Aspiring "builders of additional 'Silicon Valleys'", in France and
Malaysia and China and elsewhere, take note: and anyone who thinks that
the digitization global village which "scales up" from what we now have
will be "American" --
The only text which I myself have found so far which substantiates in
print what I say about Stanford's role here is a book which I can
recommend for several other reasons as well:
- Saxenian, AnnaLee. Regional Advantage: Culture and Competition in
Silicon Valley and Route 128 (Cambridge, Massachusetts : Harvard,
1994). ISBN 0674753399, 0674753402 (pbk.)
Library references:
- University of California, Berkeley: HC107.C22 N677 1994
- Harvard: Baker Business HC107.C22 N677 1994
- Oxford: Bodley M95.E03101
and if you would like to own a copy --
The author is associate professor in the Department of City and
Regional Planning at UC Berkeley. Her book won the American Association of
Publishers award for best professional and scholarly book in business and
management. And -- I am tempted to say "but" -- it also "reads well": she
supplies facts and statistics to back her generalizations up, but she also
presents numerous engaging and often funny anecdotes about, and interviews
with, some of the leading luminaries in hi - tech's development in its
competing "Boston / MIT / Route 128" and "California / Stanford / Silicon
Valley" scenarios, comparing and contrasting the two.
Saxenian says (p. 12):
"While both Stanford and MIT encouraged commercially oriented research
and courted federal research contracts in the postwar years, MIT's
leadership focused on building relations with government agencies and
seeking financial support from established electronics producers.
"In contrast, Stanford's leaders, lacking corporate or government ties
or even easy proximity to Washington, actively promoted the formation of
new technology enterprises and forums for cooperation with local industry.
This contrast -- between MIT's orientation toward Washington and large,
established producers, and Stanford's promotion of collaborative
relationships among small firms -- would fundamentally shape the
industrial systems emerging in the two regions."
And, to Saxenian, such unique and nearly - eccentric characteristics --
which differentiate the two US "Boston / Route 128" and "California /
Silicon Valley" approaches to the development of hi - tech, not to speak
of either of these from approaches used elsewhere -- do not end with their
different policies toward government involvement: describing the crucial
role of Stanford's engineering department dean, Frederick Terman, Saxenian
observes (pp. 22-23) --
"Terman sought to strengthen the role of the university in supporting
technology - based industries by building a 'community of technical
scholars' in the area around Stanford... Terman's most extensive
efforts... went to building collaborative ties between Stanford and local
industry..."
"Three institutional innovations during the 1950s reflect the
relationships that Terman pioneered in the region.
"First, Stanford established the Stanford Research Institute (SRI) to
conduct defense - related research and to assist West Coast businesses."
[SRI's mandate always has been to serve private enterprise more than
government, in marked distinction to rival "think tanks" such as Rand and
Brookings which always have worked primarily on government contracts. Many
"hi - tech" innovations were originated at SRI or by individuals who had
been at SRI. JK.]
"Second, Stanford opened its classrooms to local companies through the
Honors Cooperative Program. The university encouraged engineers at
electronics companies to enroll in graduate courses directly or through a
specialized televised instructional network which brought Stanford courses
into company classrooms." [Stanford just -- July, 1998 -- has made
international headlines once again by being one of the first reputable
educational institutions to offer a postgraduate degree progam, a "master
of computer science" degree, entirely via the Internet. JK.]
"Third, Terman promoted the development of the Stanford Industrial
Park, one of the first such parks in the country. While initially a source
of income to support the rapid growth of the land - rich but cash - poor
university, the industrial park helped to reinforce the emerging pattern
of cooperation between the university and electronics firms in the area."
So, according to Saxenian, the differences between these two US
approaches -- "Boston / Route 128" and "California / Silicon Valley" --
are many. Her warning is clear to outsiders -- decision - makers outside
of "Boston / Route 128" and "California / Silicon Valley" and those
outside of the US, those in France and elsewhere (p. 165):
"The widespread failure of science parks and other efforts by
localities around the world to 'grow the next Silicon Valley' underscores
the limits of an approach that focuses solely on ensuring the free flows
of capital, labor and techonology needed for market adjustment."
So political orientation -- even political and economic orientation --
is not the single factor guaranteeing success. No such "single factor" in
fact can be found. Complex situations, like the building of a "Silicon
Valley", require complex solutions.
Such is the perennial appeal of simplistic solutions, however --
particularly in politics -- that hi - tech development, motivated by
financial desperation or by simple greed, too often searches for some
magic "single factor" which will ensure its success. Giving "computers"
away to elementary schools is one such panacea which has been tried in a
number of places: so have "access to the Internet" and "fiber optic
cabling" -- just as "the interstate highway network" and "the new math"
were panaceas to previous generations.
A "Bangemann Report" urging deregulation and a political trend favoring
"small government" may provide small parts of what is a very complex
overall picture, always with side - effects often more damaging than the
benefits derived from any specific measure. The entire picture needs to be
examined and, more importantly, local conditions and eccentricities must
be taken into account. If, as Saxenian suggests, Boston and California
have so little in common, how much less in common is there between either
of these and Sophia Antipolis or Marne la Vallée, much less
Bangalore or Shanghai or (with Internet access now) Mozambique?
