Institutional Challenges of Science and Technology Parks in Iran: Designing Three-Level Institutional Interventions

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 PhD Candidate in Science and Technology Policy, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran

2 PhD Candidate in Innovation Studies and Strategic Technology Development, National Research Institute for Science Policy (NRISP), Tehran, Iran

3 Assistant Professor, Institute for Fundamental Studies of Science and Technology, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran

4 Associate Professor, Department of Management and Accounting, College of Farabi, University of Tehran, Qom, Iran

10.22034/jstp.2025.12067.1938

Abstract

Science and Technology Parks (STPs)—as key innovation intermediaries in Iran’s innovation ecosystem—play a pivotal role in technology transfer and commercialization, strengthening university–industry linkages, and advancing the knowledge-based economy. Nevertheless, their development and performance are constrained by multiple challenges that undermine efficiency and impact. Adopting a qualitative, applied research design and drawing on the Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) framework, this study identifies and examines the main institutional challenges facing STPs in Iran. It then organizes these challenges into four distinct institutional categories and, for each category, proposes a set of institutional interventions and policy levers structured across three decision-making levels: operational, collective-choice, and constitutional. Data were gathered from both secondary and primary sources, comprising in-depth, semi-structured interviews with 22 experts. Using qualitative content analysis with a three-stage coding procedure supported by MAXQDA, the study provides a comprehensive portrayal of the current landscape. The research was conducted in the first half of 2025 and covered all STPs nationwide. The findings point to an overarching “institutional deficit” arising from a misalignment between formal rules and contextual realities, manifesting along four interdependent dimensions: (i) governance—mission ambiguity and multi-principal fragmentation; (ii) execution and infrastructure—absence of operational rules and standardized, professional service bundles; (iii) human capital and institutional learning—limited facilitation competencies and weak institutionalized learning; and (iv) networks and demand alignment—low technology demand-pull and misaligned stakeholder incentives. Accordingly, the paper recommends redesigning a context-appropriate policy mix of interventions implemented concurrently across the three IAD levels. The results offer actionable guidance for decision-makers, STP managers, and private-sector actors seeking to improve the governance and performance of Science and Technology Parks

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

[1] Majlis Research Center. (2016). Review of the Status of Science and Technology Parks in Iran (Report No. 15275). Tehran: Office of Education and Culture Studies. {In Persian}
[2] Majlis Research Center. (2022). Review of the 2023 Budget Bill: Budget of Science and Technology Parks (Report No. 18709). Tehran: Office of Education and Culture Studies. {In Persian}
[3] Khajepour Shirvan, N., Saketi, P., & Teymournejad, K. (2024). Providing a Framework for Evaluating the Entrepreneurial Ecosystem of Science and Technology Parks. Journal of Strategic Management Studies, 57(15), 181–208. https://doi.org/10.22034/smsj.2023.374096.1756
[4] Majlis Research Center. (2023). Providing a Classification Model for Science and Technology Parks and Evaluating Performance Indicators (Report No. 19526). Tehran: Office of Education and Culture Studies. {In Persian}
[5] Fartash, K., & Eskandari, F. (2022). A Review of Global Experiences in Supporting Commercialization Support Institutions and Suggestions for the Seventh Development Plan. In Research, Technology and Innovation in the Seventh Development Plan: Studies, Analyses, and Suggestions (Chap. 12). National Research Institute for Science Policy. {In Persian}
[6] WIPO (WIPOLEX). (2024). Türkiye—Law No. 4691 on Technology Development Zones.
[7] Korea Legislation Research Institute (KLRI). (2024). Special Act on Promotion of Special Research and Development Zones.
[8] Fartash, K. (2024). Investigation on the Governance of Innovation and Technology in Science and Technology Parks of Iran. Quarterly Journal of Governance Knowledge, 2(3), 110–124. {In Persian} https://doi.org/10.22034/jokog.2024.201819
[9] International Association of Science Parks. (2001). International Association of Science Parks. https://www.iasp.ws/
[10] Lindelöf, P., & Löfsten, H. (2003). Science Park Location and New Technology-Based Firms in Sweden: Implications for Strategy and Performance. Small Business Economics, 20(3), 245–258. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022861823493
[11] Ratinho, T., & Henriques, E. (2010). The Role of Science Parks and Business Incubators in Converging Countries: Evidence from Portugal. Technovation, 30(4), 278–290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2009.09.002
[12] International Association of Science Parks. (2017). The IASP World in Numbers.
[13] Gyurkovics, J., & Lukovics, M. (2014). Generations of Science Parks in the Light of Responsible Innovation. Available at: https://publicatio.bibl.u-szeged.hu/7325/1/download.php_docID%3D40283
[14] Fabiano, G., Marcellusi, A., & Favato, G. (2020). Channels and Processes of Knowledge Transfer: How Does Knowledge Move Between University and Industry? Science and Public Policy, 47(2), 256–270. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scaa002
[15] Holgersson, M., & Aaboen, L. (2019). A Literature Review of Intellectual Property Management in Technology Transfer Offices: From Appropriation to Utilization. Technology in Society, 59, 101132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2019.04.008
[16] Riahi, P., & Farjadi, G. (2009). Policies for Development of Science Parks in Less-Innovative Regions. Journal of Science & Technology Policy, 1(3), 57–70. {In Persian} Available at: https://jstp.nrisp.ac.ir/article_12756_e471bb6096bb39d0f3a14ddafb366980.pdf
[17] Jonek-Kowalska, I., & Wolniak, R. (2021). The Influence of Local Economic Conditions on Start-Ups and Local Open Innovation System. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 7(2), 110. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc7020110
[18] Liashenko, V., Pidorycheva, I., Buravchenko, S., & Stetsenko, O. (2021). Developing Science Parks: Global Experience and Possible Guidelines for the Donbas Region’s Innovative Economic Recovery. Economic Herald of the Donbas, 2(64), 4–26. https://doi.org/10.12958/1817-3772-2021-2(64)-4-26
[19] Makhdoom, I., Lipman, J., Abolhasan, M., & Challen, D. (2022). Science and Technology Parks: A Futuristic Approach. IEEE Access, 10, 31981–32021. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3159798
[20] Xiong, Y., & Li, S. (2022). Can the Establishment of University Science and Technology Parks Promote Urban Innovation? Evidence from China. Sustainability, 14(17), 10707. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141710707
[21] Zapolskytė, S., Vabuolytė, V., Burinskienė, M., & Antuchevičienė, J. (2020). Assessment of Sustainable Mobility by MCDM Methods in the Science and Technology Parks of Vilnius, Lithuania. Sustainability, 12(23), 9947. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12239947
[22] Albahari, A., Barge-Gil, A., Pérez-Canto, S., & Landoni, P. (2023). The Effect of Science and Technology Parks on Tenant Firms: A Literature Review. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 48(4), 1489–1531. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-022-09949-7
[23] Association of University Research Parks (AURP), & Stiletto. (2024). AURP 2023 Parks Benchmarking Survey: Advancing Communities of Innovation. Tempe, AZ: AURP. Available at: https://aurp.memberclicks.net/assets/PDFs/Stiletto_AURPSurvey_Long_2024_04_23%20%281%29.pdf
[24] Esponilla, F., Alinsunod, J., Ignacio, H., de Guzman, H., de Guzman, E., Dela Cruz, K., & Valenzuela, I. (2019). Issues and Challenges of Technology Business Incubators in the Philippines. International Journal of Emerging Trends in Engineering Research, 7(9), 2347–3983. https://doi.org/10.30534/ijeter/2019/20792019
[25] Balog, M. (2019). Effects of the Slovak Science Parks and Research Centers. FAR: Forecast, Analysis & Recommendations, 11(2). https://doi.org/10.31577/ppfar.2019.11.005
[26] García, M. B., & Galindo, S. S. (2023). Bibliometric Review on Technology Management in Universities: Trends, Challenges, and Opportunities. Salud, Ciencia y Tecnología – Serie de Conferencias, 2, 287. https://doi.org/10.56294/sctconf2023512
[27] UNCTAD. (2025). Strengthening Science, Technology and Innovation Parks in National Innovation Systems of Developing Countries (UNCTAD/TCS/DTL/INF/2025/3). United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. Available at: https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/tcsdtlinf2025d3_en.pdf
[28] Hailu, A. T. (2024). The Role of University–Industry Linkages in Promoting Technology Transfer: Implementation of Triple Helix Model Relations. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 13(1), 25. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13731-024-00370-y 
[29] Gan, Q., Hong, J., & Hou, B. (2021). Assessing the Different Types of Policy Instruments and Policy Mix for Commercialisation of University Technologies. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 33(5), 554–567. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2020.1831468
[30] Misaghi, S. M., & Fallahzadeh, S. (2014). Planning and Designing of Science and Technology Parks with Emphasis on Regional Advantage (Case: Mazandaran Province). Journal of Science and Technology Policy, 6(2), 39–60. {In Persian}. Available at: https://jstp.nrisp.ac.ir/article_12899_3ccbfa9b4285e66bd8a51f406cb0f6dc.pdf
[31] Ostrom, E., Gardner, R., & Walker, J. (1994). Rules, Games, and Common-Pool Resources. University of Michigan Press.
[32] Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge University Press.
[33] Ostrom, E. (2011). Background on the Institutional Analysis and Development Framework. Policy Studies Journal, 39(1), 7–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.2010.00394.x
[34] Ostrom, E. (2008). Developing a Method for Analyzing Institutional Change. In S. N. Durlauf & L. E. Blume (Eds.), The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics (2nd ed., pp. 843–850). Palgrave Macmillan. A chapter of: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203894439
[35] Ostrom, E. (2005). Understanding Institutional Diversity. Princeton University Press. Available at: https://wtf.tw/ref/ostrom_2005.pdf
[36] McGinnis, M. D. (2011). An Introduction to IAD and the Language of the Ostrom Workshop: A Simple Guide to a Complex Framework. Policy Studies Journal, 39(1), 169–183. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.2010.00401.x
[37] Aligica, P. D., & Boettke, P. J. (2009). Challenging Institutional Analysis and Development: The Bloomington School. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203876282
[38] Fartash, K., & Sadabadai, A. A. (2019). Institutions and Their Influence on Science and Technology Development. Journal of Science and Technology Policy, 12(2), 239–253. {In Persian}. Available at: https://jstp.nrisp.ac.ir/article_13696_14c51db9f079ff85f739116aaed70cc4.pdf
 
 
 
Journal of Science and Technology Policy
Volume 18, Issue 3 - Serial Number 67
Special Issue: "The Role of Various Intermediary Organizations in Facilitating Entrepreneurship Development in Iran's Innovation Ecosystem"
October 2025
Pages 59-78

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics