technological entrepreneurship as a focal point of economic development policy: a conceptual...

Policy Studies Journal, Vol. 17, No. 3, Spring, 1989

TECHNOLOGICAL EhTTREPRENEURSHIP AS AFOCAL POINT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENTPOUCY: A CONCEPTUAL RE ASSESSMENT^

Gregory A. DanekeArizona State University

Amid deciining smokestack regions, economic restructuring, andan increased awareness regarding the importance of technologicalinnovation to the giobai competitiveness of U.S. industry, state andiocai govemments have begun to pursue strategies of technoiogicaidevelopment, initiaiiy this invoived mereiy attempts to attracttechnoiogy-oriented manufacturing, but gradually polices designed tofoster home-grown high-tech enterprises fiave begun to emerge. Whiieiogicaiiy iinked to factors such as job generation, these initiativesremain reiativeiy ill-conceived. Moreover, a number case analyses ofhigh-tech development regions, as weil as empirical assessments of on-going programs, suggest that a focus on high-tech entrepreneurship istenuous, at best. Whiie confirming these cautions, this study, whichdraws upon three converging iines of inquiry, as weii as a systematicreview of the empiricai iiterature, contends that technology firmcreation holds considerabie promise in terms of the iong term viabiiityof regions, in addition to offering increased resiiiency during economicdownturns, the residual effects upon the overaii socioeconomic well-being are substantiai. Yet, deveioping poiicy demands a unique set ofperspectives which are not necessarily widespread in state poiiticaicirdes. Essentiaiiy, these perspectives must be derived from a signifi-cantly different approach to economic development theory and prac-tice, one which empfiasizes "adaptive iearning" processes and focusesupon criticai "evoiutionary dynamics."

TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT:PRACTICE IN SEARCH OF THEORY

Economic development strategies during the iast decade weremarked by an unprecedented emphasis on the creation, as weii as theattraction of scientificaiiy advanced finns. Stricken with "SiliconValley Fever," state and iocal poiicy-makers were abie to pursue thesestrategies despite the fact that few, if any, of them had much of anidea of how to go about fostering "home grown" high-tech industries.Few systematic evaiuations of the policy experiments were undertaken,however, a few attempts at vigorous empiricai assessment have

644 Policy Studies Journal

emerged (e.g., Luger, 1985; McGowan, 1985; Hansen, 1986; Luce, 1986;Mokry, 1988; Daneke and Wiison, 1989). Furthermore, a number of his-toricai, conceptuai and anecdotai efforts have greatiy ampiified arather limited set of quantitive understandings (e.g.. Feller, 1984;Luger, 1984; OTA, 1984; Daneke, 1985; Giasmeier, 1985; Saxenian, 1985;Storper, 1985; Walker, 1985; Doeringer et al., 1987; Giickman andFariey, 1986; Hart and Denison, 1987; Schmandt and Wiison, 1987;Barke, 1988; Birch, 1988; Daneke, 1988; Feiier, 1988a, 1988b; Larsenand Rogers, 1988; Smilor et al., 1988; Feiier, 1989). Whiie representinga cacophonous range of appraisais, these studies generaiiy sound acautionary note, suggesting that buiiding an environment in which newhigh-tech start-ups can fiourish is an extremeiy iong-term proposition,reiying upon extensive federai government resources. This generaiassessment not withstanding, a more detailed iook at the process oftechnoiogicai development suggests tfiat certain judiciousiy constructedpoiicy initiatives can and have iiad a positive effect on the newventures milieus.

The probiem is that isdating criticai dynamics of technoiogicaidevdopment is difficuit in the context of existing economic develop-ment approaches. Few phenomena point up the lack of adequate policytheory as much as attempts to design and evaiuate the various initia-tives aimed at high-tech industriai deveiopment. As discussions ofthese attempts suggest, the standard toois and concepts of state leveipdicy anaiysis are very iii-suited to the task (Feiier, 1988a). Existingeconomic deveiopment approaches in generai, tend to be anchored inmyopic neo-classicai economic and/or "regionai science" theories of aby-gone era and thus faii to iiiuminate the current state-of-affairs.With theories which either blur or ignore criticai elements of causeand effect, it is no surprise that economic development strategiesproceed with a paucity of effective poiicy principles. This is not tosay, however, that the basic notion of inspiring home-grown high-techindustries is iii-founded, mereiy that the eiements of strategy areeasiiy misplaced. Moreover, accounting for the success or faiiure ofspecific programmatic initiatives in the absence of such frameworks ishighiy probiematic. Without the abiiity to demonstrate the viability ofsuch strategy, it wiii probabiy become increasingly difficuit to sustainthe types of iong-term pubiic investment required to approach ultimatesuccess.

High Jedi Entrepreneurship as Criticai Bementsof Economic Development?

While hardly the sole focus of economic deveiopment, initiativesaimed at enhancing high-tech entrepreneurship became a major elementduring the iate 1970s and eariy 80s. Like many of the eiements of

Differing Perspectives on Economic Development 645

public policy, some of these were fundamentaiiy symboiic in nature.Nevertheless, several invoived significant resource aiiocations, indudingbut not limited to the following:

Creating "incubators" (office and iab space and supportsystems) for research oriented firms;

Deveioping networks of venture capitaiists, innovators, andcommunity ieaders;

Providing pubiic research funding and/or insuring smaiibusiness access to existing R&D dollars;

Setting up seed and venture capitai poois, using vehiciessuch as pension funds;

Estabiishing additionai tax and/or other incentive systems,and;

Setting aside research park or simiiar faciiities adjacent touniversities.

Collectively, these types of activities constitute a significantdeparture from previous mainstays of economic deveiopment whichprimariiy focused on enticing iarge manufacturing firms to iocate apiant in the regions. For many this "smoke-stack chasing" has mereiygiven way to "chip-chasing"; but for some state and locai govemmentsattempts to attract existing high-tech companies were augmented bythe types of activities listed above. While not necessarily mutuallyexdusive, the focus on "home growing" one's own high-tech firms hascieariy been a unique poiicy terrain. Moreover, whiie conventionalapproaches to economic development tended to focus on access totransportation systems, markets, raw materiais and cheap iabor, thisnew strategy required: scientific infrastructure (e.g., researchuniversities), a skilled and mobiie iabor force, a new venturesenvironment, and other factors reiated to a high quality of life.

The logic of such an emphases is convduted. Initiaiiy it ismotivated by the brute fact that regions iike Siiicon Valley inNorthem Caiifomia and Route 128 near Boston were on the rise. Whiieregions rich in traditionai economic development symbols faltered.More fundamentally, this focus recognized that it was the potentiai fornew ventures and/or corporate spin-offs from existing streams ofresearch and development that high-tech regions were reaiizing theirtremendous success (OTA, 1984). Moreover, advanced technoiogies wereincreasingiy seen as the saivation of firms both iarge and smaii(Daneke, 1986a; OTA, 1988) and smaii firms increasingiy were touted asthe primary vehicle of economic revitaiization (Birch, 1988). But

646 Policy Studies Journai

beyond these basic truisms the concept of high-tech entrepreneurshipbecomes a bit douded. Entrepreneurship of aii sorts is often confusedwith the much smaiier sub-set of high-tech start-ups. Likewise theimportant technoiogies to estabiished firms is often overstated. How-ever, conventionai wisdom combined in such a way that if "smaii isbeautifui" and "high-tech is hot," then small-tech is sublime. Unfor-tunateiy, the process understandings required to fiesh-out this productsyiiogism remain somewhat eiusive.

A Loose-Krut Confederation of Caus£dityWith Community at its Core

The loose-knit confederation of factors which tend to promotehigh-tech entrepreneurship are so nebuious that they defy standardmodeis. Moreover, the best known high-tech regions are not verycharacteristic of a positive policy modei. First and foremost it must berecognized that regions such as Silicon Vaiiey and Route 128, were afairiy unique phenomena (Saxenian, 1985). They grew-up over reiativeiylong periods of time (over 25 years), without direct state and iocalgovernment invoivement. Yet they did profit from iarge scaie federaisupport in the form of major defense expenditures (Markusen andBioch, 1985). Moreover, the entrepreneuriai eiement of these regionsbenefited extensiveiy from significant reductions in federai "capitaigains tax" during the middie 1970s. More importantiy perhaps, theseregions were aiso caught up in the expiosion of a particuiar tech-ndogy. This "state-of-the-technoiogy" phenomena can be seen in thefact that some siiicon chip firms started up mereiy because existingfirms could not meet government orders.

A better roie modei might be second-tier high-tech centers suchas the Research Triangie. Here again, it did not emerge overnight,poiicy-makers in North Caroiina saw the writing on the wall (and thecigarette packages) back in the mid-1960s. Moreover, the region wasalready blessed with a set of ieading academic institutions. Yet evenwith tiiis head start. North Caroiina's success came primariiy by wayof attracting existing firms and/or federal faciiities (Luger, 1984).Nonetheiess, this buiiding up of the research infrastructure is nowbeginning to pay off in a handfui of high-tech start ups.

Simiiariy, the Texas phenomena argues for a "criticai nfiass" or'threshold" approach to high-tech development. Like North Carcriina,the success of Texas came in the wake of economic crises. Even priorto the Texas 2000 Commission in the eariy 1980s, Texas was investingheaviiy in strengthening academic and state supported R&D faciiities.Here again, much of their success was of the "chip-chasing" variety(Fariey and Giickman, 1986). However, Texas has aiso begun to exhibitthe type of spin-off and start-up potential of the originai high-tech

Differing Perspectives on Economic Deveiopment 647

regions (Schmandt and Wiison, 1987). Admittediy, some of this poten-tiai is attributabie to the fact that Texas was abie to capture federaiiyorganized supported research consortia (e.g., MCC and Sematech); yet,it has aiso been wiiiing to invest in the criticai support systems thatthese arrangements reiy upon. Moreover, by giving priority to theestabiishment of worid ciass research universities, Texas has become amagnet for corporate research shops.

This criticai amassing of research taient, appears to be the mostvitai ingredient in detemnining a region's potentiai for spawning high-tech entrepreneurship. As the empiricai studies indicate humanresources are by far the most important determinant of overaii entre-preneuriai performance, and in turn, human resources are richest inthe more innovative regions. Few regions, however, have the time orresources to pursue a Texas styie strategy, in some instances a morefocused approach might be prudent, such as Utah's emphasis on bio-medicai engineering (prompting the title Bionic Vaiiey).

Irrespective of the level of focus, these support systems forresearch intensive industries are an extremeiy iong-term proposition,and they require a concerted community-wide (both public and privatesectors) effort. The Office of Techndogicai Assessment described thiscommunity cuiture element as foilows (OTA, 1984:8):

1. An organizationai cuiture that promotes a common civicperspective and a positive attitude about the region'sattributes and prospects;

2. An environment that nurtures ieaders, both pubiic andprivate, who combine an estabiished track record forinnovation with a broad view of their community'sresources and promise; and

3. A network of business/civic advocacy organizations thatattracts the membership of top officers of major compan-ies and receives from them the commitment of time andeffort to work on issues of mutuai concern, inciudingcooperation with the public sector.

Norris (1984) and Ouchi (1984:Ch. 9) describe how such a cuiture ofcooperative and creative capitaiism evoived over time in the city ofMinneapoiis, and sustained high-tech entrepreneurship in times agenerai economic deciine. While many economic deveiopment policy-makers are aware of this criticai core ingredients, it is highiy difficuitto operationaiize in terms of programs, especiaiiy given the emphasison measurable program periormance (Feller, 1988b). Moreover, standardmodels of economic deveiopment account for these factors tangentiaiiy.

648 Poiicy Studies Journal

at best, and then oniy through vague measures such as "businessdimate."

Buiding Better Theoryin iarge measure the problem of periormance is as much para-

digmatic as it is programmatic. Most theories of economic deveiopmentare completely inadequate to the task of designing programs whichpromote evoiutionary pay-offs. Furthermore, even if economic deveiop-ment theories were more or iess satisfactory for purposes of under-standing long-term changes in regionai economic base, etc., they wouidstill be inadequate to explain the roie of advanced techndogy andentrepreneuriai behavior. As Papanek (1983:17) points out, theoriestend to center on singie factors such as: capitai formation and savingrates, human resource potential, or sociopoiiticai factors. Butintegrative theories were few and far between. He describes thesepartiai eiements as "the earnest search for a mirage."

Meanwhile theories of deveiopment in developed countries areoften iinked to concepts of "industriai location" and/or "spatiaiproduction reiations" (Storper, 1985). However, as the "neodassicaihegemony in iocation theory" has broken down, conceptuai integrationbetween geography, economics, and urban planning has aiso becomestrained as weii (Waiker, 1985). Economic development theories havejust bareiy kept pace with the on-going "urban restructuring"(Bergman, 1986).

Economic theorists have increased their interest in innovationprocesses, but this work has not been integrated with regionaideveiopment concepts. A renewed concern for the work of JosephSchumpeter (1961), has led creative schoiars such as Neison andWinter's (1982) to deveiop a new "evolutionary theory of the firm."However, these theoreticai insights have found few appiications amongregionai scientists. Furthermore, to the extent that theoreticalintegrations have emerged, they have yet to be transiated into poiicyapproaches.

Meanwhiie, conceptual efforts at the ievei of the phenomena,itseif are usuaiiy too narrowiy drawn to provide usefui theories. Thereare a coupie of rare exceptions, however. For exampie, Smiior et al.(1988) Texas "technopoiis" ciiaracterization is extremdy comprehensive.Buiiding on Japan's concept of high-tech city/states, they develop a"wheel" of criticai sectors and factors, including roles for federai,state, and locai governments, support groups, universities, iargecorporations, and emerging companies. As they detail, the technopoiisstrategy invdves:

Differing Persfjectives on Economic Development 649

1. the achievement of scientific prominence;

2. the deveiopment and maintenance of new technoiogies foremerging industries; and

3. the attraction of major technoiogy companies and thecreation of homegrown companies" (Smiior et al., 1988:146-147).

A simiiar, but perhaps more usefui perspective upon criticaidynamics is provided by Hart and Denison (1987). Drawing upon a widespectrum of empiricai and theoreticai discussions they reconceptuaiizethe highiy interactive and iterative process of "creating new technol-ogy-based organizations," through the use of a "systems dynamics"approach. However, whiie an extremeiy usefui picture, it does noteffectiveiy distinguish short-term from long-term, or in some caseseven causes and effects. Moreover, mereiy recognizing the intricateecoiogy techndogicai entrepreneurship does not necessarily iiiustrateusefui patterns of husbandry. The key factors which they identify(e.g., "access to technical expertise, avaiiabiiity of support services,and quality of iife"), do not iend themseives to common pattems ofinter/ention, and in isolation do not predict evolutionary success.These types of dynamic modeis need to be iinked with studies of thegenerai adaptive capabilities of a given regionai cuiture so that criticaithreshold levels can be established for certain vitai ingredients, inturn, these threshold Ieveis need be iinked to more concentrated poiicydesign and evaiuation processes.

Anotfier usefui characterization was recentiy provided by IrwinFeiier (1989). He distinguishes the various approaches to high-techdeveiopment aiong the conventionai continuum of basic research,applied research, and commerciai deveiopment. To illustrate, he piacesthe Texas strategy at the "basic" pde and states such as Pennsyivaniaat the other extreme ("product devdopment"). Recognizing the non-linear, and often convoluted path from basic research to productdeveiopment, he suggests that the Texas focus on basic research mayuitimateiy be of greater impact. He proposes to expiore these differ-ences in strategy in terms of hypotheses about interest coaiitionsrather tfian in terms of inherent viability, since much of the evidencerennains out on the matter of comparative success. Yet, the relativeadvantage of one strategy over the other may rest in both institu-tionai and instrumentai characteristics. Those sfates which can mustersupport for a ionger view may actually benefit from new types ofinstitutionai iearning. Moreover, given deepiy institutionaiizeddistinctions regarding the nature of "public goods," it might weii bethat ultimate effectiveness is predicated upon government doing what


it has traditionaiiy done best. That is to say, efforts to augmentcommerciai activities may end up duplicating or even retarding privateefforts, while underwriting traditional sociai utiiity functions, such asscientific education might enhance entrepreneurial innovation over theiong haul. Cieariy what is needed is a new set of conceptuai deviceswhich incorporate evoiutionary conversion processes in order to faciii-tate institutionai trade-offs between very basic and highiy appiiedresearch (Daneke, 1986b).

One conceptuai device usefui in fieshing out the selected dynam-ics presented above is a notion of "adaptive capabiiity." Some timeago, Edgar Dunn (1971) attempted to reconceptuaiize economic devei-opment as a "process of sociai iearning," yet this approach has foundfew practicai applications. Dunn, a resource economist was struggiingto overcome the confines of neo-ciassicai as well as aiiometric growthmodeis with an open systems exchange model. His key insight is thatinstitutional systems must adapt and evoive through sociai iearning,and that meaningfui poiicy interventions require enhancing naturaiiearning processes. As he expiains:

The essential point here is that the equiiibrating optimizingconcepts that dominate the methodological base of thegrowth modei are, in effect, machine system concepts. If weare to move beyond the uncomfortabie restrictions they im-pose we must come to understand how sociai systems behaveas iearning systems (Dunn, 1971:21).

In this context, economic development policy is seen as "evolutionaryexperimentation." Dunn elaborates as foiiows:

Evoiutionary experimentation involves hypothesis testing ofa different order from that associated with ciassicai experi-mental science. The latter evoived with the study of physi-cal systems where the reiationship between system variabiesis commoniy highiy deterministic, and where the concern ismore often addressed to the effect upon the behavior of asystem component, or component system, of a change in anexogenous parameter-usuaiiy under highiy contrdied condi-tions. Sociai probiem soiving, on the other hand, is lessconcerned with the effect of a change in a system para-meter upon a component than it is with the effect of apianned change in a system component upon total systembehavior (Dunn, 1971:135).


These concepts not oniy faciiitate a more fluid and interactiveapproach to poiicy design they mesh fairiy weii with the evoiutionaryvisions emerging within the pditicai economy of technoiogicaientrepreneurship (Schumpeter, 1961; Neison and Winter, 1981; Rosen-berg, 1982). Moreover, they provide a instrumentai framework throughwhich to interpret emerging evaluations of existing poiicies.

For instance, Inwin Feiier (1988a) suggests that one of the majorproblems in evaluating advanced technology programs is that adminis-trators are constantiy re-assessing their objective in the process ofimpiementation. He impiies that many positive, yet unintended impactsof such programs may be under-appreciated. However, second orderconsequences such as the buiiding-up of university research faciiitiesmay have iong-term synergistic effects which ampiify impacts consider-ably. It is preciseiy these types of indirect insights (both positive andnegative) which are fundamentai eiements of a adaptive-iearningprocess.

An adaptive-systems perspective is also capable of incorporatingusefui concepts form various "advanced systems" domains, such asthose which characterize "seif-organization" and "order throughfiuxuation" (Jantsch, 1980; Prigogine and Stengers, 1984). Through thewindow of advanced systems theory curious phenomena such as "entre-preneuriai rationaiity" and "innovation" can be viewed as "symmetrybreaking" events, without failing prey to the reductionist tendencies ofbidogicai modeis of evolution (Daneke, 1986b). Moreover, advancedsystems concepts are useful in characterizing pattems of "mutuaicasuaity." As Richard Barke (1988) suggests the probiem of determiningsuccess and faiiures in state high technoiogy programs often boiisdown to the fact that activities are often both cause and effect.

CONCLUSIONS

Obviousiy, these types of theoreticai specuiations must be morefuily developed to provide much in the guidance to pdicy design.However, it appears ciear tfiat such expiorations couid be highiyrewarding. The current state of economic deveiopment theories havenot kept pace with emerging trends, especiaiiy the preoccupation withhigh-tech deveiopment aiong entrepreneurial lines. The distinctadvantage of an "adaptive systems" perspective is that it focuses onthe evolutionary processes as elements of sociai iearning. in this way,it is both an e}q3lanation of on-going activities in terms of iessonsieamed and uniearned, and is a device for designing new iearningopportunities, institutionai artifacts can be assessed regarding theincrease or decrease of adaptive capabiiity and service to the overaii"resiliency" of the institutional set.

652 Policy Studies Joumal

Viewed in this fashion, it was no accident that economic devei-opment pdicies have graduaiiy evoived into an emphasis on technoi-ogicai innovation. Moreover, given the highiy iaborious and intricatenature of the innovation process, it may not be surprising thatadaptive capabiiity is greatiy increased through a concentration onbasic inteiiectuai infrastructure (the Texas model). However, it isequaiiy iikeiy that certain criticai conversion processes integrai tohigh-tech entrepreneurship wiii aiso require increased institutionaiadaptation. For exampie, tax incentives to insure venture capitaiavaiiabiiity and protection for inventions may require added attention.At the micro ievei maintenance of iife-quaiity amenities may aisobecome paramount. These experiments in fine tuning the entrepre-neurial enterprise wiii benefit from attempts to reconceptuaiize pdicydevelopment in terms of Ieaming systems. Hopefuiiy this essay wiliencourage more schdars of economic deveiopment to visuaiize anincreasing number of poiicy issues as matters of effective pedagogywithin evdving institutionai systems.

NOTES

The author wishes to thank Irwin Feiier and Sarah Knight fortheir encouragement. Acknowiedgement is aiso given to MarianBuckiey, Keith Campbeii and Tammy Stein of the AuxiliaryResources Center, Coiiege of Public Programs, Arizona StateUniversity, for assistance in processing this manuscript.

REFERENCES

Barke, Richard P. 1988. 'Techndogy and Economic Deveiopment in theStates: Continuing Experiments in Growth Management." Wori<ingpaper, Technoiogy and Science Poiicy Program, Georgia Tech.

Bergman, Edward M. 1986. "Introduction: Poiicy Reaiities and Devel-opment Potentials in Local Economics." Pp. 1-14 in Edward M.Bergman, ed.. Local Economics In Transition: Policy Realities andDevelopment Potentials (Durham, NC: Duke University Press).

Birch, David L. 1988. 'The New Economy: After the Crash." Inc.Magazine 10(12):29-30.

Daneke, Gregory A. 1985. "Small Business Policy Amid State and LocalEconomic Devdopment Pianning." Policy Studies Journal14(4):722-728.


Daneke, Gregory A. 1986a. "Revitalizing U.S. Technoiogy? A ReviewEssay." Public Administration Review 46(6):668-672.

Daneke, Gregory A. 1986b. 'Towards A New Poiiticai Economy ofTechnoiogicai innovation." Working paper, Terman EngineeringCenter, Stanford University, Stanford, Caiifomia.

Daneke, Gregory A. 1988. "Short-Stack Chasing: The Prospects andPerils of State and Local High Tech Deveiopment." in Ray Rist,ed.. Annual Review of Public Policy (Beveriy Hiiis, CA: SagePublications).

Daneke, Gregory A. and LA. Wiison. 1987. "Determinants of Successand State Levei Economic Deveiopment Poiicy: A Meta-anaiysis."Working paper. Center for Urban Studies, Arizona Sfate Univer-sity.

Daneke, Gregory A. Forthcoming. "Economic Deveiopment and Techno-iogicai Entrepreneurship: A Review of Recent Experiences andimpiications for Sunbeit Regions." Western GovernmentResearcher.

Doeringer, Peter, David Terkia, and Gregory Topakian. 1987. InvisibleFactors in Local Economic Development (Oxford: Oxford Univer-sity Press).

Feiier, in^ in. 1988a. "Evaiuation State Advanced Technoiogy Programs."Evaluation Review 12(3):232-251.

Feller, Irwin. 1988b. "Positive and Negative Knowledge: An InterimCritique of Assessments of State Advanced Techndogy Programs."Paper presented to the Association for Pubiic Poiicy Anaiysis andManagement, Seattle, Washington, October 1988.

Feiier, inwin. 1989. "Technology Theories Underiying Sfate EconomicDeveiopment Poiicies." Paper presented at the Meeting of theAmerican Association for the Advancement of Science, San Fran-cisco, Califomia, January 1989.

Giasmeier, Amy K. 1985. "innovation Manufacturing industries: Spatiaiincidence in the United States." Pp. 55-80 in Manuei Casteiis, ed..High Technology, Space, and Society (Beveriy Hiiis, CA: SagePublications).

Hansen, Susan B. 1986. "State Perspectives on Economic Deveiopment:Priorities and Outcomes." Paper presented at the Midwest Poiiti-cai Science Association Meeting, Chicago, iiiinois, April 1986.


Hart, Stuart, and Daniel Denison. 1987. "Creating New Technoiogy-Based Organizations: A System Dynamics Model." Policy StudiesReview 6{3):5^2-528.

Holiing, C.S., ed. 1978. Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Man-agement (New York: John Wiiey and Sons).

Jantsch, Erick. 1980. The Self-Organizing Universe (Oxford: PergamonPress).

Larsen, Judith K. and Everett M. Rogers. 1988. "Siiicon Vaiiey: TheRise and Faii of Entrepreneuriai Fever." Pp. 99-116 in RaymondSmiior, George Kozmetsky, and David V. Gibson, eds.. Creatingtiie Technopoiis: Linking Technology Commercialization and Eco-nomic Development (Cambridge, MA: Baiiinger Press).

Luce, Thomas F. 1986. "A Comparative Anaiysis of Regional GrowthDisparities in High-Technoiogy and Low-Technoiogy industries."Paper presented at the meeting of the Association for PubiicPoiicy Anaiysis and Management, Austin, Texas, October 1986.

Luger, Michaei. 1984. "Does North Caroiina's High Tech DevdopmentPian Work?" Journal of the American Planning Association 50(3):280-290.

Luger, Michaei. 1985. "Expiaining Differences in the Use and Effective-ness of State industrial Poiicies." Working paper, institute ofPoiicy Sciences and Public Affairs, Duke University, Durfiam,North Caroiina.

Maiecki, Edward J. 1985. "Regionai Patterns of American TechnoiogicaiCapacity: The Case of R and D." Paper presented at the AmericanAssociation for the Advancement of Science, Los Angeles, Cali-fornia, May 1985.

McGowan, Robert P. 1985. "High Technoiogy and Regionai EconomicDeveiopment Poiicy." Working paper. Graduate Schod of Businessand Pubiic Management, University of Denver, Denver, Coiorado.

Mokry, Benjamin W. 1988. Entrepreneurship and Public Policy: CanGovernment Stimulate Business Startups? (Westport, CT: QuorumBooks).

Neison, Richard R. and S.G. Winter. 1982. Evolutionary Theory andEconomic Change (Washington, DC: Office of Technoiogy ^sess-ment, U.S. Congress).

OTA (Office of Technoiogy Assessment). 1984. Technology, Innovation,and Regional Economic Development (Washington, DC: Office ofTechnoiogy Assessment, U.S. Congress).


Papunek, Gustav. 1983. "Economic Deveiopment Theory: The EamestSearch for a Mirage." Pp. 17-25 in Michael P. Todaro, ed.. TheStruggle for Economic Development (New York: Longman).

Prigogine, iiya and isabdie Stengers. 1984. Order Out of Chaos (NewYork: Bantam Press).

Rosenberg, Natiian. 1982. Inside the Black Box: Technology and Eco-nomics (New York: Cambridge University Press).

Saxenian, Anna Lee. 1985. "Siiicon Vaiiey and Route 128: RegionaiPrototypes or Historic Exceptions?" Pp. 81-105 in Manuei Castelis,ed.. High Technology, Space and Society, Urban Affairs AnnuaiReviews, Voi. 28 (Beveriy Hiiis, CA: Sage Pubiications).

Schmandt, Jurgen and Robert Wiison. 1987. Promoting High-Tech Indus-try: Initiative and Policies of State Government (Bouider, CO:Westview Press).

Schumpeter, Joseph. 1961. The Theory of Economic Development (NewYori<: Oxford University Press).

Smiior, Raymond, et ai. 1988. 'The Austin/San Antonio Corridor: TheDynamics of a Deveioping Technopoiis." Pp. 145-184 in RaymondSmiior, George Kozmetsky, and David V. Gibson, eds.. Creatingthe Technopoiis: Linking Technology Commercialization and Eco-nomic Development (Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Press).

Storper, Michael. 1985. "Technology and Spatiai Production Rdations:Disequiiibrium, interindustry Relationships and industriai Devei-opment." Pp. 265-283 in Manuei Casteiis, ed.. High Technology,Space and Society, Urban Affairs Annual Reviews, Voi. 28 (Bever-iy Hiiis, CA: Sage Publications).

Waiker, Richard A. 1985. 'Technoiogicai Determination and Determin-ism: industriai Growth and Location." Pp. 226-264 in ManueiCasteiis, ed.. High Technology, Space and Society, Urban AffairsAnnuai Reviews, Vol. 28 (Beveriy Hiiis, CA: Sage Pubiications).

technological entrepreneurship as a focal point of economic development policy: a conceptual...

Documents