創新群聚地區治理的政治分析：矽谷、竹科與中關村個案研究

Abstract

本文從政治理論與政策分析角度，探討創新群聚的治理。就理論層面而言，指出創新群聚的政治學意涵：不管是科技創新、市場創新或制度創新，地方創新競爭力不能迴避政治權力問題，因為創新的本質就是對既得利益的挑戰，和對既有結構的破壞。因此，以政治理論為基礎，建構一個創新群聚的治理理論分析架構，有其必要。本文嘗試提出一個經濟創新活動與分權制度結構相互強化的分析架構，認為地方分權與產業分權促使各種自組的社會組織增加，形成複雜的社會網絡，並衍生雄厚的社會資本。這些社會資本與不同的地方發展治理策略結合，則對分權化與創新活動產生不同制度路徑。當地方治理策略能夠具有涵納新勢力與新觀念的制度彈性時，將進一步增強當地的分權化制度結構與經濟的創新活動。 就政策層面而言，則指出科學園區政策雖以創新群聚為理念或政策目標，但實際的運作卻往往忽略制度創新與地方民主治理的重要性。隨著當地政策成功吸引產業群聚，而逐漸偏離地方分權的制度結構，並欠缺社會治理網絡的支撐，科學園區將無法對產業的創新升級提供持續動能。 本文以歷史制度途徑，透過對矽谷、竹科、中關村三個地區的個案研究，探討創新群聚地區治理的制度發展問題。矽谷為一個參考型個案，用以作為各國仿效成為具有競爭力創新群聚地區的制度原型。竹科與中關村則透過不同的科學園區政策，試圖發展成為具創新競爭力的產業群聚地區。然而受到政策發動的前置情況、國家權力結構、制度演進路徑、產業技術能力、空間形式與管理機制的不同，以及在後期發展以圈地為主要策略的制度轉折，對創新群聚的政策理念產生偏離。最後透過地方治理的民主創新經驗，提出相關策略建議，期能有助於思考化解科學園區治理的困境。

This paper studies governance of innovation cluster region from the perspective of political theory and policy analysis. Theoretically, innovation cluster has political implication. Politics plays a key role when we are dealing with technological, marketing and institutional innovation. Innovation per se is to challenge or destroy existing interest and structure. Therefore it is necessary to build up a theoretical framework to analyze governance of innovation cluster region. In this framework, innovation and decentralization reinforce each other. Decentralization results in the increase of self-organizing social organizations and complex social networks. It in turn boosts the accumulation of social capital, which is further connected with local governance that leads to different institutional path toward decentralization and innovation. When local governance could be democratic inclusion, it would reinforce decentralization and innovation. As for public policy, we show that the practice of science-park policy, especially in developing state, ignore the importance of institutional innovation and local democracy, although it is supposed to aim at innovation cluster. As a matter of fact, when the policy successfully attracts cluster and, at the same time, deviating from the decentralization, lacking the support of governance network, science park cannot constantly improve innovation upgrading. This paper adopt historical institutionalism and studies three different cases, which includes Silicon Valley, HSIP and Zhongguancun. Silicon Valley is a reference case, which is used as a proto type of innovation cluster region for many countries. HSIP and Zhongguancun are built to follow the proto type, but they are influenced by the difference of institutionalization, which contains factors as policy initiatives, state-power, path-dependency, industry-technology capability and spatial form and management. As a result, the development unexpectedly deviates ideal innovation cluster. We then propose strategies which are based on local governance and democratic innovation, to resolve the governance failure of current science-park policy