Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsgeographie Jg. 52 (2008) Heft 4, S. 193-208 Elmar Kulke, Berlin The technology park Berlin-Adlershof as an example of spatial proximity in regional economic policy Abstract: Since the 1990s spatial economic policy increasingly tries to encourage the develop- ment of innovative firms especially in selected locations like technology parks. Spatial proximity in these locations should lead to the development of competitive clusters. The technology park Berlin-Adlershof is one example for this new approach of spatial economic policy; today it is – according to the number of employees - one of the largest technology parks in Europe. This pa- per discusses to what extent spatial economic policy has contributed to the development of an interlinked cluster. First elements of spatial economic policy will be evaluated according to the network and cluster approaches. Then general considerations of cluster development will be con- fronted with the development path of Berlin-Adlershof. Finally the extent of network formation will be discussed. The economic dynamic in Berlin-Adlershof shows that a proximity-oriented approach of spatial economic policy has been successful. Spatial proximity has encouraged the development of networks between the units, but up to now networks between science and busi- ness are not very strong. Keywords: technology park, spatial proximity, spatial economic policy, Berlin-Adlershof, network development Introduction processes and innovations. The innovative strength can be supported by institutions that Since the mid-nineties structural and spatial provide special qualifications (e.g. universi- economic policy in Germany has been increas- ties, technical schools) and by the use of joint ingly influenced by the idea of developing sec- infrastructure facilities. toral or regional concentrations of interlinked production units (cf. ARL 2006;FLOETING The technology park Berlin-Adlershof is one 2008;FROMHOLD-EISEBITH/EISEBITH 2005; example of this new approach to spatial eco- MOSSIG/KLEIN 2003; REHFELD 1999). On the nomic policy. Some fifteen years ago the first regional level spatial economic policy often decisions were made for the development of a tries to encourage the development of sectoral science and business park in Adlershof. The clusters following a commodity chain; it is ex- idea was to connect innovative new enterpris- pected that companies belonging to one focal es with research institutes and with university activity of economy and having intensive link- research and education; implicit in the concept ages with each other are gaining competitive was following the idea of generating – based advantages. On the local level technology cen- on the spatial proximity of the units – an inno- ters and technology parks are an important vative and interlinked cluster. But more than policy instrument to encourage economic that, the concept was following an agglomera- growth based on the spatial proximity of inno- tion-oriented approach; there was the hope that vative firms (cf. BEHRENDT 1996; GUN- simply by concentrating units at one location, DEL/LUTTMANN 2008;TAMASY 1996). The networks would develop. Explicit instruments guiding idea is that spatial proximity facili- for network management were not used. Today tates the development of linkages and commu- reports of Adlershof’s success are multiplying, nication between the units; this opens up the and one sometimes encounters almost euphor- possibility not only of reducing transport and ic statements about the dynamics of the site. In transaction costs but also of exchanging tacit his introduction to the 2005 annual report knowledge, which generates joint learning (WISTA 2006), Hardy R. Schmitz, head of 194 Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsgeographie Heft 4 / 2008 WISTA Management GmbH, writes, “Earning are included in most model approaches in eco- money with science – Adlershof continues to nomic geography. The classic approaches dis- grow: 12.5 % more revenue, 10.8 % more em- cuss the advantages of agglomerations by con- ployment, 92 % utilized rentable space, and centrating on their cost-minimizing effects (cf. only three insolvencies out of 400 companies. GORDON/MCCANN 2000, 516 f.; KULKE 2008, This is Berlin Adlershof’s impressive balance 125 f.). The proximity of delivery and pro- sheet for the year 2005.” And the German cessing services, providers of other services, journal Der Spiegel heads its 2008 report on consumers, and political decision makers re- Adlershof: “Almost like China – in Berlin- duces not only the transportation costs for ma- Adlershof a science and technology park is terial goods, but also the transaction costs of booming; for experts it is a typical example for organizing and conducting business in net- the efficient use of subventions in the east”. works and relationships. The successful exten- sion of transportation and communication in- These statements refer to the (possible) suc- frastructures over the last few decades has, cess of a “real-life experiment” that is interest- however, led to a drastic decrease in trans- ing both for the scientific discussion in eco- portation costs; they are accordingly less im- nomic geography and for regional economic portant today as elements of spatial differenti- policy. During the last few decades – strongly ation. influenced by Porter’s discussion of the com- petitive advantages of clusters (PORTER 1993, At the same time, knowledge as a factor in 1999) – analysis of spatial concentrations of production is gaining importance in highly de- specialized economic activities has been a ma- veloped societies (e.g. GERTLER 2001; jor field of research in economic geography KLINE/ROSENBERG 1986). During the nineties (cf. ASHEIM/COOKE/MARTIN 2006). It is al- there was a shift in spatial economic research, ready widely accepted that these concentra- and since then technology, innovations, tions possess competitive advantages if the knowledge and creativity are seen as decisive economic units are linked with each other by factors in the spatial economic development of immaterial flows of knowledge and informa- advanced economies (SCHAMP 2007). These tion. But it remains disputed as to whether, by observations in scientific research have influ- means of spatial economic policy with initial enced economic and spatial policy and find government investments, networks, interlink- their expression in innovation-oriented ap- ages and exchange of tacit knowledge in the proaches (cf. FROMHOLD-EISEBITH 1999; sense of an innovative milieu or cluster of sci- FROMHOLD-EISEBITH/EISEBITH 2005). entific and business activities can be created successfully (cf. COOKE 2002, 157: “Can clus- The generation of innovations can be benefit- ters be built?”), or if such economically com- ed by the spatial proximity of actors in re- petitive concentrations of interlinked activities search, development, and business. The inno- – in the sense of geographical industrialization vative and competitive abilities belonging to – only develop by themselves. spatial concentrations of economic activity are especially advantageous when the actors man- The paper starts with some general considera- aging them possess strong personal and orga- tions concerning competitive clusters and on nizational linkages – usually referred to as the economic policy of Berlin. It will be dis- networks (cf. BATHELT 1998; FROMHOLD- cussed to what extent policy really follows a EISEBITH 2000; KULKE 2008, 84 f.). The ac- cluster-oriented approach. Then the develop- tors, meaning those who create, sustain and ment path and present characteristics of the use the networks, come from complementary Adlershof science and technology park will be businesses, from research and educational fa- presented. Finally, based on empirical studies, it cilities, and from various institutions. Func- will be asked to what extent Adlershof exhibits tional relationships between these actors are elements and features of a competitive cluster. based on reciprocity, trust, dialog, flexibility, and self-regulation. The networks within a spatial entity display a high degree of open- Advantages of spatial proximity ness and intensity, in contrast to a certain amount of restraint with outside actors. For the The advantages of spatial proximity in busi- successful long-term competitiveness of a net- ness activities have long been discussed and work, however, not only strong internal link- E. Kulke: The technology park Berlin-Adlershof 195 ages, “strong ties”, are essential but also the tivities have arisen (cf. DANNENBERG 2007, 18 co-existence of outside (worldwide) linkages. f.; KULKE 2008, 127 f.). Two of these cluster- Without these “weak ties,” the lock-in-phe- oriented concepts, the innovative milieu ap- nomenon can occur - that is, without a view of proach and the geographical industrialization the outside world, new trends or innovations approach, are concerned with the spatial con- that have been successful elsewhere are not centration of innovative activities and they de- sufficiently perceived and, where applicable, scribe the development path of these clusters. integrated (cf. BATHELT/DEPNER 2003). These They are suitable as explanatory substructures networks are useful (cf. GROTZ 1996) not only for the development in science and technology because of their classic economical advan- parks such as Berlin-Adlershof. Although tages (e.g. the realization of economies of these two approaches incorporate similar scale and economies of scope, advantages in characteristics