states (Corporation for EnterpriseDevelopment, 2006). In addition, there is a gap betweenpublic/academic and private R&D. Georgia ranked 12th inacademic R&D in 2002 relative to other US states, with$1 billion of work being conducted at the state’s researchuniversities. However, the state’s ranking dropped to 22ndwhen considering its level of industrial R&D (NationalScience Foundation, 2003). There are also substantial differ-ences between metropolitan Atlanta – the most developedregion for innovative activities – and other parts of thestate. For example, per capita income in Atlanta in 2004is above the national average (104%), whereas the smallermetropolitan cities in the state are a little over 80% ofthe national average and rural Georgia is just under 70%.Although centers of research and industrial activity existelsewhere (such as Athens), there is clearly a “research gap”between metropolitan Atlanta – particularly the Northernsuburbs where successful technology parks have been cre-ated and where most of the high-tech firm reside – and therest of the state.

The regional context, in sum, is thus one of significantlong-term modernization in the state, substantial popula-tion in-migration, and several bright spots of technologydevelopment, yet also lagging performance in other sectorsand areas. In the progress that has been achieved to date inthe state, and in strategies designed to address outstandingdevelopmental issues and new technological opportunitiesin future years, Georgia Tech is a central player.

Georgia Tech was initially founded in 1885 to promoteeconomic development and industrialization in Georgia. Itsfounders originally envisioned it as a trade school focusedon the pragmatic educational and training needs of its newindustrial base. Georgia Tech’s traditional mission as a tech-nical institute to train specialists for business and industrybegan to show signs of change during World War II as needsfor research and more advanced education emerged. In1948, the school’s name was officially changed to the Geor-

gia Institute of Technology (a reflection of efforts to followthe models of great national engineering universities suchas MIT). The institute awarded its first doctoral degree in1950, encouraged research activity (which rose to roughly$2 million in annual funding in the late 1950s), and set up a

1194 J. Youtie, P. Shapira / Research Policy 37 (2008) 1188–1204

Table 2Timeline of Georgia Tech’s evolution in regional technological development

Year Event

1885 Georgia School of Technology is established by the Georgia legislature1888 Georgia School of Technology opens for classes1919 An Engineering Experiment Station (EES) is authorized at Georgia Tech to assist industry1931 University System of Georgia, which includes Georgia Tech, is created1934 EES begins engineering research projects1938 Industrial Development Council (now the Georgia Tech Research Corporation) formed to conduct contract research1948 Name is change to the Georgia Institute of Technology1950 Georgia Tech awards its first Doctor of Philosophy degree1960 Georgia assembly creates an Industrial Extension Service1969 College of Management is established; Bioengineering Center established in conjunction with Emory1972 Joseph M. Pettit, former Dean of Engineering at Stanford, becomes the 8th President of Georgia Tech1981 The Advanced Technology Development Center (ATDC) is established; the Microelectronics Research Center (MiRC) is established1984 EES becomes GTRI. Georgia Tech Research Corporation (GTRC) is established1987 John P. Crecine becomes the 9th President of Georgia Tech. The Georgia Tech/Emory University Biomedical Technology Research Center is

established1988 Crecine proposes a restructuring of Georgia Tech1990 Ivan Allen College established (with new schools in policy, international affairs, and other areas)1991 Georgia Tech Lorraine in Metz, France is opened1993 IES programs and ATDC are reorganized into the Economic Development Institute (EDI)1994 G. Wayne Clough takes office as Tech’s 10th president1996 Georgia Tech hosts the Olympic Village and competitive venues1998 Georgia Tech and Emory offer a joint biomedical engineering degree1999 Georgia Tech campuses in Savannah and Singapore established2000 Technology Square is announced, Georgia Tech and Emory announce a joint Ph.D. program in Biomedical Engineering2001 Clough named to the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST)2002 Georgia Tech is ranked first in Innovation U. for economic development and university–industry technology transfer2003 Technology Square opens—anchoring a new midtown research, commercialization, educational and living cluster2004 Clough co-directs the Council on Competitiveness’s National Innovation Initiative and is appointed to the National Science Board2005 Georgia Tech ranked among the top 20 technological universities in the worlda

2 the Unit

includi

006 Georgia Tech ranked among top-10 public universities in

Source: Georgia Tech Fact Book, 2004, supplemented by additional sourcesWorld Report, America’s Best Colleges, 2006.

private non-profit corporation to support contractual needsassociated with research (McMath, 1985; Combes, 2002).(See Table 2 for a timeline of Georgia Tech’s evolving rolein technological development.)

The role of leadership and boundary-spanning activi-ties in Georgia Tech’s development can be seen through theactivities of the university’s three most recent presidents.Joseph M. Pettit, former dean of engineering at Stanford,took office in 1972 as the eighth president of Georgia Tech.A number of strategic initiatives were instituted during hisadministration to bring Georgia Tech into the modern tech-nological era, many of which were patterned after programsat Stanford. These included the creation of the AdvancedTechnology Development Center (a high tech incubator tosupport spinoffs of scientific and technological research atGeorgia Tech), the Georgia Tech Research Institute (GTRI)to focus applied research (comparable with the StanfordResearch Institute), and the Microelectronics Research Cen-ter (MiRC) at Georgia Tech to support interdisciplinary workin the growing field of microelectronics with the state’s firstuniversity-based clean room. Extramural research awardsincreased 11-fold during the Pettit era, much faster thannational R&D trends for universities (see Fig. 2).

In 1987, John P. Crecine, previously the senior vice presi-

dent and provost at Carnegie Mellon, took over as the ninthpresident of Georgia Tech. His appointment was signifi-cant at Georgia Tech in that he was not an engineer—hewas trained in industrial management. Crecine shepherdedGeorgia Tech through a strategic transition to a broad-

ed Statesb

ng: aTimes Higher Education Supplement, October 7, 2005. bUS News and

based technological university through restructuring ofcolleges (which resulted in a separate College of Comput-ing and a new Ivan Allen College of liberal arts “at thenexus of science, technology, the humanities, and socialsciences”; Rosser, 2005), involvement of the university inAtlanta’s successful 1996 Olympic bid, promotion of mul-tidisciplinary research institutes, formation of the firstinternational campus, and creation of a new organiza-tion that combined the university’s economic developmentoutreach and technology incubation programs. Researchawards more than doubled to $163 million annually at theclose of Crecine’s tenure.

G. Wayne Clough, a civil engineer, assumed the pres-idency of Georgia Tech in 1994. His tenure has seensignificant expansion in terms of the campus infrastruc-ture, academic programs, research, and influence in federaland state policy circles. New research and academic build-ings have changed the face of Georgia Tech; these includethe Technology Square development which transformed adecaying business district across a freeway adjacent to theuniversity into 2 million ft2 of first-class space for teaching,research, conferences, technology transfer assistance, andgovernment (the state’s economic development agenciesrelocated to this part of the Georgia Tech campus), busi-

ness, and retail activities. The institute has expanded itsacademic presence with a new regional campus in coastalSavannah, Georgia, internet-based degree programs, jointdegree programs with the medical school at Emory Univer-sity, and international campus-based programs, including

J. Youtie, P. Shapira / Research Policy 37 (2008) 1188–1204 1195

Fig. 2. R&D Expenditures at Universities and Colleges in the US (1972–2002) and Georgia Tech (1972–2004). The scale on the left represents Georgia Techexternally sponsored R&D expenditures, in millions of $; the scale on the right represents US R&D expenditures and Georgia R&D expenditures, normalizedt rces: Nao , FY 200C

iehooeEtcl

ttrfhdemresetfmatgbiwbefv

o 1972 = 100. Note, data is in current dollars, not adjusted for inflation. Souf Research and Development Expenditures at Universities and Collegesombes (2002).

n France, Singapore, and China. Research awards grewxponentially to more than $400 million annually. Cloughas also carved a new role in federal science and technol-gy policy with his appointment to the President’s Counciln Science and Technology (PCAST) and the National Sci-nce Board, engagement with the National Academy ofngineering, leadership of the National Innovation Ini-iative of the Council on Competitiveness in 2004, andhairmanship of policy task forces at the state and localevels.

The successes of these three university administra-ions in developing university capabilities owes mucho the leadership of the individual presidents, but alsoeflects other contributing factors. Bottom-up initiatives,rom faculty, research groups and centers and unit leaders,ave often been powerful in sparking new programs andirections. Examples include initiatives in interdisciplinaryducation (for example, in developing programs in theanagement of technology), numerous research collabo-

ations within and external to the campus, business andconomic development services, and international expan-ions. Particularly important in this regard has been thevolutionary fostering of an experimental culture withinhe institution, where faculty can seek and obtain supportor new ideas, usually from external sponsors, although

any times with some internal seed funding. Addition-lly, there has long been a favorable attitude in the stateowards Georgia Tech, including from elected officials, whoenerally have been willing to provide increasing levels ofasic educational and special project funding. Certainly, the

nstitution invariably desires more funding than the state

ill allocate, particularly for teaching, faculty salaries, and

uilding projects, seeks to protect its “turf” especially inngineering and other technological subjects from claimsor resources to offer comparable programs by other uni-ersities in the state system, and chafes at the regulations

tional Science Foundation/Division of Science Resources Statistics, Survey3; Extramural Research Support, Georgia Tech Fact Book, various years;

and constraints that typically come with state support.Nonetheless, the state of Georgia has established a remark-ably consistent and close relationship with Georgia Tech(and, of course, one of the primary responsibilities of everyinstitute president is to maintain this rapport). However,when coupled with the research support received fromfederal and other sponsors, this leads to an array of expec-tations of the institute. Georgia Tech is expected to beworld class, performing at frontiers of research and gradu-ate education alongside peer universities such as MIT orCaltech. At the same time, unlike its private peers, theinstitute is expected to be the local primary provider forhome state undergraduate students seeking technologi-cal education and to actively serve the technological andinnovation needs of state businesses and communities.To address such multiple expectations not simply in dis-crete ways but by seeking symbiosis between them is, wesuggest, one of the facets of transition to a knowledgehub.

5. Examples of university-centered knowledge-hubinitiatives

In this section, we discuss a series of programs and ini-tiatives that illustrate, using the Georgia Tech case, howa knowledge-hub institution can combine together activ-ities with multiple goals in a variety of boundary-spanningorganizational forms to foster advanced research, educa-tion, and innovation. Significantly, all of these initiativescoalesce both formal and tacit knowledge generation andexchange processes, with key mediation and brokerage

roles played by organizations within or associated withthe university. We highlight six boundary-spanning initia-tives. Two of these – the Georgia Research Alliance andthe Yamacraw Initiative – represent statewide efforts tocreate and expand knowledge pools, with Georgia Tech

1196 J. Youtie, P. Shapira / Research Policy 37 (2008) 1188–1204

Table 3Knowledge orientation and boundary mediation target of state university-centered innovation programs

University-centered innovation programs inGeorgia (selected)

Knowledge orientation Boundary mediation target

Georgia Research Alliance Eminent scholars conduct research whichis codified through academic outputs suchas publications. They also are tasked withtechnology transfer duties that useentrepreneurial tacit knowledge

Research universities and private sector andgovernment

Yamacraw Initiative Initiative-supported research in broadbandchip design is codified through publicationof papers and intellectual propertycontracts with member contracts. Tacitinteractions occur between the universityand large and small company members

Research universities and private industrystartups and established firms in a targetedsector

ATDC Practices and service offerings are explicit.ATDC also has a tacit role in connectingentrepreneurs and venture organizations

Academic researchers, entrepreneurs, venturecapital community

VentureLab Tacit relational knowledge uncoverscommercializable research in theuniversity, which can become codifiedthrough intellectual property processes

Academic researchers and venture capitalists

Traditional Industries Program Closes innovation gaps through codifyingresearch in targeted areas, which istransferred in tacit ways to industrysponsors

Academic researchers and established industryin targeted sectors

Centers of Innovation Closes innovation gaps through tacitrelational knowledge linking remote assetsin a less developed region and theuniversity

Mid-sized cities (policy makers, entrepreneurs,existing industries) and research universities

Industrial Extension Service The manufacturing specialist serves as aknowledge enabler, transferring know-howwhich is new to the company (though not

the wosystem,ly codifi

University expertise and SMEs

to the specialist orthe national MEPbecome increasing

playing substantial roles. The other four are designed to fos-ter commercialization of state-of-the-art and off-the-shelfknowledge into the regional economy. The knowledge ori-entation and boundary mediation targets are summarizedin Table 3.

5.1. New scientific entrepreneurs: the Georgia ResearchAlliance

The Georgia Research Alliance (GRA) was formed in1990 as a collaborative research initiative among six majorresearch universities in the state of Georgia, includingGeorgia Tech (Lambright, 2000). There is collaboration inestablishing high-level research and technological strate-gies, in encouraging technology transfer, and in fundingplans. GRA has several key programmatic elements. Mostwell-known is the Eminent Scholars program, whichrecruits leading researchers in targeted areas based in parton a GRA supplementary endowment to be used for facil-ities, equipment, and other non-salary expenses. GRA alsohas made selected investments in key aspects of Geor-gia’s technology transfer infrastructure. GRA has supportedinvestments to expand the Georgia Tech Advanced Tech-

nology Development Center (ATDC) incubator programthroughout the state to convert GRA’s research investmentsat member universities into commercial applications. Ithas sponsored expansion of VentureLab, also establishedat Georgia Tech, to provide early assistance to faculty

rld). Upon joiningthis practice hased

research with startup potential. And it supported the cre-ation of two seed funds managed by ATDC. Since itsinception, the state of Georgia has invested some $400million in GRA. The program reports that these moneyshave leveraged $2 billion in new federal and private-sectorsponsored research, added 120 leading researchers, andassisted in the formation of 100 high-technology spin-outcompanies (see case study of GRA in OECD, 2007a, pp.323–328).

GRA programs mediate research universities, private-sector spinoffs, and industrial recruitment activities ofthe state government. The GRA’s approach recognizes theimportance not only of knowledge upgrading (i.e. cre-ating new knowledge pools in strategic emerging areas)but also of the varieties of knowledge necessary forsuccessful research commercialization. Highly regardedscholars with dual missions of research and technologytransfer are embedded in local institutions that hith-erto did not have deeply rooted traditions of attractingsuch researchers. These academics integrate their workinto the university through typical academic practices,being expected to produce codified knowledge in theform of publications, conference papers, and other aca-

demic outputs. However, the GRA scholars also havea technology transfer mission that is less well rou-tinized. This involves translating research into commercialvalue, working with partner companies, and interact-ing with venture specialists, licensing professionals, and

arch Pol

tege

5I

pdctptd(aoritaeGamictawmwcotes2

sctclTltafckYitttimf

J. Youtie, P. Shapira / Rese

he broader business community. Such activities on thentrepreneurial side of the GRA Eminent Scholar pro-ram frequently require a high level of tacit knowledgexchange.

.2. Targeted technology clusters: the Yamacrawnitiative

Yamacraw was a state initiative launched as a 5-yearroject in 1999 to make Georgia a world leader in theesign and commercialization of high-capacity broadbandommunications systems, devices, and system-on-a-chipechnologies. Again, Georgia Tech emerged as a centrallayer in the program. The basic elements of the initia-ive included: (1) corporate membership in the Yamacrawesign center; (2) an industry-relevant research program;3) development of a large and growing pool of gradu-tes in relevant degree programs, based on the recruitmentf new university system faculty and state-of-the-art cur-iculum development; (4) an early-stage seed fund fornvesting in chip design startups; (5) a marketing programo build Georgia’s high-tech image in the area; and (6)new building to house the program. When a new gov-

rnor was elected, the initiative was reconfigured as theeorgia Electronic Design Center and moved under theuspices of the GRA. Forty corporate and federal agencyembers and research partners work with the center and

t conducts about $10 million in research a year. The edu-ational curriculum component, which resulted in morehan 400 students receiving specialized training in therea a year, has been absorbed by the universities thatere part of the original Yamacraw Initiative. An assess-ent of the program in 2002 found that Georgia Techas the prominent producer of research in this field. Con-

ern about the dominance of university research and lackf significant corporate research was raised as a poten-ial limitation of employment growth in the area (Shapirat al., 2003). However, two companies – Pirelli and Sam-ung – set up embedded laboratories in the facility in005.

By networking researchers, established firms, andtartups, the Yamacraw Initiative focused attention toollaborative research and commercialization opportuni-ies in broadband and mixed signal (analog and digital)ommunications that might previously have been over-ooked if they were in separate centers and departments.he use of intellectual property contracts with estab-ished partner companies represents a codification ofhe new knowledge created by the project. However,n underlying goal of the initiative has also been tooster innovative economic development through thereation of firms in these fields that engage in tacitnowledge exchanges with the university. In essence,amacraw sought to create a learning region of firmsn the targeted communications sector in the metropoli-an Atlanta area. There are some early signs of progress,

hrough startups, the attraction of established firms, andhe formation of university–industry alliances, althought is acknowledged that this is a long-term transfor-

ational goal that will take more time to come toruition.

icy 37 (2008) 1188–1204 1197

5.3. Building technology-based entrepreneurship: theAdvanced Technology Development Center

Established at Georgia Tech in 1980, ATDC was oneof the nation’s first technology incubators. It offersentrepreneurial services including space, guidance, andsupport for early-stage new technology companies.Entrepreneurs come from the universities and also fromthe business community in Atlanta and other Georgia cities.ATDC also supports corporate R&D units through a “landingparty” offering. ATDC is a unit of Georgia Tech/EnterpriseInnovation Institute. It has 12 associates and receives about$2 million a year in state funding. There are three loca-tions in Atlanta – including the headquarters offices inTechnology Square – and centers in Savannah and WarnerRobins. Capital activity in member and graduate technologycompanies associated with ATDC totaled more than $160million for 2004. More than 140 entrepreneurs participatein or graduated from the incubator program since 1986.Surveys of companies affiliated with the ATDC indicatedthat they generated more than $1.75 billion in revenues andmore than 4900 high-tech jobs. ATDC management havereported that about four of every five ATDC graduates hasbeen acquired by an out-of-area firm (and, in some cases,moved out of Georgia). Nonetheless, ATDC has added to thestock of high-technology establishments in the state andto the pool of experienced high-technology entrepreneurs(who, after selling their companies, may then startup newventures).

At first glance ATDC appears to have an explicit knowl-edge orientation. It has a formal application and admittanceprocess and offers a specified set of services such as busi-ness planning, management and human resource selection,and access to Georgia Tech facilities and researchers. How-ever, its real value is in its role as a mediator of tacitrelational knowledge of local entrepreneurial leaders andorganizations and academic entrepreneurs. ATDC’s net-working activities (including “brown bag lunches” andCEO roundtables) and its many informal interactions havehelped to foster an entrepreneurial community. Severalventure organizations and leaders have co-located in theATDC facilities to create an entrepreneurial community ofpractice.

5.4. Faculty research commercialization: VentureLab

VentureLab was created in 2001 out of ATDC’s effortsto improve the success rates of finding and commercializ-ing spinoffs from Georgia Tech faculty research. VentureLabspecialists provide pre-incubator services to assist fac-ulty members through the commercialization process,including developing intellectual property disclosures andmaking linkages with experienced private-sector technol-ogy entrepreneurs and venture capital resources. From2001 to 2004, Georgia Tech reports that VentureLab workedwith 100 ideas from 80 faculty members and generated

eight new companies that were backed with $9 million infunding.

VentureLab uses tacit knowledge about research con-ducted within Georgia Tech to link researchers withcommercializable opportunities. Some of these interac-

arch Pol

1198 J. Youtie, P. Shapira / Rese

tions will become codified through intellectual propertydocumentation. However, the relational knowledge of Ven-tureLab specialists is at the core of the program as itillustrates a bridging role between university researchersand the venture community through locating and exploit-ing knowledge that has traditionally been hard to uncoverwithin the university. It also imparts advice and learning tothe faculty member about what types of research activitiesare commercializable.

5.5. Innovation in traditional industries and GeorgiaCenters of Innovation

In 1994, the state created the Traditional Industries Pro-gram to complement the GRA’s focus on high-tech indus-tries. The Traditional Industries Program serves a mediatingrole between industry and university researchers, link-ing them to work on critical competitiveness problemsof the pulp and paper, food processing, and textiles andcarpet industries. In 2003, the Centers of Innovation pro-gram was created with a new focus to mediate the needsof mid-sized metropolitan areas and research universities(Shapira and Youtie, in press). The evolution of a focuson mid-sized metropolitan areas with 50,000–500,000in population represents a novel recognition that thesecities have some of the assets, however incomplete, toengage in innovation-based economic development. Inno-vation centers offer development and technology transfercapabilities technology transfer/commercialization, tech-nology incubation (through Georgia Tech’s ATDC network),joint industry–university research (involving local collegesas well as established research universities in Georgia),and corporate memberships as appropriate. The programstarted with five centers, the earliest being the MaritimeLogistics Innovation Center. The program receives about$1.5 million a year from the state fund designed to helpareas negatively impacted as a result of the 1998 MasterSettlement Agreement compensating states for Medicaidcosts attributed to smoking. These two programs areadministered through Georgia Tech’s Enterprise InnovationInstitute in partnership with other state organizations.

The Traditional Industries Program uses grant contractsto make more explicit research that typically has been con-ducted for other purposes (thus “hidden” from industry)in targeted areas of benefit to the food processing, pulpand paper, textiles, and other mature industries. The trans-fer of research results to industry sponsors embodies tacitaspects, but this facet has been relatively less important inthe past (Roessner et al., 2001). In contrast, the Centers ofInnovation program also deals with innovation gaps but inmore tacit relational ways by linking complementary assetsin a region with university researchers at Georgia Tech andother universities in the state.

5.6. Know-how transfer: the Georgia Tech IndustrialExtension Service

In 1960, Georgia joined North Carolina as one of thefirst US states to have a state-funded Industrial ExtensionService. The program, situated in Georgia Tech’s Enter-prise Innovation Institute, currently operates a network

icy 37 (2008) 1188–1204

of full-time experienced manufacturing specialists acrossthe state and has partnerships with regional economicdevelopment groups, state labor offices, private-sectorconsultants, trade associations, and other contacts. Thestatewide program provides a gateway to the IndustrialExtension Service’s “skill centers” in ISO 9000/quality, leanmanufacturing, industrial marketing and product develop-ment and design, environmental and energy technology,and to sponsored programs such as the Trade Adjust-ment Assistance Center (US Department of Commerce), theMinority Business Development Center (US Departmentof Commerce), and the Procurement Assistance Center(US Defense Logistics Agency). In addition, the IndustrialExtension Service engages researchers and faculty at Geor-gia Tech and regional government laboratories to addressproblems at local manufacturers. In 1994, Georgia joinedthe national Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP),administered by the National Institute of Standards andTechnology (NIST) of the US Department of Commerce.Although the program has been subject to state and federalbudget cuts in the 2000s, Georgia operates a $7.5 mil-lion manufacturing extension program (about $3 millionof which comes from the state). From 2003 to 2005, theGeorgia program served more than 500 manufacturers ayear, which is at the median of all US MEP centers.

Whereas the Traditional Industries and Centers of Inno-vation programs emphasize R&D collaboration and transfer,the Industrial Extension Service focuses on a broader set ofknowledge sharing and innovation activities. At the heartof the Industrial Extension Service is the manufacturingspecialist who serves as a knowledge enabler, mediatingthe needs of manufacturers and knowledge sources withinuniversity and off-the-shelf industry practices. The spe-cialist examines company problems through discussionand assessment with plant managers and employees andthough in-site facility visits. The specialist has know-howwhich is new to the company (albeit not usually new to theworld or new to the specialist) and draws on this know-howto suggest solutions. The Georgia Tech Industrial Exten-sion Service operated in informal ways for many years.Upon joining the MEP system, however, the service trans-formed part of its tacit knowledge into codified systems,particularly in process improvement areas such as qualitycertification, because the MEP has encouraged delivery ofa relatively consistent set of services across the nation.

5.7. Other supporting state policies

The initiatives described above have been comple-mented and supported by additional state policies. At theeducational level, the University System of Georgia (USG)was set up in the early 1930s to link formerly separate state-sponsored institutions into a single governing organizationand state lobbying entity. The USG includes 34 junior andsenior colleges and universities, each with a somewhat dis-tinctive mission. In 1993, the state of Georgia created the

HOPE scholarship program with funds from the new Geor-gia Lottery to underwrite tuition, fees, and other expensesat postsecondary educational institutions in the state forstudents in good academic standing. The number of stu-dents receiving HOPE scholarships increased from 13,000

arch Pol

iaCew

(pnota

niwcantoTtgalpaetGcpop2

6

rtGtt

lmiesitEstTcetfi

J. Youtie, P. Shapira / Rese

n 1994 to more than 18,000 at the end of the decade (Buglernd Henry, 1998). In 1995, the USG formed the Intellectualapital Partnership Program (ICAPP) to provide expeditedducational programs for companies with university-levelorkforce needs.

The Georgia Department of Economic DevelopmentDEcD) coordinates the state’s economic developmentrograms oriented toward recruitment of out-of-state busi-ess and industry. In the late 1990s, DEcD set up an Officef Science and Technology to build a specialized team withhe background and skills to recruit and support technologynd life science companies.

No single body manages or coordinates these tech-ology development activities. Partnerships and multiple

nterlocking relationships enable these organizations toork with other state and local organizations (as there is

onsiderable private-sector technology-based associationctivity in the Atlanta area). In addition, the above orga-izations – ICAPP and DEcD – as well as private-sectorechnology associations such as the umbrella Technol-gy Association of Georgia have offices on the Georgiaech campus; thus there is a physical boundary spanninghrough co-location as well as an organizational and pro-rammatic one. GRA board members and Georgia Techdministrators serve on the boards of directors of state andocal economic development organizations. GRA executivesreviously managed Georgia Tech’s economic developmentnd technology transfer programs. The state’s multi-actornvironment makes it difficult to engage in top-down cen-ralized planning in the science and technology area ineorgia; the networking of diverse initiatives with looseoordination is a more common mode, with universitieslaying a hub role. At the same time, the decentralizationf these programs has allowed them to survive multi-le changes of gubernatorial administrations (Youtie et al.,000).

. Assessment and evaluation

There are numerous other interesting and significantesearch, educational and innovation-promotion activitieshat could be added to the list of initiatives underway ateorgia Tech. However, given space constraints, the initia-

ives that we have described represent a sample from whicho draw assessment and evaluation insights.

Georgia Tech’s innovation programs operate with a highevel of tacit knowledge activity and involve linkages with

ultiple organizations. Formal knowledge aspects are alsomportant. The GRA Eminent Scholars program emphasizesmbodied knowledge through recruitment of foremostcholars and the expectation of high research performancen all the conventional ways (including through publica-ions and awards); yet, critically, there is a vital tacit side.minent Scholars are also expected to provide leadership,erve as a catalyst to leverage university–industry rela-ionships, and stimulate technological entrepreneurship.

he Yamacraw Initiative seeks to advance leading-edgeommunications-related research, yet also make this rel-vant through a series of formal and tacit activities withhe goal of creating a learning region of small and largerms in the sector. The Industrial Extension Service oper-

icy 37 (2008) 1188–1204 1199

ates within a formal university-led organizational structurewith statewide offices, is part of a national network, anddeploys codified technology assistance tools and services.Yet, primarily, the service is based on the practical know-how of the manufacturing specialist and on the socialcapital that the specialist builds up over time with compa-nies and local organizations. ATDC offers explicit servicesbut most important is the tacit relational knowledge linksit has with the venture community. VentureLab also usestacit knowledge relationships to commercialize universityresearch. The Traditional Industries Program and Centersof Innovation seek to close innovation gaps through com-binations of tacit and explicit knowledge relationships.

Significantly, in a knowledge-hub environment, all ofthese initiatives involve multiple organizations, with theuniversity serving as a platform that provides institutionalstability, credibility, access to varieties of knowledge, anenvironment for interdisciplinary collaboration, and theability to secure financial and human capital resources.The conventional vertical organization of the university –academic departments, administrative groups, and serviceunits – is still present; but in the knowledge-hub, this is nowcrisscrossed by an internal and external matrix of lateralorganizations and networks, providing numerous connec-tions points and opportunities for decentralized nodes ofactivities. Staffing is also more varied. Again, the tradi-tional academic organization of assistant, associate and fullprofessors remains at the core of the institute’s personnelstructure, with the faculty charged with the undertaking ofresearch, education and teaching, and service. But inter-mingled with this is a large cohort of full-time appliedresearch staff (with a research faculty personnel structure),as well as flexible sets of incubator and technology-transferprofessionals, industrially experienced field staff, edu-cators and trainers, economic developers, and programmanagers. New faculty categories are also expanding, suchas professors of practice (bringing in expertise from indus-try) in addition to the dual-role Eminent Scholars. On thestudent side, most graduate students have opportunities forhands-on research; undergraduate research and internshipprograms are expanding; and there are well-establishedprograms of cooperative education (where undergradu-ates undergo a period of practical training). Traditionalacademic research and classroom teaching is not dimin-ished (indeed, there are many efforts which seek to upgradethe quality of both). However, these developments signifyhow a knowledge-hub university embodies a wide range ofhuman skills and capabilities, occupational classifications,and learning modes to populate and motivate the multiplemissions.

What is the evidence that the kinds of initiatives under-taken by Georgia Tech are effective? Indeed, by whatmethods can these initiatives be assessed? Most of theavailable reviews emphasize the explicit elements of theseprograms. For example, the GRA and Yamacraw Initia-tive annual reports show the total number of dollars

of research grant awards. Recently, GRA has engaged ina tracking of publications, patents, and prize winners.These measures are valued by university managers, butthey do not represent the tacit aspects of the program,their entrepreneurship capabilities, and their potential for

arch Pol

1200 J. Youtie, P. Shapira / Rese

knowledge transfer with industry. Such program processesand outcomes are harder to quantify and are less frequentlythe subject of formal evaluations. Nonetheless, there is animportant informal side to the evaluation of these inno-vation programs. Stakeholders associated with Georgia’sinnovation programs do engage in discursive learning overtime involving state and university leaders, policy makers,and program managers. Initiatives that do not work wellget deemphasized and resources are redistributed. Addi-tionally, each program has its own executive and advisorystructures and linkages which provide for accountabilityand regularized interactions with multiple external groups(Guston, 2001).

Two examples are illustrative. The Industrial Exten-sion Service at Georgia Tech participates in an extensivenational evaluation of its activities through the MEP pro-gram and also invests in a local evaluation. Most of themeasurements emphasize the explicit elements of the pro-gram. The MEP’s national survey of customers indicatesthat Georgia manufacturers had sales increases of $122million, cost savings of $23.4 million, and jobs added orretained of more than 2500 from the second quarter of2003 to the first quarter of 2005 as a result of the IndustrialExtension Service. A survey of Georgia manufacturers con-ducted every 2–3 years recently found that Georgia Tech’sclients had $10,000 in higher value-added per employeecompared to nonclients and controlling for size, indus-try, location, and other attributes. At the same time, thesurvey found that the Georgia manufacturing base con-tinues to face an innovation challenge. Fewer than 10%of Georgia manufacturers compete for customers throughinnovation or new technology compared with more thantwice that amount competing through offering low prices.Yet innovative companies are much more profitable andpay on average $10,000 more in average wages (Youtie andShapira, 2005). The Industrial Extension Service has takensome time to absorb these findings, although reallocationsof resources to product innovation offerings and hiring ofspecialists with this type of know-how have occurred inrecent years.

There have been several evaluations and audits of theATDC program. Most have found the program to be effec-tive and to have had an impact on the high-tech economyof the region and the state. A survey of 79 ATDC mem-bers and graduates from 1998 to 2003 and analysis ofpatent citations found that amount of funding obtainedand backward linkages to university research are evi-denced in successful graduating companies (Rothaermeland Thursby, 2005). Another survey comparing ATDC grad-uates to startup companies that applied but were notaccepted to the incubator found that ATDC membershipresulted in a positive impact on startup firms, although thebiggest benefit was enhanced credibility and image ratherthan the use of particular incubator services. It was alsopointed out that ATDC’s being in a city with a growing hightech cluster makes it difficult to isolate program impacts,

although ATDC was clearly found to have influenced theentrepreneurial infrastructure, networking linkages withfinance and management, and the overall image of thecity and state as a high tech locale (Culp and Shapira,1997).

icy 37 (2008) 1188–1204

How has the emergence of Georgia Tech as a knowledge-hub university made an impact on its region and the state?Over the long-run, the state of Georgia’s economic posi-tion has improved substantially in aggregate terms; as wehave noted, the per capita income gap between Georgia andthe nation narrowed very significantly during the twenti-eth century. Major problems of educational, income, andregional equity are still outstanding. Nonetheless, Georgiadeveloped a modern industrial base, and has establisheda foundation for knowledge-intensive high-technologyand services growth moving forward in the current cen-tury. Many federal and state policies contributed to this(Shapira, 2005). The development of Georgia Tech can beviewed as one of these state policies, and one that hasattracted increasingly significant federal research invest-ments. Georgia Tech has added significantly as a supplierof technological human capital in Georgia. In earlier peri-ods, many of the institute’s graduates had to look outsideof the state for appropriate positions. Today, there are moreopportunities for graduates, particularly in technologicalfields, within the state—mostly in the Atlanta metropoli-tan region. Moreover, Georgia – again led by Atlanta –has attracted more young qualified graduates than almostany other US region in the last decade (Cortright andColetta, 2006). Georgia Tech’s knowledge-hub activitieshave helped to create a regional climate which is attrac-tive to companies, entrepreneurs, and talented people. Ina study evaluating 164 universities in terms of their eco-nomic development influences on the local region, GeorgiaTech has been independently identified as one of theleading “Innovation U’s” (innovation universities) in theUnited States (Tornatzky et al., 2002). Aspects examined inthis study included career services, entrepreneurial devel-opment, faculty culture and rewards, partnerships witheconomic development organizations, industrial extensionand technical assistance, industry education and training,industry research partnerships, industry/university advi-sory boards and councils, leadership and policies, andtechnology transfer. The study notes that “The Georgia Techculture, from president to academic units, is pervasivelyoriented toward outreach and engagement with the exter-nal world.” According to Tornatsky et al., this has led tolong-term results in support of regional innovation, indus-try research, economic development, high-tech startups,existing industry support, specialized training, and systemsfor entrepreneurial development.

7. Regional comparisons of university trajectories inthe US South

We have proposed a broad path, through which univer-sities may shift from a conventional focus on knowledgeinputs and outputs to a new orientation as a knowledge-driven innovation hub. But we have also suggested that thespecific ways in which any particular university pursuesthis transition will vary and will be significantly influenced

by institutional and regional context. The Georgia Tech caseexemplifies this, with a particular developmental strategyrooted in the framework of the US South and its relation-ship to a fast growing post-industrial metropolis. We sawthat Georgia Tech began a strategic transition from a knowl-

arch Pol

eou

autmaoptawitimbkosrtNwietmaAdsamtp

ndtTctdbsTaagmbod

twom

J. Youtie, P. Shapira / Rese

dge factory era “technical institute” to a knowledge-hubriented “technological university” in the 1970s that is stillnderway.

In the Georgia Tech case, research and knowledge cre-tion spread from a single research club to academicnits, GTRI, a network of over 60 interdisciplinary cen-ers that cut across traditional academic disciplines, and

ore than $400 million in extramural research. Educationalnd human capital formation moved from the technician-riented curriculum to interdisciplinary programs inioneering fields such as bioengineering, new instruc-ional approaches, and campuses throughout Georgia andbroad. Know-how transfer of off-the-shelf technologiesas realized in Georgia Tech’s offering one of the first

ndustrial engineering services in the nation, joining ofhe national MEP network, showing client productivityn evaluations, but still working in an environment of a

anufacturing base employing traditional low cost andranch plant oriented strategies to compete in the mar-etplace. The ATDC high tech incubator expanded fromne of the first high tech incubators in the nation toupport university-based spin-outs of commercializableesearch to a hub for creation of entrepreneurial infras-ructure in seed capital funds and venture networks.ew information technology and research infrastructureas developed and knowledge-flows encouraged through

ncreased internationalization of global campuses and newngagement with private-sector firms in research cen-ers and partnership programs. New infrastructure and

ilieus are evidenced in Technology Square that cre-ted a favorable regional setting in decaying midtowntlanta by combining academic, research, and economicevelopment programs with hotel, retail, and other private-ector activities. New leadership in the Pettit, Crecine,nd Clough eras inspired these non-incremental transfor-ations and moved Georgia Tech into the science and

echnology policy front to address national and regionalroblems.

It is useful to compare the Georgia Tech case with otherotable efforts in the US Sunbelt to create knowledge-basedevelopment through leveraging universities. When con-rasted with North Carolina’s Research Triangle and Austin,exas, four major points emerge. First, the Georgia Techase does not represent a top-down planned state-level ini-iative as was the case with Research Triangle Park. Noroes it reflect significant bottom-up urban-centered effortetween the chamber, other local officials, and the univer-ity, as was the case with Austin in the 1980s. The Georgiaech case embodies a multi-faceted networked statewidepproach involving the institute, state-level programs suchs the GRA, and local area venture organizations. Stateovernment, local government, and the chamber of com-erce participate, to be sure, but through interlocking

oard memberships, task forces, program offerings, andther mechanisms rather than through a formal plan orepartment.

Second, the Research Triangle and Austin cases had ini-ial strategies to attract external R&D facilities. And theyere largely successful. Traditional economic development

rganizations in the state of Georgia also focus on recruit-ent, albeit mostly of routine manufacturing and services

icy 37 (2008) 1188–1204 1201

offices. In contrast, the Georgia Tech case, with a fewexceptions, is a developmental case that largely underplays(although still supports) out-of-area R&D facility attrac-tion. Georgia Tech represents an example of local capacitybuilding of knowledge pools through the attraction ofhuman capital. The GRA’s Eminent Scholar program andthe leveraging of Atlanta as a growing-metropolitan areawith substantial in-migration (including scientists, engi-neers, and information technologists) helped to extend theknowledge attracted to Georgia Tech in burgeoning disci-plines by bringing in new capability.

Third, the Georgia Tech model places university-basedstartups at the core of its strategy rather than firm relo-cation. Not only did Georgia Tech generate more activitythrough university spinoffs into the ATDC, but it also cre-ated complementary assets in venture capital (throughthe starting and management of seed capital funds) andtechnology-based entrepreneurship networking. One ofthe downsides of this startup strategy is that many ofATDC’s graduates have been acquired by out-of-area facil-ities. Venture capitalists often desire that firms in whichthey invest be located nearby (Powell et al., 2002). Ofcourse, this phenomenon is not limited to startup firms.Branch facilities, even ones that conduct R&D, can also besubject to closure, as the southern region has witnessed inrecent years.

Fourth, Georgia Tech has leveraged its position as thedominant public technological university in the state.Emory University, a nearby private university with a majormedical research function, has slightly more research fund-ing depending on the year (although not more patents),and is increasingly teamed with Georgia Tech in biomedi-cal and bioengineering research. The University of Georgia– the comprehensive state land-grant university – has alsosignificantly increased its research position. But, this said,state policy makers and business and community-leadersin the state typically look to Georgia Tech for tech-nology commercialization and innovation-based regionaldevelopment. This stands in contrast to Research Tri-angle, which is a partnership of three universities. Italso differs from Austin which, although dominated byUniversity of Texas, has considerable private-sector R&Dfrom industry consortia and company-specific R&D facil-ities. Research Triangle and Austin have universities thattake on roles similar to those adopted at Georgia Tech,although they are situated in environments in which otherorganizations, government, or the private sector take onknowledge development roles not explicitly present inGeorgia.

8. Concluding points

This paper has suggested an evolution in the rolesof universities from knowledge storehouse (mode 1) toknowledge factory (mode 2) to knowledge hub (mode3). (See Carayannis and Campbell, 2006; Harrison and

Leitch, 2005; Hagen, 2002 regarding related uses of themode 3 concept.) Of course, this is a highly abstractedsimplification. Arguably there are variations and excep-tions by country and institution. And we note that theuniversity tends to accumulate roles, i.e. earlier roles

arch Pol

1202 J. Youtie, P. Shapira / Rese

do not necessarily disappear as new roles are added.While the details of our case derive from a US institu-tion (which began life in mode 2, then more recentlytransitioned to mode 3), we do observe a general ten-dency across many advanced countries for universitiesto seek (or be pushed) towards greater linkages and rel-evance for innovation, particularly in regional contexts(OECD, 2007b). Some universities attempt to addressthese imperatives by “bolting-on” new activities, butwithout fundamental restructuring and reorientation. Oth-ers have more fully embraced innovation missions, andin the process, are pioneering a variety of new orga-nizational and knowledge modes that we collectivelyterm as knowledge hubs. In contrast to earlier modes,these knowledge-hub institutions not only accumulateand produce knowledge, but they also actively fosterknowledge exchange, learning and innovation throughnew methods and the development of boundary-spanningactivities.

We have explored this notion through a case studyof the evolution of Georgia Tech as a knowledge hub.This focus on networked programmatic elements, capacitybuilding, knowledge pool creation, and technology-basedentrepreneurship has fostered the important transforma-tion of Georgia Tech from a knowledge factory to an“animateur” of development. Georgia Tech has taken ona series of boundary-spanning roles that impart tacit aswell as codified knowledge to other stakeholders. Theseare represented in the new policy leadership roles of Geor-gia Tech presidents, the Georgia Research Alliance’s supportfor eminent scholars to transfer knowledge to the privatesector, the Yamacraw Initiative’s efforts directed towardtelecommunications and mixed signal chip design, indus-trial extension’s transferal of know-how to SMEs, linkagesdeveloped by ATDC and VentureLab among entrepreneurs,academics, and venture capital finance, the TraditionalIndustry Program’s linking of researchers and mature firms,and the Centers of Innovation’s connections with mid-sizedGeorgia cities.

We saw that these knowledge transfer programs admin-istered at Georgia Tech include both tacit and explicitelements. This dual nature can serve as a challengeto evaluation efforts. Moreover, the knowledge dualityis compounded because these programs span diversecommunities and thus may have different evaluationbenchmarks. That said, most of the evaluations focus onthe codified aspects of these programs, while most stake-holders tacitly believe these programs work (rather thanbeing convinced by codified evaluations per se). Moreover,programs themselves discursively make changes based onlearning over time rather than relying solely on codifiedknowledge in evaluations.

We note that university R&D, startups, and otherknowledge-transfer programs are important, but by them-selves may not be enough to turn around an innovationsystem. The importance of complementary assets (Teece,

1986) such as the need for venture capital and a goodeducational system suggest that there are limits to auniversity-based strategy. Georgia industry still ranks lowin terms of private R&D activity, SBIR awards, and patent-ing. In areas targeted by the state for development, such

icy 37 (2008) 1188–1204

as in the Yamacraw Initiative, Georgia Tech was by far thedominant knowledge producer. To address this issue ofthe dominant knowledge producer, the state could poten-tially look at strengthening other universities’ researchroles or attracting new independent R&D facilities, bothactivities of which are evident in Research Triangle andAustin. But it can be a challenge to introduce additionalresearch nodes where a dominant institution exists withrespect to being able to build alternatives of sufficientscale and quality and with sufficient political supportto make a difference. As a state, Georgia also needs toaddress fundamental problems and weaknesses outsideof the research university sector, particularly those of K-12 public education, vocational training, incentives andcapabilities for innovation in traditional and mature indus-tries, lagging private R&D, and the quality of economicdevelopment strategies in smaller cities and towns. Manystates and regions, in the US and elsewhere, face simi-lar challenges. While there are no clear-cut technical orfinancial solutions to these and other critical economic,societal, and environmental problems, a common themeis the need to develop new capabilities, including the capa-bility to pursue informed joint actions involving multiplestakeholders targeted towards implementing innovativeregional and local approaches. A university knowledge hubhas the design attributes to contribute in meaningful waysto the development of these capabilities. That does notmean that universities, even when acting as knowledgehubs, are enough to affect a broadly based transforma-tion in a local economy. However, as the Georgia caseshows, universities are more likely to be able to addressthe problems and opportunities of their regions if theypursue active institutional engagement to generate andshare human capital, knowledge, leadership and otherresources.

References

AeA, 2005. CyberStates 2005. American Electronics Association, Washing-ton, DC.

Agrawal, A., Cockburn, I., 2002. University Research, Industrial R&D, andthe Anchor Tenant Hypothesis. National Bureau of Economic Research,Cambridge, MA.

Aldrich, H., Herker, D., 1977. Boundary spanning roles and orga-nization structure. The Academy of Management Review 2 (2),217–230.

Amin, A., Cohendet, P., 2000. Organisational learning and governancethrough embedded practices. Journal of Management and Governance4, 93–116.

Audretsch, D., Feldman, M., 1996. R&D spillovers and the geographyof innovation and production. American Economic Review 63 (3),630–640.

Breznitz, S., O’Shea, R., Allen, T., 2008. University commercialization strate-gies in the development of regional bioclusters. Journal of ProductInnovation Management 25 (3) (Online First).

Brockliss, L., 2000. Gown and town: the university and the city in Europe,1200–2000. Minerva 28, 147–170.

Bugler, D., Henry, G., 1998. An Evaluation of Georgia’s HOPE ScholarshipProgram. Georgia State University, Atlanta, Georgia.

Carayannis, E., Campbell, D., 2006. “Mode 3”: meaning and implicationsfrom a knowledge systems perspective. In: Carayannis, E., Campbell, D.(Eds.), Knowledge Creation, Diffusion, and use in Innovation Networks

and Knowledge Clusters. Praeger, Westport Connecticut, pp. 1–25.

Carr, A., Wilkinson, R., 2005. Beyond participation: boundary organiza-tions as a new space for farmers and scientists to interact. Society &Natural Resources 18 (3), 255–265.

Checkland, S.G., 1981. The Upas Tree: Glasgow 1875–1975. Glasgow Uni-versity, Glasgow, UK.

arch Pol

C

C

C

C

C

C

E

F

F

FF

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

H

H

H

H

H

J

L

L

L

L

M

http://www.bea.gov/bea/regional/data.htm.National Science Foundation, Science and Engineering State Profiles,

J. Youtie, P. Shapira / Rese

hesbrough, H.W., 2003. Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creat-ing and Profiting from Technology. Harvard University Press, Boston,Massachusetts.

ombes, R.S., 2002. Technology, Southern Style: Case Studies of High-TechFirms in Atlanta, 1836–1984. Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta,Georgia.

orporation for Enterprise Development, 2006. 2006 Development ReportCard for the States. http://www.cfed.org (accessed June 8, 2006).

ortright, J., Coletta, C., 2006. The Young and the Restless: How AtlantaCompetes for Talent. Metro Atlanta Chamber of Commerce, Atlanta,Georgia.

row, M., 2002. A New American University: The New Gold Stan-dard (Inaugural Address). Arizona State Univ., Tempe, AZ. Available:http://www.asu.edu/ia/inauguration/address (Online).

ulp, R., Shapira, P., 1997. Georgia’s Advanced Technology DevelopmentCenter: An Assessment, prepared for the Organization for EconomicCooperation and Development, Annual Meeting.

tzkowitz, H., Leydesdorff, L., 2000. The dynamics of innovation:from National Systems and “Mode 2” to a Triple Helix ofuniversity–industry–government relations. Research Policy 29 (2),109–123.

eldman, M., 1994. The university and economic development: the caseof Johns Hopkins University and Baltimore. Economic DevelopmentQuarterly 8 (1), 67–76.

ischer, K., 2007. The university as economic savior: as higher educationreplaces industry in some cities, colleges face both support and unre-alistic expectations, Chronicle of Higher Education, July 14.

lorida, R., 1995. Toward the learning region. Futures 27 (5), 527–536.orrant, R., 2001. Pulling together in Lowell: the university and the regional

development process. European Planning Studies 9 (5), 613–628.eorgia Tech, 2002. The Strategic Plan of Georgia Tech, http://www.

gatech.edu/president/strategic-plan.html.ertler, M., 2003. Tacit knowledge and the economic geography of con-

text, or the undefinable tacitness of being (there). Journal of EconomicGeography 3, 75–99.

ibson, D., Butler, J., Keniry, T., 2004. Creating and Sustaining the Tech-nopolis: Austin, Texas 1985–2003. IC2 Institute, Austin, TX.

ibson, D., Rogers, E., 1994. R&D Collaboration on Trial: The Microelectron-ics and Computer Technology Corporation. Harvard Business SchoolPress, Boston, Massachusetts.

raham, D., Diamond, N., 1997. The Rise of American Research Universities.Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland.

uston, D.H., 1999. Stabilizing the boundary between US politics and sci-ence: the role of the Office of Technology Transfer as a boundaryorganization. Social Studies of Science 29 (1), 87–111.

uston, D.H., 2001. Boundary organizations in environmental policy andscience: an introduction. Science, Technology, & Human Values 26 (4),399–408.

arrison, R., Leitch, C., 2005. Entrepreneurial learning: research-ing the interface between learning and the entrepreneurialcontext. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 29 (4), 351–371.

agen, R., 2002. Globalization, university transformation and economicregeneration: a UK case study of public/private sector partner-ship. International Journal of Public Sector Management 15 (3),204–218.

egde, D., 2005. Public and private universities: unequal sourcesof regional innovation? Economic Development Quarterly 19 (4),373–386.

enton, D., Melville, J., Walesh, K., 1997. Grassroots Leaders for a New Econ-omy: How Civic Entrepreneurs are Building Prosperous Communities.Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.

uxley, T.H., 1892, April 11, Letter, http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext04/llth310.txt.

affe, A., 1989. Real effects of academic research. American EconomicReview 79 (5), 957–970.

ambright, W.H., 2000. Catalyzing research competitiveness: the GeorgiaResearch Alliance. Prometheus 18 (4), 357–372.

ink, A., 1995. A Generosity of Spirit: The Early History of theResearch Triangle Park. Research Triangle Foundation, Chapel Hill,North Carolina.

ink, A., 2002. From Seed to Harvest: The Growth of Research Tri-angle Park. Research Triangle Foundation, Chapel Hills, NorthCarolina.

uger, M., Goldstein, H., 1997. The Role of Public Universities. In: Bingham,

R., Mier, R. (Eds.), Dilemmas of Urban Economic Development. SagePublications, Beverly Hills, California, pp. 104–134.

askell, P., Malmberg, A., 1999. Localised learning and industrial compet-itiveness. Cambridge Journal of Economics 23, 167–186.

icy 37 (2008) 1188–1204 1203

McMath, R., 1985. Engineering the New South: Georgia Tech, 1885–1985.University of Georgia Press, Athens, Georgia.

Mowery, D., 2005. The Bayh-Dole Act and high technology entrepreneur-ship in American universities: chicken, egg, or something else?Colloquium on Entrepreneurship Education and Technology Transfer,University of Arizona, July 21–22.

Mowery, D., Nelson, R., Sampat, B., Ziedonis, A., 2004. Ivory Tower andIndustrial Innovation. Stanford Business Books, Stanford, California.

Newlands, D., 2003. The role of universities in learning regions. PaperPresented at the ERSA 2003 Congress, Jyvaskyla, Finland.

Noll, R., 1998. In: Noll, R. (Ed.), The American Research University: An Intro-duction. In Challenges to Research Universities. Brookings InstitutionPress, Washington, DC, pp. 1–30.

OECD, 1996. The Knowledge-Based Economy. Organisation for EconomicCooperation and Development, Paris, France.

OECD, 2007a. Competitive Regional Clusters: National Policy Approaches.Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris,France.

OECD, 2007b. Higher Education and Regions: Globally Competitive, LocallyEngaged. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development,Paris, France.

Piore, M., Sabel, C., 1984. The Second Industrial Divide. Possibilities forProsperity. Basic Books, New York.

Powell, W., Koput, K., Bowie, J., Smith-Doerr, L., 2002. The spatial cluster-ing of science and capital: accounting for biotech firm-venture capitalrelationships. Regional Studies 36 (3), 291–305.

Roessner, D., Carr, R., Newman, N., Johnston, K., 2001. Evaluation of theGeorgia Traditional Industries Program. SRI International, Arlington,VA.

Rosser, S.V., 2005. “Greetings from Dean Sue Rosser.” Ivan Allen CollegeWeb site, http://www.iac.gatech.edu/welcome/index.htm.

Rothaermel, F., Thursby, M., 2005. University incubator firm knowledgeflows: assessing their impact on incubator firm performance. ResearchPolicy 34, 230–305.

Saxenian, A., 1996. Regional Advantage: Culture and Competition in SiliconValley and Route 128. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mas-sachusetts.

Shane, S., 2004. Academic Entrepreneurship: University Spinoffs andWealth Creation. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK.

Shapira, P., Youtie, J., March 2004. University–Industry Relationships:Creating and Commercializing Knowledge in Georgia, USA. GeorgiaInstitute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia.

Shapira, P., Youtie, J., in press. Learning to innovate: building regional tech-nology development learning networks in midsized cities, EuropeanPlanning Studies.

Shapira, P., 2005. Innovation challenges and strategies in catch-up regions:developmental growth and disparities in Georgia, USA. In: Fuchs,G., Shapira, P. (Eds.), Rethinking Regional Innovation and Change:Path Dependency or Regional Breakthrough? Springer, New York, pp.195–221.

Shapira, P., Youtie, J., Mohapatra, S., 2003. Linking research production anddevelopment outcomes at the regional level. Research Evaluation 12(2), 105–116.

Siegel, D., Waldman, D., Atwater, L., Link, A., 2004. Toward a model of theeffective transfer of scientific knowledge from academicians to practi-tioners: qualitative evidence from the commercialization of universitytechnologies. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 21(1–2), 115–142.

Slaughter, S., Leslie, L., 1997. Academic Capitalism: Politics, Policies, and theEntrepreneurial University. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore,Maryland.

Smilor, R., Gibson, D., Kozmetsky, G., 1988. Creating the technopolis:high-technology development in Austin, Texas. Journal of BusinessVenturing 4 (1), 49–67.

Teece, D., 1986. Profiting from technological innovation: implications forintegration, collaboration, licensing, and public policy. Research Policy15, 285–305.

Tornatzky, L., Wauguman, P., Gray, D., March 2002. Innovation U: NewUniversity Roles in a Knowledge Economy. Southern Growth PoliciesBoard. Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.

Tushman, M., 2002. Special boundary roles in the innovation process.Administrative Science Quarterly 22, 587–605.

Bureau of Economic Analysis, 2005. State and Local Personal Income,

2001–2003, NSF 05-301, http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf05301/.Youtie, J., Shapira, P., Mohapatra, S., 2000. Technology Infusion: Assessing

Current and Best Practice Programs. Georgia Tech Research Corpora-tion, Atlanta, Georgia.

arch Pol

Zucker, L., Darby, M., 1997. The economists’ case for biomedical research:

1204 J. Youtie, P. Shapira / Rese

Youtie, J., Shapira, P., 2005. Innovation in Manufacturing: The 2005 Geor-

gia Manufacturing Survey. Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta,Georgia.

Zucker, L., Darby, M., 1996. Star scientists and institutional transformation:patterns of invention and innovation in the formation of the biotech-nology industry. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 12(2), 12709–12716.

icy 37 (2008) 1188–1204

academic scientist-entrepreneurs and commercial success in biotech-nology. In: Barfield, C., Smith, B. (Eds.), The Future of BiomedicalResearch. American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research,Washington, DC, pp. 42–72.

Per pust ak aan Su l t anah Z an ar i ah

TITLE SOURCE

Globalization, University Transformation And Economic Regeneration : A UK Case Study Of Public/Private Sector Partnership

Emerald Database

��������

���

�� � ��� ���� �� ���� �� �� ������������ �� ����� ������ �� ��� � ����� ��� �� !��"�� �#$ %� &�����'� �(��!��")*� ������"+�(�������� �,�

���������� ��������������������� ��� �������

������������ �� ���� ����� �� ������������ ������

����������-����� .���

��������� � � ���� � ������ ����� � ����� ��

�������� ������������ ������������� ����������� ���������

���� � ����� ��� ��� ����������� ��� ��� �������� ����� ���� ��� �������������� ���������� ��� � �����������! ������������ ��� ����� �������� � "��� ������ ���� �� ������ ��� ������� ##�������� �����$$ ������ ���� �� ��� ������! %�� ���� ���� ��� ���� ����������� ���� ��� ������ ����������� �� ��� ����������� ����� �������� ��� �&"��������� �� ��� ��� ������ "���������"�! %�� "�"�� ��� �� ���� ���� �� � �������� ������ ��������������� "��� ����� ����� � ���������� ���� ��� �������� "����� �� � ��� ���� ���� ������� ����� ����� � ��"����������� ���� ��"��� � �� ��� �� �� ������ �������! %�� ������ �� ��� ����������� ����������� ��� ������ ����������� �� ������� �! %�� "�"�� ����� �� ������� ������������ � ��� ��"��& "���������" "����� � ������� � ��� ��������� �������� ������� ��� �� � �������� ����! '� ��������� ������� ��� ���� � � ��� ����������� "���������" ������� �������� ��� ��� ��������� ( ��� �������� ��"�� ������! '�"����� ��������� ��� ����� ���������� ������ � �� ������� � ��� �� ������ �� ��� "����� � "������ �������� �����"����������! %�� "����� �� "����� �� �� �&��"��� � ����� ��� ���������� � ���� �" ����)"������ ����� "���������"�!

������������� ����� �����/ ���� ��� ���//���/ ���� �������0���� � ' ����� �� ��������/��� ��� /���� � �1��/����/2 ���'���� �� ����/ �� ������ � � ' ��/����� �3 �''� �� �''���� �� ��1���� ���� � ��� ���� ����� �� '�1������ � �/ �4������3������ �� �� �� *5#) ��� ����/ ��1� ����� ���3 �� ���'�' ���� �/ �������� �� 6 �7��'��!��/�� � �1��/����/ ��1� ��� 8�����3 � ' �4�����/� �� ������� ' '�//��� ��� 6 �7��'�� ��� ��� ���� '�1������ �9 ��� ���3 ��1� ����6 �7��'��' ���� ��� ���� ��/���+����� �� �����// �/ � �4������3 ���� ��/6/������3 �� ��� ��1�� �� ������� ����� � 7��� � �1��7����� � ����� ����/����� /��'��/ � /�������� ����� ��/ ������� � � ����' �� �7�!����'/ ������������ :�� 7�� ����� ��/ ��� /����//��� ��� ������ �� ����/ ��� ���� ��� ���/�� �� ����� ����/� �/ �4��������' � ��� ������ ����4 ���/�/� )��7� � � /��� ����� �� '� �/ ���� ��� /�������� ����� �� ���������� � ��7 ����� ��/ �� ���/���/6� ��� ����� �������/ ���/� �����//�/ �� � 7��� �/�����/��' %; � �1��/��3!� '�/��3!��1�� �� � /����� < ��� ����� � #���� 3 /������ = �7�!/����� ��3����� �����// �/ �'����'� ��� ���/� �/ � ����� �� /�������� � ��3����� �����//�� ��� ���!/������� � ' ���� �� /������� /����/ � ' ��� /��� ' �/ �� ��� ��1�� ����� /����� � � ' '�//��� ��� � �� ���� 6 �7��'�� ���� ��� � �1��/��3 ��/� ��

�� ����� � �//�� � ' ���� ��4� �����1� �� ���/ >��� �� �/ �1������� ������ ��!!!"������������"�����#$%&'$$("���

?������0���� � ' ��� �������� ������

��$

��� /������� ��'/ �� ��� � '�/��3 ���� �� � 1��1�'� �� ����� � #���� 3��/� �/ �������' �/ � �4������ �� ��� ���7� � ����� �� ������+���1���/����� ���� ��/���/�

�� ����� 7��� ���/� �4��� � ��� ���//���/ ��� ��� �� 7���� ��� ��8���� � �7 /�������� ��/�� /�/ ���� ��� ������ �'������ � /������� /� ���/� �� �������'�� ��1��� �� ���� ������ /�������� ����� ��/� � ' /��� ' �� ��� ����� ��1��� ������ ���� ��/���/ 7��� � '�/��3 � ' ��1�� �� �� �� � ���� ���� �� ������ ������''���� �� ���� � ��� ���� ���� ������ � �� ����� � #���� 3 /����� � '��� ��/� ��� � ���'���'� �����7�' �3 � �������� � ��3/�/ �� ��� �7� /����/ � ��������// �� ���� ��/��� /������� � ' ������� ����� �

���������� ��������� ��� �������� ������������� ) ��������������= ������������ �� ���������� � ��� ��� �� � ���� �� � �1��/����/ ��/ ���7 ����� /��� ���� �/ ���� ��3 ��/ ��� ��'���' �����/� �� ���� �� �� '� �������/� % �1��/����/ ��� �7 ������ ��' �� ��/�� ' �� ��� ���� ���//���/ ���������0���� � � /������ 7�3 �� ����� ���������� / �3 ����� � ����/��1�/ ����� �!'��� /�� ��� ������������ /��������/ 7���� ��� � ��/�� /�1� � ' � !� �������1� 7��� � 1��� �� ��� ��� �� @$������� � ' ?��/���� �((�� �((�� �((9����� �0 � ' �������� �("(A� �� ��/�!� '�/����� 6 �7��'�� /�����3 �/������ �� � ��� ���� ���� 6 �7��'�� ������� � � �1���� � ' '�//��� ���� �/ ��� � ������ ���� �� ��� � �1��/��3� �� �� 1���� �� � ' �� �� ���/ ����'���� �������� �'1� ���� � �� ��������/ � ' ��������� ������ / � �� � /� ���/3/��� @)��6� /� �(("A ��/ ������' � 1�������� '3 ����� ������ ���������1�6 �7��'��!����/�' /�����3� =� ��� �� ��� �� ���/ '����� �/ � 1��7 ����6 �7��'�� ������� � ' '�//��� ���� ��� ������ ��' '�� �� ��� /����!�����/����� ����7�3 7���� ����� �0�/ � ��� '����/� ��/ ��/ ������ ��' ��� ���� �� � � �1��/��3 �/ � ���� ����/ /���!�� ��� �' ���� �0���� �� /3/����= ���'� � *4���' �����//�� � ' ��� '� � ������ �� �� ���/��� $�/� �//������� 7�� ��������/ ���� � �1��/����/ ��1� �����1�' ����� �/���� �//� ��6�/ � �4����� ��/���� �3 '������ � ����B

� � � � �1��/����/ ��� � ��/������ � � � % �1��/����/ ��1� ��/� ����� � ���������� �� ����3� ��/��1��� /����� CC6 �7��'�� � '�/����/22 < � �������� ���� ����3� �� � ���� �'1���� '�/�� ���/����� � ' '�1������ � � � � � ����/� ��3 ������ ���/�'� ��� � �1��/����/ 7��� �� 7��6� � � /������ 7�3/ � ' 7��� /������ ���� �/� �� ���/� 7���� � � � ���3 7��� ���� �� 7��� ���3 '�� ��������' �3 ���'���� ���'���� /� ����� ������ / � ' � /������� / � � � D�� ��� ���/� ��������� ��� ���� ���1�� ������ ���/�'� � �1��/����/ ��� � /�'� @.����� )�� 8����' � � � ���1��7 7��� $������7 @�((AA�

�� ���7�� � �7 6 �7��'�� �����/ � �����/ ��/����� ���//���/ � � '�1�'��� � �1��/����/ �� ���3 ��� �� ����� �� ��� ���'� � �'�� � ��� /��>�������/� �� � 1�/��� � ���'� �/ ������ � ��� ����� ��� � 3 /� ��� � �1��/��3 ������� ���� ��/����� ���//���/ ��� �4����� ��' �3 ����� ���1��� � ' ���������� �0���� /� � ' ����� ��/�� /� ��/ ��� �� ���� ��!�������1� ����� ��/ � '/���� ��� ��/�/ �� '������ � ��1��/ �� ��� 1���� ���� � =/ � ��/���� �� �/ �����'� � �7 ���>�����3 �� ���6�� ��������/�� ����� �� ��������/�� �� 1�����/�3 6 �7 �/

��������

��*

������� ��� ��������1�� �//������ ��������/� @)� � �� �((�A ��/ ��' �� ���'��� ' ��� ��!�4��� ���� �� ���'���� �� ���� �0���� �� ���������/�% �1��/����/ ��� ��� � � �������' �� �'��� ���� ������4 �����'��� /�� ��/�������� ��>����1�/ �����' 7��� �� ���'�����3 �� /�� / �� ������� �3���/�� /�1� �// � ' � �1���� �

�� � �1��/��3 ����'��� � ��'�� �/� ����/ �� � CC��'� �22 @5�06�7��0 � '&�3'�/'����� ����9 ?�''��' �(("A 7�/ � � 7���� �� '/ '��7 ���� ���� ����1�� �� �/ ����� ���' �� �!���� �� � ���� /������3 � ' ���� ��3� ��� � �����/�!� '�/������ �������3 � �������' ��� ��3� ��� ������ ���/� �/ � /������� � ������ ��� '��� '/ �����' ��� ��� ��/���� � � *5#) ���� �� ��1�� �� �/ ��� ��� �������' �� �� ��� /��� �� '��/ �� ������ �'������ � � ��� %; ��� ��/����/�/ �/ /�1��� � ' CC����/� ���>����� / /��7 ��� ������ �'������ /����� � ������ 6 �� '������22 @%�� %���� *����� +� ����� � ""������� ����� �� E�A� �������� �� ���'�/ ���� CC�� % �1��/��3 /����� 7��� �� � '�� /��� �� � ���� /���� � ��� /���� �� ��'��� ���� � ' � � !��� � ���//��� � � �1��/����/ �� �4�� ' � !�������3 �� '�' ����1����/ �� ���� ���/�� ���/22�

5 ���/� � ' =������ � �1��/����/ ��� ���� � � �� ��!�4��� � ��������'���� �� ���� � ' ��� /�����������3 �''��//� � /��� �� ��� ��/����� �//��/ �3����� � ������ ����� ��/ ��� �/� ����/��1�/� � ������3 ��� ����� ���'���� �� ��'�� � � ' ��'� �7� ����1����/ �� ������ � � ' ��/������ �������� 6 �7��'����� /��� 7��� ���������3 �� CC��� '��3��//22� 7� ������ � �� ���� �/ ��'�� ��� /��� '�3 ��� �4�����/ �� ���/ ��� '� #�����'�� % �1��/��3� %; � ' �����//����/���/ � /������ �� ��� ����3� $�/�� � %�=� ��1� �� 6�' �� � � F"� ������ ������� � /�������' �3 � /������ � ���� CC����� 7��� �� ���� ���������� ��/���/ ���7�� � �1��/����/ � ��� ������� #�����'�� �/ /�����/�3 ���6� ��� 7�3/ �� �4�� '� � ��� ���� ���� �� ������ � � ' ���� � � �/� � ��� � ��� ��22@%�� � ������� ����A� = ���// �����/� � '����� � ���� &��'/� ��������'����������� � ' :��6 % �1��/����/ ��� �� 6� � �� 7��� ���� ��/�����!��'=������ ��� �������/ 7�/ >�/�����' �3 � %; �� �/��� ��� 5'������ � ��������7� � /������ �B

.����� �'������ �� �/� ������ ����� ��/ �� /����� �7 ����/ �� '�1��/��3 7��� �4����� �� ���� �4�� '�' /��'� � ��������� � , ������ ��� ��� ���� ���� �&�������� �� �������� ��������� ����� ��� � �� ����� � �����"����� ( ��� ��� ���� � ��� ��- ���� ����� ��� �� �����G�����/�/ �''�'H @%�� � ������� ����A�

?����� � �1��/��3 ������������ / � ' ����� ��/ �� ���/ ������ �� /����//���� 7�����1� ��� �� ����/ �� /����� � � � /�'�� ��/���� � ���� �����2/ ����� �� ���'� �����/9 /���� ��4�' ��/�/ � ' �//������' ��/6/9 ���������� �7 ���'���'�1������ �� �7 ���������/ � ' �����//�/ �3 /3 ����/� � �4���� ��/�/ � ������ �� ���� ����3 � ' -I)9 � ����/� /���' �� � �1���� �� ���6��9 �����/��������� ���3 /6���/ � ' �//��/ ���� ������ ���� �0���� �� '�1���� � ������7 9 �� ���� ���� ��� � ��� ���0���� �� 6 �7��'�� � � �������� ����/ ��������� ���� ��/� ���� � �1��/��3 ������ ����� ��/ ��/� ������ �� � '��� � ����/�' �� '!/��� � ���� ��!����� �� �3����� � ' � ������� � ����/ � ������0���� � ' ����''�' �// � ����� ����� ����/� = ��� ��� ���� ������� �� ���� � �1��/��3 ���� ����� @#��6��1����3 � ' ����������� �("�A 7���

?������0���� � ' ��� �������� ������

��+

�� �//�/� ����� �� ��� ���� '�1������ � � � �������0�' ��� ��3� #�����4� ���!� �1��/��3 ��7��6/ 7��� ��8���� � �����3 /6����'� � ��� ���� ���3������� �� /�����������3 �/����� ���3�� �������3 ���� ����' 7��6����� ���� �� ��� ���� � �������� 7���� �� ��� /��� ���� ��/�� '� � �� ��� ��'/ �� ������ '�/��3 @�������' � ' )�0� �(( A� ���� ������ ������� /���/ 7��� �� ����� '�/��3 �� ����� ���� ��/���/ 7��� � �1��/����/ ��1� � �4������ /������������� ��� @'�/��//�' ����� � ��� �����A� ��/ �/ �� �����/�' �/ � /����������������1� ��� ��� � �1��/����/� /� �� ��� � ���/�� �� ��� ������ ���3���� ��/� '�� ��� � �1��/��3 �� �� ��/ ������' � ��������/ /����� 7���� �������/��� ����1����/ �� .5� � ' 7��� � ����/ � /�������/� � ' �4����� �� < �� �/ � ��/��� CC���/�/ ��� ����/�/22 @?��/��� � ' ������� �((A�

,������ ������� ����������� ) ����������&��������&���������������=� ��� /��� ���� �/ ������ � ����� ��/ ������3� ����� ���3 � ' �������3�� �1��/����/ ��� ��/� ����1��3 � ���� � /3������� ������� /���/ 7��� � '�/��3 �/� ����� ���1� /����� �� � ����� ����'�4�����3� � �1��/����/ ��� 8��/��� � �7������ ��� CC����� �� �� � ���� /��� ��� � ' /��1�1�� � � � G���H � � � � ����������7��� /�������3 � ������3� ��>����1��3 � ' � '��� '� �� @#���� �� ��!� �(((A�=����'� � �� &�3'�/'���� @����� �� �A /��� � ������ ���/ ��1� ��/����' ����� �1��/����/ � ' � '�/��3 CC�//��� � ��/6/ ���� 7��� �������3 ��� ���1� �� ������� /�����/22� = ���6���� ' ����� �� ��� *5#) ���>��� � CC��� ��/�� /� �������� �'������ � /������� / �� ����� �� ��'/22 @?�''��'� �((,A '�/��//�/ ��������� ��� � �1��/����/ �/ ��>�� ���3��/ � ����� �� ���� ������ � �� � ����/� ����������1� ���//��� �� �������0���� ��/ ����/�' �����3 � ��� � ���� � ��4 ����� 8�����3 � ' �4�����/� �� CC���� �������22 �� ������� '�//��� ��� � ' �� ���6 �7��'��� �� ������//�� �� /���� � ' ���� � ' ��� ��/���/�� �� �� CC��'226 �7��'�� ��8����/ ��� CC���� �4 ��6�22 ��/� �� �7 �� '!/��/ �� ������ ���� � �� 1��� �� �/� =/ ��� ��� 6 �7��'�� ���'����/� � �1��/����/ ��� /�� �/ ���1������ �� '�1���� �����//�/ ��� '�//��� ���� �� �7 6 �7��'�� �� � ����� ����1��� � /������3� �� /���/� 7��� � �� ��� /������� �/ ��� CC��� /�������� �� ���� �1��/��3 /3/��� �/ � 7���'7�'� ��� ��� � 22 @5�06�7��0 �� ��!� ����A���1�������//� ��� �� ����� � �� ��� �� ���'����� / � ' �� /�� / ���7�� '������ ������ � ' � �������� '�/��//�' ���1� 7��� �� '�������� � ' ��8���� ���� ��� �� � �3 �� � �1��/����/2 /������ /��������/ ��� ��/� '����� /��������/ ��1����/� ������/ � ' ������� � ��� /�� �� ��� ���'���� �� � �1��/��3 ����� � �����7� ���� ���� �����6 @�((�A� � �1��/����/ ��� ��� � ���//���' �� �������0��CC?������0���� � � � ��� / ��� 6� � �������3 ��� ���� � ������3 � � � G��6� �H ������ ������1� �� ��� ����� �� � � � ��1�� 22 @�����6 �((�A � ��'�� �� ������ � 6�3���3�� � � ����� �� CC6 �7��'�� ��7��622�

�� � ��� ���� �� 1��7 �� ��� � � ��� �������3 �� /��� � ��� /�������� ��� �1��/����/ �/ �� � � ����/� �� �7�'�/� -�/����� ���� ������ �� ���'�/���� � �1��/����/ /����' �� �� ����� � ������ � � ' ��/����� � ' 7���'��7���� �� �������� / �� � '�/��3 @5�06�7��0 � ' &�3'�/'����� ����A� $�� ���/ �/ ��'� 3 ��� �1������ ��3 ����� �� � �1��/����/ ���� ����� � ����� �� ������ �/

��������

��(

� /������� / ��� ������ �� �� ��� ��� ��/ �� ��� � ' �� ��� � ���� �� �� ���37�� ��/����� 7�/ � ���'���' �� ��� CC� �1��/��3 ��//�� 22� �� ��� ����� � CC����'��//�� 22 7���� ��/ �''�' �� ������ � � ' ��/����� ��� ���� �� ��� ����'�1������ �� � ������������ 7��� ��1�� �� � � ' � '�/��3 � ' �������' �� �/CC��� ������ ����422 @5�06�7��0 �� ��!� ���� A� ���� � ��'���� ��� �� � ��� ���� ��� �1��/����/ ��/ ��������' � /����/ �� � ��� ���� �� ������ ����4 �� ���� ��/� � =�/���'�� � �((E� �((" � ��7 :��6� ���� � -�� '� �� ���� � ' ��� �������/���'���' �� ��6� ����� � #��� ���� � )� ���6 � ��3 ���� @5�06�7��0 � 'J����� ����A� 5��� �� ���� �� ���1�'�/ � ����� �� '�/��// ��7 ��� '������ �/�������� �� ��������� / ���7�� ��1�� �� �/� � '�/��3 � ' � �1��/����/ 7���� ������ ��� ���� ���7�� � ' /����� ��� /�������� � �� �����/���� �/ ����CC�� ����� .���4 '� ���/ �� � �3 � ������� /��� ���7�� � �1��/��3� � '�/��3� ' ��1�� �� �� ��� ��/� � ��� �� ��� /�������� 7���� ���� �� ���/� /�����/22@5�06�7��0 � ' &�3'�/'����� ����� �� ��A� �� �� ������3 �� � ������ ���/���� ' � �1���� � ���/ �����// �/ ����������' �3 ��� � ���!������' �����//�/�'� �����' �3 ��� ������ ����4 ��'�� 7���� � �������/ � CC� ������ �������������22 @5�06�7��0 �� ��!� ����� �� A�

�� � ��� �� ��� /�������� � ���� �� ��� ������/ /��� �/ ������� ���/ ��� � ����� ��/������� /�������� ����� ��/ �� � �//������ �� � ��� ���� '�1������ � ��//�� �3� �1��/����/�

�� �� � ���� �� �� � � � /������� �� /����� ��� � ����� � ��� �� � ����� ��� /��������

�� �� ������� �� � �7 �1����3 �� ���������� �� 6���/� ��7��6/� � ' ���� �0���� / ��� ���� ������/� /��1� � �� � /������� ���/� � ' �����'��� � ������� �/ 7��� �/ /������������ �0���� �� ������1��3 � ' ����� �� ����/�1� �//�

'� �� �����/�1� ������ �� ��� � ���!� /������� �� ��7��6/ �����/� �� � ���'����� � '�/��3� ' ��1�� �� � ���� � ����� ����� ��� � /�����/ � ' ��� ������ /�����3�

= �4����� �� ��� '����� � ���1� ��� �� ��1�� �� � �� �3 �� � ������� � '���������� ��� �����// �� � �1��/����/ �� ������ ���� � ������ ������ � '� �1���1� �/ ��� )������� � ��� 5'������ � ' 5����3�� � @)D55A � ������1�5 ������/� � .����� 5'������ @5.5A� $��7�� �(", � ' �((" FE� ������ 7�/����' �� ��6� � ������ �'������ � /������� / ���� �7��� � ' ��/�� /�1� �������� ����� ��� ���� �� � ' � ��� ���� �� ��� ���� '�1������ � ��'/ @)D55��(((A� �� ������2/ ��>�� �� '� � �/ �������/ �� 5.5 7�/ ��� CC���������322 � '������� �� �� � �� ��' �����3������3 � ' � ������/� < /������/�' �/CC��� ��' ��� �� '/��22 � ������ �'������ � J���� ���/ �����// ����� /�������� �� ��� � �1��/��3 /����� �/ �� '�/����'� ��� ��1��/ �������������� � ' � ��������� � �� ������������ ������� ��1�� �� � ��/������� '� �� � � '�/��3!���'���� ����� ��/ ��� �� �1� �3 '�/�������'� = .5D#5�� '�' ������ � � '�/��3!���'���� �� 6/ � ��� %; @.5D#5� �(("A� 7����� ���'�' ��� � �1��/����/ � ' ������ �'������ �������/ � ��� %;� ��/�����������' ���/ ��� '� ���� �� ����� �� '� �/ /��7�' ���� ��/����� �� '� ��3 � '�/��3 ��' ���7 �3 � ��� �� � ��� � ����' 7�/ �� �� �����' � � �3/�1� � �1��/����/9 ����� �� 6���/ 7��� � '�/��3 @7���� �� ����/A 7������ ������3 7��� /���� ����/9 .5�/ ����� � �� /����� ��� ��/����� � ' ���� � �

?������0���� � ' ��� �������� ������

��#

7��� ���'��� � ��3 7��� ����� �� �� ����� ���� ��/9 ����� 7�/ � ����/� ����������� ��� � .5�/ ��� � '�/����� ��/�����/�

�� ��� ������ � �� ���/ ����� �/ ���� ��� ����� ���3 '��� �' �����3 ���� �1��/��3!� '�/��3!��1�� �� � �� 6/ '��/ �� ������������3 ���'��� ��� ����������4 �� ����/� ���� ��� � ����/� � �� ��� / ���� �1� 7�� ��� � �1��/��3!� '�/��3!��1�� �� � ���� ��/���/ ��� �����' ���3 ��� �� �����1� � �������>����1�/� =/ ?�''��' @ �((,A 7�� /� CC7���� ���� �� ��1�� �� �/ ��3 /��6�� � ����/� ��� � ������ � �� � �1��/����/ 7��� ��� ���� '�1������ �� ������ / �� �����1� � ���/ ���� �/ ��� ���� �����22� #3��� � ' ?��'�� @�((,A��/��1� ���� ���� ��/���/ ���7�� � �1��/����/ � ' � '�/��3 ��� �� �����1� ������ ����/ CC�����/� �� �������� '������ ��/ ���7�� ��� ���� ��/� '������ ��/ � ����� ���'���/ � ' ����� �� 7��622� ��/ �/ �� /�����/� �� ��/����� ������/�� �����3 � '����� ��� ������� ���� �� /�������� ����� ��/ �� �� ���� � � ����' ����@.���� �(("A �� ������/ 8����' �/ ���� �/ ,� ��� �� � �������� ������� �� ����� ��� ���� �4�������� /� =/ ��� ���!��� /�������� �� ������ � ��� � �1��/��3��� �� � ' � 1��1��� � � ��� ���� ���� ������ ������/ ���� ���� ����� �/� ��' ��� � ���� � �����' �������� � ��7 CC��� ��� /22 �������' �� �3?�''��' ���1� ��� �� �� �����1�'� ?��'� �� �� �� '��7 ���� ��� ��/������� '� �/ � ��� /������3 ����' � ' ������' �� � �4�/�� � /����//��� %;��1�� �� �!� �1��/��3!� '�/��3 /����� 7���� ��/ �������' /� �� �(,�� ��� �1��/��3!� '�/��3!��1�� �� � /����� �������' �� �/ � � �� ��� ��/�/����//��� � ' � '��� � %� /�����/ ���� ����' ��� �/ � �4������ �� � ���������3� CC.������� �� �� � ��� �������� � ������� � ��� �� *+' ��� ��� �����[email protected]#5� �(("� �''�' �����/�/A �� �/ ��� ����� � #���� 3 ������� $�� �/ �������� � #���� 3 ������2/ /�������� ��� @�(((A ��6 �7��'��/ CC���������1��3 ��7 ��1�� �� �7��� �// ����� ��� ����� � #���� 3 ������ � ��/� �// 7��� ��' �� �� �''��//�'22 � ' � .5 '������� �/ ���� ��1� �� ��� � 1��1�'� D�� ���/� ���'���� /����1�/��/ � � �1��/��3 '������� �/����'����/� � '�/����/ � ' ��1�� �� � �� '� � '������� �/ ���� ��1� /�� ���/����//�/� ���/��3��/� � ����� ��� �� ����/ �� /��� � /����� �/ � /�� ����� ��� �������� �� ��� ������ � CC6 �7��'��!��/�' 1��722 �� ��� ���� @?�� �� �((E��� ���A �/ � �4��������� � �� �4� /����� 7��� ���1�'� ���6���� '� �������� �� ��� /����� �/ � ���6����� �� � ��3/� � ��� ����� � #���� 3������2/ �������� /����// ������/� �� '��7/ � /�������� ����� �� ��/����� � '6 �7��'�� �� ����� � ����������� � ' ��3 � ���� ������ �����3 '��1� ���� ��/���/ �/ ���� �� ��� � �1��/����/2 ��'� /�������� ��� '�� 7��� � � ����/� � �����/�/ � � �1��/����/ '�//��� ��� � 6 �7��'�� ��� ��� �������� ������ �

�� �-������ ��� ����������&��������&������� ����������� ) ���.������ /������ 0������� ����� � #���� 3 ������ �/ � %; ?�1�� �� � /����� 7���� � ����/� �1��/����/ �� ������ � ' '�//��� ��� /��� ������ � �� ���� �� ���� ��������6 �7��'�� � ' ��/� �// �� ����� � �4�����/� �� ����� 3 ���� ��/� ��/����� 7�/ � ���'���' � �(,� 7��� ��� /�������� �� ��� ���� �������' � ���

��������

�%�

�(,�!�((� ��//�� /������ � CC����� � #���� 3 �4�/�/ �� ��� �� ���'���� ��������'�/ � ' �� ���� ���� ��/�� � ���� ��/���/ ���7�� ������ �'������ � '� '�/��3 � ��'�� �� �����1� %; � '�/����� �������� ��� ������������3 � '�� ����� ��22

�� �/ � ����/�� � �� ��� ���� ��� ������� ��//�� ����/�' � ���� ��/��� � '� ����/�' �������� �� �/ ��� �������� ���� � ' �� � ��� ���� ���� ������ ��� �1���� � ' 7����� ������� � D����7� � � /�� /��2/ ��1��7 �� ��� ��//�� /������ � � �((,� ��� ����/ �� � �1���� � ���������1� �// � ' 7����� ������� 7��� ������3 �'� �����' �/ ��� � '���� � � ����� ��� �� ��� ����� � #���� 3/�����/� 7��� ��� � ���������� /��� �� ��1�� �� �!� �1��/��3!� '�/��3 ����� ��� ��� �����// �/ � 6�3 �� /����//B CC� /��� ���� ���������1� �// � ' 7������������ �� ��� %; �3 ��� /��������� �� � �1���� � � '�/��3 ������������������1� ���� ��/���/22� �� �/ ��6��3 ���� � ������� ��1�/�� �� ��� ��//�� /������ � ����� � ��������� ����� � �� ��� / �3 � ���'� � ����/ /��� �/CC6 �7��'�� ��� /���� 6 �7��'�� �� ����� � � ' 6 �7��'�� '�//��� ���� 22�

D�����/ ���� ����� �((( 8����' �3 ��� '������� �� ��� ����� � #���� 3'���������� /��7 E� ����� � ���������/ 7��� (� 6 �7��'�� ��/� ��������� �/@-��/� � �(((A �E ��� �� � 7��� /���� ����� ��/ @K �� �����3��/A� � ��� �� �7��� ��'��� ����� ��/ �� @K ��� �����3��/A � ' ( ��� �� � �� ������������/ 7��� ����� ����� ��/� �� �� �� ��' �������� � �� ��1�� �� ��� �3 �� ��� /����� �/ ����/�����' �3 ��� /�� /��/��� ���1�'�' @���� �A�

�� %������� 0�"�� ��������� ���� @�(((A �� ���'�/B CC?�1�� �� ��������/� �����������3 � �����' �� ��� ; �7��'�� )��1� 5�� ��3 � '�� �� �� � �����/�/ � /������ ����/ � ' ��� ��' ��� � �1���� � ���/� � ������ /��/ �� #� 7��� ������� ������� ����/ � � � #� �� ��6� � �� �� �� � � '/�� ����� � �� �������� �� ��� 7����� ������� �����// � ' �� ��� %;2/���������1� �'1� ���� �1�� ��� ���� � 3���/� �� #� ����� �/� �/ ���4����� ���� �� ��/�� ' �� ��� ��/ � �����/�/ � ' ��'�22

.���� �"?�1�� �� �/�� /��/��� ������� � #���� 3��'���/

��� /��/

$�'���/ ����(((+����

@FA

)������� � �� ��'� I � '�/��3 @)�A ���"������5 �� ���� � � ' ��3/���� ���� ��/ -�/����� #�� ��� @5��-#A ��,,�����)������� � �� 5�� ���� )�1������ � < ������� ����� ' @)5)��A (�,����5�� ���� � ' ������ -�/����� #�� ��� @5�-#A "������� �/��3 �� =����������� D�/�����/ � ' D��' @�=DDA ,������$������ ����3 � ' $��������� ���� ��/ -�/����� #�� ��� @$$�-#A �������� J��/� *����� @J*�)A �������� ������/� *����� @�*5�)A ��������� ������� 5 1��� �� � -�/����� #�� ��� @�5-#A �������)������� � �� .����� @).A ,������������� ��3/��/ � ' =/��� ��3 -�/����� #�� ��� @��=-#A ������

0�����B %������� 0�"�� ��������� ���� @�(((A

?������0���� � ' ��� �������� ������

�%%

�� � �1��/��3!� '�/��3 ���� ��/��� �����7/ � �����/��3 '��� �' �����// ��� ��3/�/� �� � �1��/��3 ���'���� �//�� �' �� ��� /����� � ����/ 7���� '�/��3 �� �'� ���3 ����� ��/ 7��� ����� �/���� �������/ �� ���7�� �����/� �����6 �� � ��� �� 6 �7��'�� �����������/� = ��� �������� �� ��� ���>��� �/ ���� ����/ �� ��6� � /�� ����� � '������ �� �� ��� ����� 32/ �������� �� � 'CC�������� � �� ��� �� �/ �//� ����22� � ������������ 7��� ��� ��������'� �1��/��3 ���'����/ ��� ����� 3 ��������/ � ���>��� 7���� ��8����/ � �7�!3���'�1������ �� � ' �� '/ ��� ��������' �� � ���� �4�����/� �� '�1����� �������// � 1��1�/ � �4������ ����������� �� ��� 6 �7��'�� ��8������ ��)������' '�/��//�� / ��6� ����� ���7�� ��� ����� 3 � ' ��� � �1��/��3���'���� �����7�' �3 � ����� � #���� 3 �� /���� � 1�/�� �� ���� �������� 3 � ' ��� .5� �� �1������ ��� �����/�' ���>���/� * �� � ��������� ��/� ����� �����1�� � '������' ���>��� �����/�� �/ 7����� �3 ��� .5� � ' /�������'�� ��� /�� /��/B

J���/� /������ �� ����� � #���� 3 ��������� �����/��/ 7��� �� �� �� �� '��� ' � �����6������' �� /�� ����� � �''�' 1���� � ' �� ���� �� ��� � 1��1�'� ��� ������ �� ����� �#���� 3 )���������� � ���/� � �7��� �// ����� ����� � #���� 3 ������� � ' ����//������' �������� �� ����1��3� 7��� �� ����/�' � ���/� '�/����� �/ � ' ��/� �// /�����/7���� ��� ��� /��/ ���� ���� �� ���� �����1� 7���� � ���������� ���� ��� � =''���� ���3������ � 7��� �� ��6� �� ��� ��� ���� /��������/ �� ��� -���� �� )�1������ � =�� ���/ � 5 ��� ' � ' �� ��� ��� ���� /��������/ � ������ '� J���/ � ' ������� ����� '� ��/� ��3� ���'� ������ �� �� ���������� ���/���/ �� �7�� ��/� �//�/ �/ 7��� �/ �� ��� ���/� �� ��CC���'���� �� � '�/����� /�����/22 @%������� 0�"�� ��������� ����� �(((A�

������ �������� ����3� ��� ����� 3 ����� �/ ��� /�������' �� � /��� ��������� ��� � ���� ��/�����/ �� ���� ��� ����� 32/ ������ � �� �������� �� � ��� �� � �� ��� �1����� ��'��� ��� ��� ���>���� ���� ��� �����/�� �/ 1����� � '����� �/ �������� � �3 ��� ���� ��/ �� '�'����� ���� ��/����� ���� �� ������>���� �� ��1�� �� '����� ��'�' �� �� ���/� ��� ��/6 �� ������� 7��� �������� � #���� 3 ���������/ �/ /������3 �//�//�' �3 1��3 '������' ��������@�1������� ���� ��� ����� � #���� 3 '����������A�

J���� ��� 6 �7��'�� ��/� �/ 7��� ��� .5�� ��� /������� ������� ��6 �7��'�� 7���� ��� ����� 3 �� ��4� �/ ������� ��� ����� ��� � �� �����!������� ���'���� 7��� ��� ��/� ����������� /6���/� 6 �7��'�� � '�4����� ��� ��/� ��� �'� �����' �3 ��/����/���� �� ��� ���>��� �� ��� ��'/�� ��� ����� 3� � ' ���/ �/ � � �� ��� ��>�� �������� ������/ ��� /����// ��������� �� ��� /������ �� ���'���� �/ �� ��6� ���� � �4�/�� � ���� ��/��'� �/ 7���� ��� 6 �7��'�� ��/�� ��� ��������� � � ' /������� �����7/ � ���� ��+5% 7�'� �'1��� �� �� ' ��� ��/� ����������� �� '�'���� ��� '�1�'��� ���'���� ������/ ��� �� ���� � �����/ � ��� ����������������� /��� ���7�� ��1�� �� � @���� �� � ���'� ��� ����� � #���� 3/�����A� ��� .5� � ' � '�/��3 @��� ������ ���� �0���� A /� ���� � �1���1�6 �7��'�� �/ ������' ���� ��� �� ���� ��/� �� ��� .5� �� ��� /������� ��'/�� ��� ���� �0���� � �/ �4��������' ����7� =���� >�� � /����� 3 �� ������������� ����/ �3 ��� .5� � ' ��� ����� 3� ��� /������� �����// �/�/� �� ����� ���� ����1������ ��������� �� �� '�'��� ��/ �� ��// ��� ������

��������

�%�

������� �� ��8������ � ��'/ �� ��� ���>��� � ' ��/� �� ���������� � � � ������/� �� ��1�� 7��� ��� ����� 3� �����������3 7��� ��� /� ��� �� ������ �7 �� � ��� ��5 � 1��� �� � @�E ��� �� � �� ��� ����� ���������/ ���7��� ��5/A� =� ��� % �1��/��3 �� )����� $�/� �// ������ �� /�'���������� � ' ������ �/ '�'�����' �� ��� � 1��1��� � �� ��� ��/� /� ��� �� ����+/� 7��� ���� /�� �/�'� ��� ��� ���'����/ �� /�� ' � ��� ����� 3 '��� � ������������ � �����//� ����� � ��� ������ ���3 ��� �� 7��6 7��� ��/����//����3 ����� ��'� �� ���'���� �� '�'���� 6 �7 �/ ��� ������ ������ 3 �//������ @#=A � �� ����� ��'� ������/ ��� �����3�� �� ��� .5�� 1��1�' ��� /�� '/ (� ��� �� � �� ����� ���� 7��� ��� ����� 3 � ' �� ����� � 7��� ��� .5� ��� � '����� � ' /������� � /��'��/ /��� �/ �� ����� ����� � � � ' '�1������ �� D�� ��� ���'���� ��� �7�!3��� ���>��� �/ � ����������' ���� � � �����// � ' ������ �'1� ���� � � � '�/��3 � '��������� 7��� � /�� ����� � ����� ��� � ����� �' �3 ��� ����� 3�

* �� ��� �� '� � �/ �����' ��� ����� � #���� 3 ��/ ����� �� ������1�� � �� ����� �/�/ ��� �� ��� � � ' �� ����� � ������// �� ������>���� � ���'� � /�������� ��� � � � ' ������� ����� � ��/ ���/�/ �������������3 �� /����//��� ��������� � )������' 7��6 /���'���/ ��� '��7 �����7�� ��� ���� ��/ � ?=� �3�� ����� � ' ������// �/ �������3�� �����' � ' ���/���' �� 8�������3 ����� �/ �3 � ����� �� ����� ����������� ��/ ��'3 ������/�/ ��� .5� ��� � ���'��+���'���� /����1�/������ ����� 3+� ��� �� /����1�/��� ����� � #���� 3 �� /���� �� 7�� �/����� ��' �� �1��/�� ��� ���>��� � ' ��� #=� �� #= ���/� �/ � ��/��� ����1����/ ������' ��� '��� � ��� ���1���/ 8������� �'� �����/ � 3/�������/�' ���� � � 7���� ���3 ��1� �'� �����' � ' �� ���1�'�' �3 ��� .5��� ' �4��� �� '/ ��� �����/�' �� ��� ��������� �����/ �� ��� ��8��/�� = 3�'>�/��� �/ �� ��� ����� �� ��������� ��1� �� �� �����' �3 ��� ������� ����� � ���������� �� ����� � #���� 3 '���������� �� /���� ���7�3/ ����/ ���1����3 7��� ��� #= ����� ��� ����� � �� �� ���� ���� ��� ���//��3 /������ ��/ ��� ��������� �� ��/� ���������/ ��1�'���1������/ �4�������3 �'� �����' � ' 7���� ����� �� ��/ �� ���>������������ � �� �� ������ �/ /�������' �� ��� ����� � #���� 3 '����������� 8�� ���3� � ��/ �1����� �� �������� � �� �/ ��� �1������' � ' �7��'�' ����6� �� �� ���� �� �� .5�/ �� ���/� � 1��1��� � 7��� ��� ����� �#���� 3 ���������/ �/ ���� ���3 ���1�'� � CC��/� ��'22 � ' ���� ��� � �����'���� �'��/�

�� �-����� �� � ���������� ./0 ��������� ��/� /��'3 ���/� �� � ���� ���/ ����� �/ ?�� � ?-+�"E"� 7��� $� �/����� � #���� 3 &�' � ' )����� % �1��/��3 $�/� �// ������� �� ������7�/ ���'���� /����1�/�� � ��� ���>���� $� �/� 7� �� �� ��� ����� ��J�/��� /��� $� 6 54������ �� ��� :��� �(( �7��' 7�/ ���6�� '��1� 7���� ���/� �� � ,� ��� ����/ 7���'7�'�� � ' ��/ � �������� ��'��� � /3/���7�/ � '�� �4����� ���//��� �� ���� 7��� ��� � ����/� � ��'��/� �� =#7�/ �� �//�/� � ��� ����� 32/ � ����/� � � ��� ���� ���/���� �����// �3

?������0���� � ' ��� �������� ������

�%'

��6� � � ��/�� /������3 ��� ��� /���/ � ����� =������� #� �'�� D�� 5�/�� ' ��� %�=� 7�!� '!�!���� �� ��/ � �� ��� ���>��� ��� ����� 3 /������'� /�1��� ���6��� �� ��'��/ �����/� �� 1���/�/ � ��� �7 �������� /3/����J��� ��� ������� � �� ��� ����� �� ����� � ��������� � ' ��� ���'����/����1�/��� � ��/6 ����� 7�/ �/�����/��' � ' ��� #= 7�/ ����1�' ���� �������� � #���� 3 ���>��� ����������3 �� /������ ��� /���/ '������� �� �����1�'�' � ������� ��3 ��� ��� #= �� ��1� � ����������' ���� �0���� ������ � � �4����� �� � ' �//�/� 7��� ��� ������ ���>����

�� #= 7�/ ��� � � ��/���� �� �������� ��� /��� ' ��>�� ��/6 �� ������>���� 7���� 7�/ �� �� ���>��� �� ���� ��� ��� '�1������ � � '������� ����� �� ��� ���'��� � ' /���/ �'�� �/������ /3/��� @��=�A���/ � 1��1�' ������� � � �������� � ��!��'� ��� � 7��� '������� ��� ����/� '�������/ � ' �������� /���7��� �� /���� �/� /���� � �� ��� '������ ��� 8������� ��� �� � ���������� ��/�� /������3 ��� ��� �4����'����� ����� � ���1�'� � ��� ��� ���� � � � ' �� ���/ � ��=� �� ��� ���/���/ '������� � /���� � ' ����3� � ��� �4�� /�1� ��/�/ � ��� /3/���� ��#=2/ ��/�� /��������/ � ���'�' '�//��� ��� � ��/ 6 �7��'�� �� ��� �/� ����� /3/��� �� �//�/� ��� /���/ � ' ���6��� � '������� � 7��� ������ ��� ���� �� /���/� �� #= 7�/ ��/� ���� �� ��� ���� ��/�� /���� ��� ����������� �� � ���� � � ' �������� �� ��� �7 ����� 3 ���'��� � ���� �

�� ����� 32/ �������� � �� ���� � � � ' '�1������ � ��1� ��� #=��� ������� ��3 �� ���� ���� �/�� �/ 7��� �/ ����� � � ��� ���� �0���� 2/��>�� �4������� / � ' ���/� �� � ���� � ' ��� %�=� � �� � ���� ����/ �������� � #���� 3 ��������� ��'� � ��>�� �� �������� �� ���'�1������ � �� ��=�� �� /�1� �/ � ' � ����/�' /���/ ���� ���'�1������ � �� ��� /3/���� ��' ��� �4���'�' ��� ������/�/ � ��� ����� �#���� 3 /����� �����/��� 54��� /���/ ��� ����� �/ � ' ����/ � ����/�'7��� ��3� ' ��� F(�6 �� F( ������ � = �4��� F� ������ /�1� �/ 7��� ��/���'� ���� � !1���� ����1����/� 7���� 7�/ � ������� � ����/� � ��� ����� �������/�� �/������/ �� F� ������

��/ �7� 3��� ���/� ��/��1���� �� � ����� 3 � 1��1�' � � � ' ��������'��� ��� � ��� ���� ���0���� �����// ��' �� ����/ ��� ��� .5�� = �� �� ����//�//�� � � ' /�������� ���//�//�� � � ���'���� �� �������� � � '���� ��/����� '�1������ � �� ���� � �����3 ���������1� � 1��� �� � 7�/������ ��� �� �� /����// �� ��� ��������� ��' �� ��� #= ��� � ��������'�/ � ���� ���� �����3��� �� ��������� 7�/ �� ������� �� ��� ����� ���� ��//���� � � ��� ����� �� ����� � ��������� �����/� ���3 7�� �//�' ���/����// �� � �� �!���� /������3 � � ��� ���� ���0���� � ' ���7��� * ��������� �� ��� ��������� ��� ����� � #���� 3 '���������� �1������'��� �����/�� ��>����1�/ ���� /� ��� �� �� �������/ � ' �7��'�' ������������ � 1��3 ���� ���'�� .�7�1�� ��� � �� ����� �� ����/ ��� �� �/��/��3 8�� �������� �����/� ��� ����� ��/ ��� /���� ����� � �7 �� 6���/ � ' ��7��6/ �/ � ��/��� �� ����� ������������ 9 /��� /����//��� ���� ��/���//������ ��� CC�����/�1� ������22 �� ��� ������ ����4 ���/�/ ����� �' ���1��

��������

�%�

�� ������� �� ������� ������� �������� �������� ��� 1��!�������������� ���������� ����������� ��� ��������� ) ���������� �� ��� ������� � 22��� �-33���� ��� /��� ����� � #���� 3 /�����/ ����� �� �������/� ��� ���/� ���'7����' �3 ��� �1��7����� � /����// �� ��� /����� 7���� �/ ������������ ���7� ������4 � ���������' ����/�

%�� �&���� � ����� ��� �������� ��� ��� ��������� �������� �� ��� %�������0�"�� ������ ��� ��� � ����� ������ ���������� �� ��� ��������� ����������������!=���� �� ��/����� /��7/ ���� ��� ������� �� �� 3 ����� ��/ �� �� �����' �� ������� �� /������� � ' ��� � � /����� �����/� �� �/ �� ���/ /���� 7���� ��/6�� ���/���� ��'/ �''��//� �� 5 /��� �' � ��� /����� ��1�� � �� �����'���/�� ��� ����� � #���� 3 /������ ��� ��� ����� �/�/ 7���� � /��� ���� ������� ��/ ��1� �� /��>��� ���� ����� �� �������/ ���� �� /������� � � ���� ��� ��'����� �� �� �� �1�����6�' @���6��� �� ��!� �(("A� � ' ���/� ����� �/�/ ����������/�' � �� ��� ����� � #���� 3 ������ �����/�� ���������

�� ���/� /����// ������ �/ �� � /��� /�������� ���� �� ������ ��8������ � ������������� � ��� /�������� ��� �� ��� ���� ��/��� �3 ��� ������/� �/ /��7 � �������� � #���� 3 �����/��� � /���/ ���� /�������� ����/ � ' �4�������� /���� � �7� 3��� ����� �� ��� �''��//�'� ��/ 7��� �� ���1� � ������� ��� �� 7����''��// � � �� ��� ��>�� �������/ � �����' ����� ��/�

���� ��� ���� #/ �'� �����' � ��� /�������� ����� �� ���������� ��� /����//������!/������� �� ����� �� ���� ��/ @��'���� �((,9 #��/��3 '� �� ������� �(( A� � '��� ����� � #���� 3 ������ ����/�����/ ���� � �1��/��3� � '�/��3 � '��1�� �� � ��� ��� � 1��1�' � ��� ������� � �����// �� ��� ���� #/� ��/�� /����/�3 ���� �' �����// � /���/ ����� �� ���/� �� ��� ���!/������� ����� ��/����� ��� ����� � #���� 3 '���������� ��/ ����' �� '�1���� � ����!�����/���� � � �����// �� �� ���0� ��� ��/6/ 7���� ��'�1�� /� �� 3 /������������� ��/� �� ���� #/ ���B

@�A 0�"�������� < �� 6�' �/ � � �� ��� ��/� ������� � � ���'�� �/ ��� �/����//��� ����� �� �/ ��� ������3 ��� ��� ���� ��/ �� 7��6 ��������9 ���/����/������� � ' ����������� �� ��� /������3 7��� �� 7��6 �� ���/ �/ ��� 7��6���� ������� /���� )������' '�/��//�� / ����� � �� ��� ����� �#���� 3 /����� � /��� ���� ���/ ���� �/ ��� �3 '�/��//�'� ������ ������/ � ����� ��� ���/ 7��� �� �� �� ��� �7� 3���/�

@�A 0�"������ < 7������ ��� �������� �� ���������3 � ����/ �� ��/�����/ � '������� ���/ �/ ���/� � ��� ��� ��/�����1� ���� ��/� �� ����� ��� ��3/�/ �� ���/ �����// �/ ����� � �� ��� �����/�� � ' � ���'�/ ����� � ���� ��/�����/ �� ��� ����� 3 � ' ��� /����� �� ����� � � '�� ��� � �� ��� ��� � �1�� ��� �7�!3��� �����'� � /��� � ������������ ���3 /��� ���/ � ' 7��6 �//�/ ��� �'� �����' � ' �� � ������8������ �/ �� ��� ���>��� ��� /������ = 3 �������/ ��1� ���

?������0���� � ' ��� �������� ������

�%$

������������ �� ��� ���� ��/6/ �� � �� � ���� ����� 3 ���/�/ '�� ��� ����/�� ���������� ��/6/ �� ��// �� �� �����/�

@A 0�������� < ��/����� ��/ ��� ' ���� CC� �8��� /� /� �� �������� ��� ��� ����� �� �/ ��� ����' 6�3/�� � �� /����//22 @#��/��3 '� �� ��������(( A� J���� � �// �� ������ ��� ���//��3 ����� � ���3 � ' ��/�����/�� �� ��� � ��� ����� �� ��� ��/� �������/�' � ��� 1�����/ �� ����� ������ �/�/ '�/��//�' ��������

@ A 0���� < �/ /����' ������� ��� 1�����/ ����� �� ����� � �������������� �/ �� ���1� � � � ���� �� ������ � '��� � �� �� 8�������3����� �� ����� � ���������� �� ���3 ����� 3 ����� �/� ��������� ���� ���7�� ��� ������ �� /���� � ' ��� #= ���� '��� /�����/��� ����/���� �� ��� /����� �� �''��// ��� CC��/622 ����/ � ��� /������� � ' ������� ����� �� ��� �����//�

��/ ���/� ���� �/ ��� ��/� ��6 �7��'��' ���� �� ��� /����� < ��/ � �� ��� ����3@�� �6� �(( A ������� ��� ����� ��� �� ���� �� ��������� ��� �����/ ���������4����/ 7���� ��� ���� ' ��� �� ��� � ����� �/�/� J������ ��� /��� '��>�� � ���'�� �� ��� CC� '�1�'���22 � ��� �����//� ��� '�//��� ���� �� ����� ���� 6 �7��'�� ���� ��� ���'���� ��/� �� ��� ��'/ �� ��� /������� � '�/��3����' �� �� �����1�'�

�������� ������� ��� ��� �������������� ����� �$�1��� �� ��� ����� � #���� 3 /����� �/ ��� ������� � ��� /��� � ''�//��� ���� �� 6 �7��'�� ���� ��� � '�1�'��� @#=A �� ��� ��1�� ������ �0���� �� 6 �7��'��� �� ����� � #���� 3 /����� �����/ ��� �4������6 �7��'�� ��� � ' ��� ������� �� CC6 �7��'��22 �� �� ��� /�����' �� �������� 3 @�� �6�� �(( A� �� 1��7 �� 6 �7��'�� �'����' ���� �/ �� ������/������1� �������� ���� 6 �7��'�� �/ ������ �7� /������� � �����/ �� ���� ���� �� ������' � ' �� �������'� �� � '���� � � �� ������� �����7��6�'����' �/ � � ���� �� ���/ 7��� ���� 3� @�(E�A� � ' ���� ���� ��3 /��6�/� ' ���'������ @����A ���� 6 �7��'�� � ' ����� �� �� �� /�������'� ���������� ������ � 6 �7��'�� ������� �/ ��� � '�1�'��� @?�� �� �((E9 /��6�/� ' ���'������� ����9 ���� 3�� �(E�A � ' ��� ������� � ���� �� ���� ��� �3� ��� �����//� /��6�/ � ' ���'����� ��/��1�� ��/�' � ���� 3�2/ 7��6� ����CC��������� 6 �7��'�� � � � �/ � �1�����3 � ' ����'�����3 ���/� ��� /� �� ��� 1��1�/ ���/� �� ������������ @����� A � ��/ �� ������ � � � G���H � � � ���6 �7��'�� �� �� �������1��3 ������'� �� ��'/ �� �� � /����� ����0�' < �� �� �/�'�/ � �����22 ��/ �/ �����/��3 ��� ���� �� ��� #=� �� �//������ � ������/ 7��� ����������/�' 6 �7��'�� ��� ��� ���>��� ���� ��� 6 �7��'�� ��/� �� ��� � �1��/��3������� ��� ���'���� /����1�/�� � ' ��� ������/ �� �� ���� ��� /������� ��'/��4����� ��/ � ' �� ��4� 7���� ��� ����� 3� �� �/ ���� ���� ��� ���/� �����//�/�� 6 �7��'�� �� ����� � �'� �����' �/ ���������� ��6�/ ����� @/��6�/ � '���'������� ����A� ���� �/ � ���/������1�� �4������ 6 �7��'�� 7���� �� ��������' � ��� �1�� �4����� ��/ ��� #= � ��� ���/ 7���� ��� ����� 3� ��#= �����1�/�/ @/��� ' �����//A � ' CC�����1�/���� �� @�����/���A 6 �7��'��

��������

�%*

������/22 �3 �/� � ���������� /6���/ � ' >�'���� � ��� ������� ��3 ���� �1���� � ' ������1��3 ������� ��/ �/ � ������� /����// ������ ��� ������ /��� �� 6 �7��'�� ���� ��� �� ���� ��/� �� ��� � �1��/��3 �� ��� /������� ��'/ �� ��� ����� 3� �� �'1� ���� �� ��� ����� � #���� 3 /����� �/ �����������3 �� ��/ /��������� 7���� ����������/ ��� ��/��� ��1��� � �� ��� �����/���6 �7��'�� � �� ��� ������ �����//�/ �� ��� ���� �0���� 9 � �����// ���1������� �� ����� ���� �0���� �� ������/ 7�� ��1� �� �� ' � ������ ��� / ��� /����� ����0� ����� �����/��� 6 �7��'��� �� ����� ����� �/�/ �� ��� /��������������� ��� �����// �� ��� /��� �� ��� ���/� �� 6 �7��'�� < ��� �����/���6 �7��'�� '�1�����' �3 ��� #=� �� ������3 �� '�1���� ���/ � �1���1� ������ 7��6 7���� ��� /����� �/ '��� '� � � ��� ���/� �� � ' /����� ������� /���7�� ��� ���'���� � ' � ��� �� ����� 3 /����1�/�� �� ���1�'� ��� #=7��� ��/�����/� ����1���� � ' � ��������� �� .�7�1��� ��� 1���� �� ���/� �1���� '��� '/ � ��� ������� �� �� ��� �//������ �3 ��� ����� ������/ ����� ���� �0���� � �����7�/� ��� 6 �7��'�� 7��� �� �� /����'� ��/ 7�/����������3 ��/��1���� � ��� ����� � #���� 3 /����� �4����� 7��� $� �/����� � #���� 3� �� ���������� � ' �����1�/���� ��� #= 7�/ � ����'� � � �� �� �� � ��/�/ �����/� �� ��� � !����� � ���/�/ /������� ��� ����� 37�/ ���� � 7��� � 1���/!��''� �7 � �������� /3/���� �� �����/���6 �7��'�� ���� ������' �/ � ��/��� �� ��� � 1��1��� � �� ��� #= 7�/� 1������� �� ��� ����� 3 �� � ���� 7�� ��� ���6��� �� ��'��/� ����� �'���1�� 7�/ ������� � ��� ����� 3� ��/ 6� ' �� � �1���� � ' �� ������ �� �7 6 �7��'�� � ' ����� �� �� �� ����3 � '��/���' � '�� ��� ���'���� ����'��/ �� 6 �7��'�� �� ����� � @�� �6�� �(( A �� ��� /����� �4�������� / ����� /��� ���� � �1��/��3 �� � '�/��3� �� #= 7�/ �������� � ���� /�������� �� ����� �� � /������� ���0���� +�������0���� �� ��� � '�1�'���2/�����/��� 6 �7��'�� �/ ���� ��'�' �3 ��� ����� � #���� 3 /����� �����/��� �/ �4�������3 ��6 �7��'��' �3 ��� ����� 3 ���� ��� #= �/ ����� �� '�1����6 �7��'�� � ' ��� �� �������/� � ' �������� /�1��3 ���� � � ' ��'��3 �� ������ �/� �� ����� ���� �0���� �� ������/� �� ��=� �� ���2/ ���������� � '���� � �� '�1�/�' �3 ��� #= �� $� �/ ����� � #���� 3� ��� � �4����� ����� ��� /��� �� ��� � '�1'��� �����/��� 6 �7��'�� � ' ���� � � ��� ��� �/� ������� ���� �0���� �� ������/� ��/���� � � ���� �0���� �� 6 �7��'��� =�����// � ' /����� ���� �� �������/ �� ��� CC6 �7��'��!��/�' ����22 @?�� ���((EA� �� /����// �� ���/ �3�� �� ���� �0���� �� ���� � � ����' �� ��1� ��� �����1�' 7������ ��� �� �!���� '�'������ �� ��/�����/� ��1�� � ������� �/�/ � ' ��� /��� �� �� ���� �� /������� 6 �7��'�� �1�� ��� �7�!3��������'�

0�������� ����� ��/ '�1�����' � ������ � �� ��� � �1������ � ����/�� �� � �3 �������� /�������� ����� ��/ �� .5�/� ��� � �1��/��3!� '�/��3 /�������� ����� ��/�7��� �� 7������ ��1�� �� � �� '� �� ��� 8��/��� / ��� ����� �� �4�������� �������3 '��1� /������3 ���� /��� ���� ��/���/ 7��� ������������3 ���'�����/���/� )��7� � � ��� �� '� �/ ���� ��� /�������� ����� �� ����������� ��� �����

?������0���� � ' ��� �������� ������

�%+

'��� /�����' ���/� ��� 1��3 ���� ��/6 /��������/ ��� ��� �'1� ����/ ��/����//��� ����' �� �����//�1�� �� ����� � #���� 3 /����� ��/ ��� �/�'�/ � �4������ � �7� 7�3/� D��/�� ������� ��/ ����� �/�/� '�1�����' �1�� ��3���/ �� �� ���/� ��� ��/6 �� ������� �� ��� /����/ �� ���� �� /������� � '/������3 ������� ����� � ' /��� '�3� �3 ���1�'� � ��� CC� '�1�'���22 < ���#=� �/ ��� � ����� � CC��� ��422 �� '�1����� 7��� ��� ��' �� ��� ������ �����//�/�� ��� /������ ��� ��� /��� �� � �1���1� CC�����/���22 6 �7��'�� � � ��'����'���� �� ��� ��1�� �� ���� �0���� �� ���� � �� �� ������ � ����� 3 �4��������/� ������3 /��7/ ���� �� ��� � �1��/��3 �/ �� ����3 ������� � /����//������ ���� '�1������ � ���� �� ��/� �� ����7�' �� '� /� 7���� �� �!����'�'�����' ���>���/ �� ����7 ��� ������� � ' '�//��� ���� �� 6 �7��'�� ����1� ��3� ' ��� � '�1�'���� �� �/ � �3 7�� ��� ���������� ���� ��/���/ ���/����//��� ���� ��� ���� ������/ �� ��� ������ ����4 ���/�/ �� �� �4�����'� ������� ������3 ��//� / �� �� ���� � �3 �����3 ��6��/ � ' ��������� �/ � ���� �1��/��3!� '�/��3!��1�� �� � ���� ��/���/ ���� ��� /�������� ����� ������������ �� �����3� � ' ���� /����������3 ������� ��� �����//�/ �� �������� � #���� 3 /������ ��/� ��8���� � ���� /����/������' � '��/�� '� ��� ��� ������4����/ � 1��1�'� ��� ��/�����/ ��8����' � ' ��� �'����� �� � �� ����� /�������� �������� �� � �1��/����/ ��� �� �����1� ��� ��>����1�/ �� ����� �7��� /�������� �� ���� � ��� ���� ���� ������ �

,���������

$�������� #�=� � ' ?��/���� �� @�((�A� CC�� ����� ���� �� ���������� �/ � � ������� �0���� �� ��7��622� ������ � 2��������� .������ ���� �� ��� �

$�������� #�=� � ' ?��/���� �� @�((�A� %����������� 2���������� � ' �'�� ��7� � #������� �&�

$�������� #�=� � ' ?��/���� �� @�((A� CC$�3� ' ��� �!����B ��7��' � �� ������� �����3 �� �������22� ��������� 2��������� 3 ����� ���� � � ��� �! E�

$�����7� �� @�((A� CC=�� � �1��/����/ ���//��3L22� 4����� �E =����� ���� ��� ��� (� �� �,��

#��/�3 )� &� ������ @�(( A� 2������� ����� ���������� %�� +������ � ������� �� % �� �����/�=''�/� !J�/��3� J�6� �����

#��6��1����3� $��� � ' ����������� .��� @�("�A� CC��������� ��� � � ��� ������ ��/� �//22�0� ���� 3 ���� � 5��� � ������� ������� ���� ��� ��� !���

#����� -���� #���6�� D�&� � ' =��� ��� ��.� @�(((A� CC�������/��� � � �1��/��3 ��/� �// /�����/#��'� �� ��7�� � ������ � ���������/� � ' ����7��� �� ��� C'�/������ �� ��� �����2L22���� ����� � ������ 6 ��� �������� 3 ����� ��� �� ��� ��

#3���� -��� � ' ?��'�� � ���� @�((,A� CC#����� � �������1� � �1��/��3!� '�/��3 ����� ��/B � ���� �0���� �� ���� � � ���/�����1�22� 7������������ �������� ���� �� ��� � �� ��

)D55 @�(((A� +����"���� �� *����� +� �����8 0������� ��� 2������� -�/����� -����� ��� ��,��� '����' �3 :��6 #� /���� � &�'�

)��6� /� �� @�(("A� ����� ����� ( %���������� ��� 5��� +���� �' �'�� �#�� &� '� �

)� � �� �� @�((�A� CC-�������/� � ��� �������� ����'��� � � ��� �� ����� �� ��������/�22� 3 ����� '����������� � ������� ���������!)��������� ���� �E ��� � ��� E�!(��

5�06�7��0� .� � ' &�3'�/'����� &� @����A� CC�� '3 ����/ �� � �1���� B ���� ���� �� /3/���/� ' CC��'� �22 �� � ������ ����4 �� � �1��/��3!� '�/��3!��1�� �� � ������� /22� .������������ ���� �( ��/� �!� D������3� ��� ��(!��

��������

�%(

5�06�7��0� .� � ' J����� ��D� @����A� CC��� ��� /���� � �������/ �����' �� ����� .���4 ���22�.������� %������ 2���������� ��1�����!)�������� ���� ��� E�

5�06�7��0� .�� J��/���� =�� ?�����'�� #� � ' ����� $�-�#� @����A� CC�� ������ �� ��� � �1��/��3� ' ��� � �1��/��3 �� ��� ������B �1������ �� �1��3 ��7�� �� � ������ ������ ����'���22�.������� ����� ���� �( ��� �! ��� �!��

?��/���� �� � ' ������� �� @�((�A� CC.��/�/ ��� ����/�/B ���� �0���� �� ����/ ��� ����� ���� ������������ /22� � )��7� �� @5'�A� .������� �� '����������� +����"����� *4���' % �1��/��3���//� ����� ;�3 �/�

?�''��'� �� @�((,A� CC% �1��/����/ � ' ����� �� '�1������ �B � �1��1��7� $��6���� ' ����� ��*5#) ���>��� � ��� ��/�� /� �� ������ �'������ �� ����� �� ��'/22� #� ��� ��� %��� � '-���� �� )�1������ � ���'��/� % �1��/��3 �� ��7��/��� ��� 3 ��

?�''��'� �� @�(("A� ������������ ��� +����� �����"����� ��7��/��� ������ �� �� ����� ����7��/��� ��� 3 ��

?�� �� -��� @�((EA� CC�7��' � 6 �7��'��!��/�' �����3 �� ��� ����22� ��������� 2���������3 ����� ���� �,� ��� ��(!���

9%��: � ������� �� D������3�

.5D#5 @�(("A� '�� ��� �������� ;���� �� ��� ��� ���� ("+,�� �� '����' �3 �-5�� % �1��/��3�� �� ���/���� �� ���/���� )��������

.���� � �� @�(("A� CC= �4�������� �� /�������� ������������ � ��� ����'22� + �"��� � ������.������ ���� (" ��� �� ��� !���

&�3'�/'����� & @����A� CC�� ������ ����4B � �1������ ��3 ��'�� �� � �1���� 22� .������� �����D������3� ���� �( ��� �!� ��� � !���

����� �0� ���� � ' �������� ��#� @�("(A� CC�� �1������ �� ��/����� � ��!��'� ���� ����� �/�/22�3 ���� � '����������� � ������ �� ����� D����

��'���� �� @�((,A� CCJ�3 ��� �� 3 ����� ��/ � ' � '�1����22� ;�� .���� ��������� ���� ��

�� �6�� �� @�(( A� CC= '3 ���� �����3 �� ���� �0���� �� 6 �7��'�� ������� 22� 7������������������ ��� � ��� �� D������3�

�����6� =� @�((�A� '����������� ��������� � 2���������� �' �'�� �J�!;� �� $�/�� � �=�

���� 3�� �� @�(E�A� ������� ��������� % �1��/��3 �� #������ ���//� #������� �&�

�������'� #�;� � ' )�0� :� @�(( A� CC�� '3 ����/ �� ������ ���������� 22� � )� J��� $� � '��3��� -� @5'/A� ������� ( �� '����������� ����"������� J�/�� &� '� �

-��/� � 5�. @�(((A� CC= %; � ������1� � ' ��� � �1���� �������22� ����� ���/� ��' �� ��� � � ������� �� ����� � #���� 3 )����������� D���� ��� �

���6��� � -�� D����/� � � ' ���=1�3� � @�(("A� CC=���� �� �� ����� �22� 3 ���� �2��������� �� ����� ���� � ����E�

%������� 0�"�� ��������� ���� @�(((A� ����� � #���� 3 )����������� D���� ��� �

9%��: %���� *����� +� ����� � ""������ @����A� �� D������3� �� E��

/��6�/� .� � ' ���'������� 5� @����A� CC* ���� �0���� �� 6 �7��'�� � ' ��/ �� ����� �B � ��� �������� � 1�/������� 22� ����� ���/� ��' �� ��� �� ���� �� ; �7��'�� �� ����� �B#� ����/ � ' #� ���1��/��/� ��!�� D������3� J��7��6 % �1��/��3� J��7��6�