SCIENCE-TECHNO PARK AND INDUSTRIAL POLICY IN INDONESIA

Anugerah Yuka Asmaraa1

Dini Oktaviyantib
Purnama Alamsyahc
Muhammad Zulhamdanid
a,b,c,d
Researcher of Science-Technology-Innovation (STI) Policy at Indonesian Institute of
Sciences (LIPI), Jakarta-Indonesia

ABSTRACT

Government of Indonesia has science-techno park (STP) program to support industy

development in Indonesia. Since 2014, STP is widely developed around Indonesia starting
from national level, province level, until muncipality/regency level. STP development
program is aimed to create innovative things and new products of research-based industry.
Eventhough STP is supported by public research and development (R&D) institutions, but
each R&D institution runs separately. In turn, national industries are not connected to R&D
institutions, even they sometimes receive benefit from overseas R&D institutions as well.
Policy to promote R&D activities and industrial policy is strongly pushed through STP
recently. This research is the qualitative method by using informants and also policy
documents as main sources in analysing this study. Focus of research time period is 2014
year until now related to STP and industrial policy in Indonesia. This study is being
conducted in concurrent with main research in our institution at Indonesian Institute of
Sciences (LIPI). The early study finding is that STP and industrial policy are different way in
growing research-based industry in Indonesia. Practically, STP and industrial policy are
hindered by weak coordination among actors, governmental funding scheme and lack of
human resource who are capable in handling STP. Consequently, many national industries
are seldom to create new products or to grow innovativeness. Commonly, national industries
are assembler and imitator from foreign products.
Keywords: Science-techno park, Industry, Policy, Indonesia

1. INTRODUCTION
Knowledge-based economy (KBE) has evolved as recent concept which it is adopted
by many countries around the world. Main element to boost KBE is how each country utilizes
science and technology (S&T) to grow economic sector in a region. Therefore role of
government appears through S&T policy as well as innovation policy. Science, technology,
and innovation policy (STI) is transformed into industrial development by improvements in
the technological capabilities of firms (Dodgson, 2000). It is wider definition that innovation
policy is public policy to support innovative environment which is not merely limited on
S&T but also on financial measures (e.g. tax incentive) and non financial measures (e.g legal
system, human resources) (Mani, 2002).

1
Corresponding author: Email: a.yuka.asmara@gmail.com/ Phone: +6285649976992

1
 Presence of S&T and innovation (STI) policy in developed countries appears when
those countries pay more attention in research and development (R&D) field and also
involvement of scientists/academicians in cooperation with industry sector or entrepreneurs.
The most prominent example is how sillicon valley in Unites States (US) can connect many
actors like scientists, entrepreneurs/business man, government agencies, and related actors to
jointly work in developing R&D-based industry through innovation policy (Etzkowitz, 2011;
Ooms et al, 2015). An another notable example is science-techno park (STP) in South Korea.
STP in South Korea is clearly marked by presence Chaebol, it is Korean version of the
Japanese family enterprise, zaibatsu. Chaebol is as powerhouse to reach ambititious goals of
R&D-based industry in South Korea (Kim, 2000).
In developing countries, innovation policy is not fully understood as priority policy to
develop national industry. Commonly, those countries adopt and imitate imported technology
from advanced countries (Mani, 2002). Indonesia, a developing country located in South East
Asian Nations (ASEAN) region, has several public policies to grow national industry
development. At least, there are two technical ministries dealing with S&T-based industry
policy, namely Ministry of Industry (Kemenperin) and Ministry of Research, Technology,
and Higher Education (Kemenristekdikti) which both are coordinated by Coordinator
Ministry for Economy Affairs (Kemenko Perekonomian).
To materialize S&T-based industry in Indonesia, Government of Indonesia has
launched special policy to grow and to increase STP projects around Indonesia in 2014 year.
Science-Techno Park (STP) has become buzz word in public domain since President of
Republic of Indonesia, Joko Widodo, announced establishment of 100 STP around Indonesia
in 2014 (nationalgeographic.co.id). It is needed budget accounted by IDR 1,5 trillion (version
of (Indonesian Rupiah) ) (dikti.go.id). At glance, it is ambitious policy of Government of
Indonesia, but practically the government seriously pays attention STP by means of
formulating many derivative policies to materialize it.
STP project is not a new in Indonesia, it is firstly old project initiated by Mr. Prof. Dr.
Sumitro Djojohadikusumo when he was a Ministry of Research in 1976 (Soenarso, no year).
The first Indonesias STP is called as Centre for Research of Science and Technology
(Puspiptek) located in Serpong District at Municipality of South Tangerang (Banten
Province). Even, Indonesias STP and Koreans STP were built in adjacent time. Government
of South Korea built first technology learning centre 2 in South Koreas firms in late 1970s
and 1980s (Lee, 2000). Recently, Government of Indonesia plans to add number of STP and
to improve function of STP.
Ambitious plan to create STP in many regions is documented on strategic plan agenda
initiated by Agency/Ministry for National Development Planning (Bappenas). In Bappenas
document mentions that STP will be built in three layers namely, science-techno park (STP)
at national level; science park (SP) at provincial level; and techno park (TP) at municipality
or regency level (Deputy of Economy Ministry for National Development Planning, 2015).
In the strategic plan agenda is clear that the goal of STP is to create innovative things and
new products of R&D-based industry.
This STP policy is large agenda which is being conducted by Government of
Indonesia. It is not easily implemented in the practice due to limitation of its supporting
factors. Eventhough Government of Indonesia pushes and sounds STP policy continuously to

2
In the early 1970s, there was only one user firm (Korea bearing of Korea Explosive Group) that made a
technology licensing aggrement for capital goods. In the late 1980 (1985-1989), a surge of technology license
aggrement emerged from various user sectors. Their imports of capital goods technology seemed to be greatly
encouraged by the rapid increase in domestic demand that resulted from the expanded export sales of passengers
cars and capacity expansion of automobile industry (Lee, 2000: 175-176).
2
national and local actors (provincial and municipality or regency level), practically those
actors run separately. National R&D institutes and universities are not well connnected to
national industry policy. Conversely, many domestic industries get benefit from overseas
R&D institutes. Both Kemenperin and Kemenristekdikti have not jointly cooperated to
realize STP projects. This phenomena is a serious homework for Government of Indonesia
to implement STP projects according to Bappenas STP strategic plan.
Many serious problems hindering STP projects are not separated from industrial
policy in Indonesia. STP actors are various, not limited on role of government like
Kemenperin, Kemenristekdikti, and Bappenas. Involvement of national R&D institutes,
entrepreneurs/businessman, financial institution, and society is pivotal to boost STP policy in
Indonesia. This study is aimed to explore factors causing why STP project and industrial
policy are not well connected in Indonesia. Therein, this study is focused on institution issues
concerning with STP and industrial policy in Indonesia at general. Important to be noted that
time period of analysis of STP and industrial policy in Indonesia is limited only from 2014
year until now 3.

2. THEORY FRAMEWORK
a. Science-Techno Park (STP)
Conceptually, Science-Techno Park (STP) is as means to initiate and disseminate
science and technology (S&T) among R&D institutes, universities, and industry (firms). STP
facilitates development of S&T-based firms through incubation and spin-off process. By
using high technology and supporting tools, firms are promoted to be innovative and able to
increase high economy value (added value of products and services). At practice, various
terms of STP are commonly used, for examples: research park, science park, business park,
innovation center, (Soenarso, no year).
Science park is part of science, technology, and innovation (STI) policy by focusing
research and development (R&D) activities and users of STI (industries) in a particular area
(Mani, 2002). STP guarantees geographical proximity and encourage other types of
proximity that fosters cooperation between firms and R&D organizations (Vsquez-Urriago,
2016).
Each country has various meaning about STP according to need, environment,
legality, and existing culture in an area. Below, we briefly describe definition of STP in
several countries like South Korea, Spain, Russia, and Indonesia as well.

STP in South Korea

Government of South Korea has implemented STI policy by creating STP in Korea.
Government of Korea facilities and provides a special area for many S&T players both S&T
suppliers and its users. Each player is pushed through incentives and tax allowance in order to
research results can be utilised by firms. Again, this policy is aimed to withdraw Korean
people staying and working abroad to come back into South Korea (brain drain policy) (Mani,
2002).
In South Korea, STP is an particular area focused to R&D activities. In this context,
presence of R&D institution and Koreans national firms (chaebols) are very essential to
develop R&D and commercialise its results. Chaebol is the initiator to use research results
yielded by R&D institutions in South Korea. Investment and technological learning from
foreign firms to Koreans firms ensue in some periods. Successful examples are emergence
two automotive firms namely Daewoo and Hyundai. Both firms grow rapidly because
3
The first STP project, Puspiptek-Serpong, built in 1976 is not fully discussed in this study. Notwithstanding,
this study also pertains relevance between Puspiptek as old STP and recent STP project of 2014 year up to now.
3
proximity among firms, R&D institutions, and intense involvement of various actors in STP
area (Lee, 2000).

STP in Spain
Spanish parks are a relatively recent phenomenon. Since the1980s, STPs have been
seen as initiatives that contribute to regional development via technology transfer and
revitalization and diversification of the local industry. Efforts have been made to attract high-
tech, often multinational firms to strengthen the dynamicsof the local economic environment
(Ondategui; Infyde iD, in Vsquez-Urriago, 2016). Spanish parks were originally technology
rather than science (Vsquez-Urriago, 2016).
Regarding the role played by the government, Spanish STPs were usually created
through regional initiatives and, by the 1990s, had spread to the majority of Spanish regions.
This resulted in their receiving support from national government in the form of national
funding to purchase specialized equipment, develop the infrastructure and conduct R&D
projects. STPs are seen as playing a key role in the national innovation system and are
included in national R&D plans. Nevertheless, regional government support for STPs is still
relevant. It could be argued that in the 1990s Spanish STPs were closer to the second
generation of parks (OECD in Vsquez-Urriago, 2016) since they were aimed at fostering
regional industry, were located in urban environments and focused on the creation of new
firms (Vsquez-Urriago, 2016).
In the 2000s, Spanish STPs have evolved towards the third generation, growing
larger due to national support, and specializing in specific knowledge areas.The development
of Spanish STPs has some similarities with developments in other Mediterranean countries
such as France and Italy. These STPs have three common characteristics. First, the parks are
centrally planned and established as part of a regional development policy. Second, their
objectives go beyond R&D activities and involve programmes to improve production
methods, general organization practices, etc. Third, although there is usually a university
component in the STP structure, universities do not lead or control STP activities (Ondategui;
Roure et al., in Vsquez-Urriago, 2016).

STP in Russia
In Russia the concept of science park was introduced in 1988 following the
publication of an article in a Russian scientific journal. The first science park was established
in Tomsk in 1990 jointly by universities, scientific institutions and industrial enterprises. In
Russia most of the science parks have been set up under the state programme Technology
Parks and Innovations, which aims to promote the scientific potential of universities
(Kihlgren, 2003).
Most of the science parks (the term science park includes in the Russian context both
technology parks and innovation centres) in Russia are non-profit-making organisations
which, according to their statute, must reinvest any profits to develop their infrastructure and
services for tenant companies, but their financial situation is not easy given the low demand
for technology based products in Russia and the difficulties in attracting private investors.
One peculiarity of Russian technology parks is that not all firms are accommodated on site
due to space limitations.Some are located in the nearby university or in other institutions
linked to the technology park (Kihlgren, 2003).
According to an appraisal conducted in 1997 (Shukshunov and Variukha, in Kihlgren,
2003) the main features of Russian technology parks are as follows:
The number of founders ranges from three to twentyone. 50% has more than ten
founders, mainly large enterprises, universities and local administrations.
4
 93% are individual companies, while the remaining 7% are subdivisions of
universities.
The average number of firms accommodated is twenty.
The great majority collaborate regularly with scientific centres, universities, industrial
enterprises, regional and local authorities.
15% own the premises where they are located, while the others rent these from the
founders on advantageous terms, often free of charge.
All provide office premises and about 60% also provide industrial premises.
65% offer management assistance in finance, marketing and business organisation.
Almost half do not provide assistance for technology transfer and 60% do not provide
advice in financial management.
44% have also a business incubator, but none has a special building where the
incubator is located.
The most developed technology parks - 20% of the total - have premises specially
built to satisfy the requirements of the tenants.
Only 24% claim to have had an impact on the socio economic and technological
development of the region.

How Government of Indonesia Defines STP ?

STP is defined as an area which is managed by professionals aimed to increase
wellbeing of its members through creation and increase of supporting ecosystem for
innovation in order to improve competitiveness of firms and institutions under its span of
control. STP is aimed to stimulate and manage knowledge and technology flow at universities,
research centres, and firms under its environment, to facilitate creation and growth of
innovation-based firms through business incubation and its spin off process, and to provide
added value services by means of providing and sharing space and its (high quality)
supporting facilities (Deputy of Economy Ministry for National Development Planning,
2015).

Total support Policy support

Government

Policy consulting Inducement & arrangement Industry growth

for
funding, information policy,
cooperation between
industry
and university, development
of regional Industry

High
Funding development
support of regional
Technopark industry Business
Universities, R&D, &
Vocational Training ABG linkage, catalyst for Improvement of
knowledge-economy commercialization,
Creation/ innovation of growth; creating absorbtion/ usage of new
new technology, supply knowledge-worker; technology
of ICT disseminating
labors (k-worker) knowledge-culture

Technology transfer

Joint research
5
Figure 1. Techno Park Model
Notes: ABG: Academician, Business, Government
Source: Deputy of Economy Ministry for National Development Planning (2015)

b. Policy, Science-Technology-Innovation (STI) Policy, and Industrial Policy

Policy or public policy is a common term heard in politics and economy environment.
Basically, Public policy is a purposive course of action, followed by an actor or a set of actors
in dealing with a problem or a matter of concern (Anderson in Setyodarmodjo, 2005). Public
policy is not only how a government formulates a policy, but it is widely and practically
defined. Public policy does not stop at formulation stage, it is cycling stages starting from
formulation, implementation, until evaluation.
Hill and Hupe (2002) say that the character of purposive public policies is expected to
have, and the way in which they are expected to be related to (societal) problems. For
implementation theory and research this means that contextualization is important:
implementation is always connected to specific policies as particular responses to specific
problems in society. Public policy can pertain in many aspects such as industry, science and
technology, agriculture, fishery, transportation, economy (fiscal policy), health, and so on.
In science and technology (S&T) field, both are seen as tools of industrial
development; they are means by which poorer nations can alleviate poverty and diversify
away from their reliance on rural and resource sectors, and the wealthier nations can build
competitive advantages in global markets for technology-based goods. S&T provide
mechanisms for meeting the overwhelming demand for improved standards of living
throughout the region (Dodgson, 2000). Therefore, S&T is not separated from innovation.
Innovation is defined as a pioneering activity, rooted primarily in a firms internal
competencies, to develop and introduce a new product to the market for the first time (Kim
and Nelson, 2000). Innovation systems are complex, involving interactions between
businesses, knowledge institutions, academicians, funders, business support organisations and
the innovation infrastructure bodies (Department of Business Innovation and Skills, 2014).
Crudely, science policy aims at increasing and improving the capacity of nations to
create and respond to new scientific opportunities and options. Whereas, technology policy
aims to develop specific technology resources and indrastructures. By contrast, innovation
policy is considered to be those efforts by government that encourage the accumulation,
diffusion, and creation of new products, process, and services by firms (Dodgson, 2000). The
objectives of innovation policy are often economic ones, such as economic growth,
productivity growth or increased employment, and competitiveness. However, they may also
be of a non-economic kind, such as cultural, social, environmental, and military (Chaminade
and Edquist, 2010).
Concerning with policy among three components, science, technology, and innovation
(STI policy) and their dynamic adjustment depends on the level of economic and industrial
development within each nation and the features of each nations system of innovation,
including the range and quality of relevant institutions and the social economic relationship
within them (Dodgson, 2000).
As a rule, innovation policies pursued by governments can be broadly divided into
three categories (Kihlgren, 2003):
a. Provision of finance for innovation which can take the form of direct support through
grants or loans for individual projects, and indirect support through fiscal concessions
for R&D or other technology-based activities.
6
 b. Support for networking in order to improve the collaboration between firms and
public sector laboratories and universities.
c. Provision of advice, information and infrastructure through, for example, the creation
of business centres specialising in the provision of technological services to small and
medium enterprise (SME).

Undoubtedly, STI policy is always related to industrial and also trade policy. Science
and technology policy would have been better served for assisting technological development
in industries if industrial policy and S&T policy had been closely coupled. S&T policy could
have addressed the technological needs of industries more effectively if it had been closely
coupled with industrial policy (Lee, 2000). It is not only regarding with science and
technology affairs, but also regarding with financial measures and non financial measures
(Mani, 2002).

Table 1. Components of Innovation Policies

Relationship with the Type of measure
market
Financial measure Non-financial measure
Public provision of Subsidizing exchange of R&D Policies aimed at diffusion of
goods and services personnel between public and private technology
sectors Human resources development policy
University and government R&D
Industrial standards
Public procurement particularly in
defence
The Intellectual property right (IPR)
regime
Industrial and trade policies

Modification of market Tax incentives for R&D

incentives Direct funding through grants, soft
loans, loan guarantees for R&D
projects
Promotion of national R&D
projects
Joint cooperative R&D projects
between government and the
private sector

Support of the Creation or improvement of specialised

improvement of financial market mechanism (e.g.,
market mechanism venture capital)
Source: Mani (2002)

The government can support innovation policy in a number of ways, including

through reducing risk to commercially viable levels, easing credit constraints, ensuring
skilled people are provided to the labour market and setting regulatory frameworks and
standards (Department of Business Innovation and Skills - 2011 in Department of Business
Innovation and Skills, 2014). Innovation is central to the successful delivery of our Industrial
Strategy, crucially, and through necessity, this approach is cross-government and long-term
policy (Department of Business Innovation and Skills, 2014 ).

7
 c. Institution
Policy is whole part (unity) with institution. Both are present and mutually complete
each other in a ecosystem or environment in many fields, included in STI field. Key concept
of institution is that institution is rule of the game. It can reduce social uncertainty in the
daily social structure. This structure is a guide for the people occupying in a particular area
(North, 1990). Institutions has various meanings. It can be defined as the rules and
conventions of society that facilitates coordination among people regarding their behaviour,
institutions also as organizations such as city council, a university, a church, an agricultural
research station, or other governmental agencies (Bromley, 1989). In an institution, there are
two key elements namely: players (actors) and the rules (organizations).
Institution is able to provide knowledge and capacity to help the implementation of
policy initiatives. They have a potency to mediate external interventions into local contexts
and articulate between local, extra-local social and political processes (shaping) of the
acquisition and distribution of those interventions in fundamental ways, thereby affecting the
degree of success of such interventions (Kamoto et al., 2013). Case of STI, institution is
related to success of STI policy, Triyonos study (2014) revelas that institutional setting is
very influencing factor how STI policy is formulated and implemented. However, institution
presents colour to performance of STI policy at each region and nation. Why ? Because,
institution is depended on co-existing environment which is strongly embedded in an area.

d. Analysis Framework
Global economy area

National institution
(rule of the game)

Science-technology- Industrial policy

innovation (STI)
policy Global economy area
Global economy area

Science-Techno Park
(STP)

Nation
competitiveness

Global economy area

Figure 2. Analysis framework

STI is not separated to industrial policy. Both are integrated in one interconnected
policy to develop STP. Basically, STP is not single project, it is also supported by other
policies and many laws embedded at national level (case in Indonesia jurisdiction). Therein,
importance of national institution as rule of the game is very needed to direct STP project
according to existing environment in Indonesia. Notwithstanding, institution is not always to
be supporting factors, conversely, it can hinder a running project in an area/nation.
8
 Competitive nation is inevitable in each country. In recent situation, a nation which is
able to master STI field will be able to dominate economy development at both national and
global level. STP is aimed to increase nation competitiveness, particularly of how Indonesia
can compete with global nations at knowledge-based economy field. Porter says that Nation
competitivenes can be seen as differing in the stage of competitive development in
international terms achieved by their industry. The stages represent one way of abstracting
the upgrading process in a national economy. National economies exhibit a number of stages
of competitive development reflecting the characteristic sources of advantage of nations
firms in international competition and the natture and extent of internationally successful
industries and clusters (Porter, 1990). In nutshell, STP in Indonesia will be directed to seize
national and global market share among competition of countries around the world.

3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This study is a qualitative method using two concurrent approaches namely, literature
review approach and case study approach 4 . Both approaches are part of policy research
method which is often used by researcher or policy evaluator (Nugroho, 2014). Policy
research is concerned with policy activities starting from formulation, implementation,
performance, and evaluation. Eventhough, policy research can only comprise one or two
stages of each policy process. According to Majchrzak (1984), policy research, therefore is
defined as the process of conducting research on, or analysis of, a fundamental social
problem in order to provide policy makers with pragmatic, action-oriented recomendations
for alleviating the problem.
This study is conducting during 2016 year, this is part of research of Policy Analysis
of Science-Techno Park (STP) in Indonesia. Data were compiled from field observation and
also documentary. Again, direct interview with informants is basic means to dig up much
information based on recent condition regarding to STP and industrial policy.
Focus of research time period is limited from 2014 year until now. It is justified that a
new policy change is happening when Joko Widodo officially has been elected to be
President of Republic of Indonesia since last 2014 year. In this era, STP is a materialization
of STI policy as well as industrial policy at national level. Therefore, this is a policy research
discussing about what Government of Indonesia does related to STP and industrial policy in
Indonesia.
The authors have interviewed with several key informants in field from many
institutions are following:

Table 2. List of Informants

No. Key informants Institutions (jurisdiction of Indonesia)
1 Director of Science-Techno Park (STP) Ministry of Research, Technology, and
Higher Education (Kemenristekdikti)
2 Director of Economy Affairs Agency/Ministry for National
Developmen Planning (Bappenas)
3 Director of Information Technology Centre at Tohpati- Ministry of Industry (Kemenperin)
Denpasar (Bali Province)
4 Directorate for Electronics and Telematics Industry General Ministry of Industry (Kemenperin)
Directorate for Steel-Machinery-Transportation Means and
Electronics Industry
5 Headof Cooperation Division of technology business at Ministry of Research, Technology, and
Puspiptek-Serpong Higher Education (Kemenristekdikti)
6 Researcher at Centre for Nuclear Safety National Nuclear Energy Agency of

4
Definition of case study is developed by Yin (2003). Case study is naturalistik approach in which researcher as main
instrument to collect data. In this research is not quantitable, but it needs deep interview with informants at field.
9

7 Researchers at Inovation Centre (Pusinov)
Researchers at Centre for Science and Technology
Development Studies (Pappiptek)
8 Baron (Gunung Kidul) Techno Park (Yogyakarta Province)
9 Techno Park of Tasikmalaya (West Java Province)
10 Staff of empowerment at Coordinator Ministry for Human and
Culture Development
Indonesia (BATAN)
Indonesian Institute of Sciences (LIPI)
Agency for Assessment and Application
of Technology (BPPT)
Indonesian Institute of Sciences (LIPI)
Coordinator Ministry for Human and
Culture Development

4. RESEARCH RESULT AND DISCUSSION

a. First STP of Puspiptek
Centre for Research of Science and Technology (Puspiptek) was established in 1
October 1976 when Mr. Prof. Dr. Sumitro Djojohadikusumo was officially as Minister of
Research in Indonesia. It is legally based on Law of President Decision (Keputusan
Presiden/Kepres) No. 43 Year 1976. Puspiptek has wide area by 460 hectare consisted of 47
R&D centres and testing units. Puspiptek is located in Serpong District at Municipality of
South Tangerang, Banten Province (360 hectare), and another part of region is located in
Bogor Regency at West Java Province (100 hectare). Recently, the total area of Puspiptek
(460 hectare) is divided into three zones namely: 1) laboratory, office, green space, and guest
house zone; 2) housing zone; and 3) education zone 5.
The number of S&T human resources are 2.451 staffs in 2013 Year 6. Investment of
Puspiptek is more than 500 million USD (1976 year until now). Firstly, Puspiptek is aimed as
national R&D centre by clustering some R&D institutions like Indonesian Institute of
Sciences (LIPI), National Nuclear Energy Agency of Indonesia (BATAN), and Agency for
Assessment and Application of Technology (BPPT) in a particular area. It is early purported
to support national research program (http://puspiptek.ristekdikti.go.id).
Between 1980s and 1997, Puspipteks important function is to support a strategic
industry development policy. This strategic industries are supported through fiscal policy and
incentives, also close relationship is interwined between industry and financial institutions. In
1997 7 -2012, Puspiptek was in idle condition, many changes ensued towards direction of
industry development strategy. In addition, there was no new investment to fund (purchasing
and maintaining) R&D infrastructures, machines, and R&D laboratories. Consequently, many
Puspipteks facilities were obselent. Another problem, aging on S&T human resources
happened 8.
Since Mr. Prof. Dr. Ing. B.J. Habibie was as Minister of Research and Technology in
1978, Puspiptek was enlarged through new development system. Puspiptek was not only
dominated such as LIPI, BATAN, and BPPT, but also it involved role of higher education
instiutions and strategic-high and state-owned enterprises (BUMNIS). In this era,
5
Now 30-40 % of total area of Puspiptek is green area. Future, Puspiptek zone will be widen to be education
and training zone; public services zone; R&D result commercialisation zone; and garden zone. Cited from
Keputusan Menteri Riset dan Teknologi Republik Indonesia Nomor 20/M/Kp/IV/2014 tentang Masterplan
Revitalisasi Pusat Penelitian Ilmu Pengetahuan dan Teknologi dan Pengembangan Indonesia Science Park and
Technology Park (I-STP). (In Indonesian).
6
Cited from Keputusan Menteri Riset dan Teknologi Republik Indonesia Nomor 20/M/Kp/IV/2014 tentang
Masterplan Revitalisasi Pusat Penelitian Ilmu Pengetahuan dan Teknologi dan Pengembangan Indonesia
Science Park and Technology Park (I-STP).(In Indonesian).
7
In 1997-1999 year, economy crises happened in Indonesia.
8
Cited from Keputusan Menteri Riset dan Teknologi Republik Indonesia Nomor 20/M/Kp/IV/2014 tentang
Masterplan Revitalisasi Pusat Penelitian Ilmu Pengetahuan dan Teknologi dan Pengembangan Indonesia
Science Park and Technology Park (I-STP).(In Indonesian).
10
Government of Indonesia built many high quality laboratories to support BUMNIS
performance like Nortanio Aircraft Industry (IPTN) 9 established in 1976 and Vessel/ship-
building corporation (PAL company) (http://puspiptek.ristekdikti.go.id; Soenarso, no year).
As first STP in Indonesia, Puspiptek has most completed R&D laboratories and S&T
human resource training facilities (high quality laboratories, incubator, technical service
centre, and experts at scientific and appliead science at various field). All infrastructures are
provided to conduct R&D activities up to commercialisation stage. Every one, community,
business sector, or public/private institution can access and utilise this facilities to increase
R&D capacity and S&T-based industry either in Indonesia or abroad.
Recently, Puspiptek-Serpong is aimed to function as follows 10
(http://puspiptek.ristekdikti.go.id):
1. Increasing R&D activities conducted by R&D institutes and/or universities in particular
area.
2. Growing new and innovative firms based on S&T (start-up firms) which is located in one
special area or another area.
3. Attracting many investors to invest in firms located in R&D-based area.
4. As a centralised area by means of integrating innovation elements comprising of R&D
institutions, higher education, and business sector in framework of National Innovation
System (SINas) and Regional Innovation System (SIDa).
5. Related to R&D commercialisation, growing new small-medium enterprises (SMEs) to be
directed to foster technopreneurship culture through technology and business incubation.

Now, role of Puspiptek is increased as STI centre at global level

(http://puspiptek.ristekdikti.go.id) as follows:
1. Centre for mastering and developing S&T at national level
2. Centre for training and services of national products development
3. Centre for transferring technology and S&T information (technology advocacy,
technology service, diffusion, dissemination, technology commercialisation)
4. Centre for developing entrepreneurship and incubation for technology-based new
industry (new SMEs).
5. Centre for education and training for human resources at industry field.

Practically, Puspiptek does not function as a planned as STP function before. Many
functions like incubator centre, training for S&T human resources, and R&D-based
commercialisation centre is minimal. R&D acitivites conducted by R&D centres like LIPI,
BATAN, and BPPT run separately without intense coordination among them. Eventhough,
R&D services to public/consumers provided by those RD institutions is still running. It is
enough to say that relation ensue between each institution in Puspiptek-Serpong with its
consumers (another institution outside of Puspiptek-Serpong like industry, R&D institution at

9
In 1985 year, name of Nortanio Aircraft Industry was changed to Nusantara Aircraft Industry (IPTN), and
since 2000 year, name of IPTN has been changed to DI company (Indonesian Aerospace)
(en.wikipedia.org/Indonesian Aerospaces).
10
Information is also got from interview with head of copperation division for technology business at
Pusppiptek-Serpong (1 March 2016). See poin 1-3.

11
ministry, etc). Growth of interaction and network among S&T actors (R&D institutions,
government, business) is absolutely needed in Puspiptek 11.
Until now Puspiptek is owned and regulated by Ministry of Research, Technology,
and Higher Education (Kemenristekdikti). This ministry should function to provide R&D
infrastructures and coordinate each actor in Puspiptek area in order to achieve goal of R&D
development and R&D result-based industry in Indonesia. Practically, Kemenristekdikti is
not able to coordinate or even direct R&D activities goal conducted by each R&D institutions.
Those R&D instituitons are funded and directed by themselves, not by Kemenristekdikti 12.
This ministry only provides spaces and maintains public infrastructures (physical
function) in Puspiptek area. It is clear that authority of Kemenristekdikti is very limited in
managing STP and determining goal of R&D institutions inside of Puspiptek.
Study of Kartika and Maarif (2013) reveal why Puspiptek is no effective as STP in
Indonesia.
1. Weakness of position and role of Puspiptek as strategic management partner of
Kemenristekdikti to stakeholders. Puspiptek has vision and mission depended on
Kemenristekdikti to manage S&T area for non-ministry government institutions and other
institutions. This is weakness of Puspiptek because strategic role as manager and
regulator of STP does not function optimally.
2. There is no one stop database integrated system for stakeholders at Puspiptek area. Data
of research and innovation, the number and field of involved experts, and completely
existing infrastructures are not well documented at Puspiptek management.
3. There is no monitoring, evaluating, and strategic plan development at both short and long
term based on recent business process at Puspiptek area.
4. Ego-sectoral of each R&D institution in Puspiptek is very dominant. Each R&D
institution and Kemenristekdikti run their activitesy according to pattern of their funding,
programs, strategic plan, and leadership style respectively. Conceptually, coordination
each actors in supporting STP is a must, but case of Puspiptek, coordination among
existing actors inside does not ensue.

b. STP Project in Joko Widodo Era (2014 year up to now)

Government of Indonesias priority agenda in 2014-2019 period is Nawa Cita 2014-
2019. One of nine programs at Nawa Cita is S&T development around Indonesia. Since Joko
widodo has been as President of Republic of Indonesia in 2014, one of his main breakthrough
programs at S&T field is growing 100 units of science and technology (STP), Science Park
(SP), and Techno Park (TP) around Indonesia in his leadership era. Therefore, Agency for
National Development Planning (Bappenas) plans and formulates STP projects in several
local areas for five years (2014-2019). This plan is documented in National Development
Plan at Short-Middle Period (RPJMN) 2014-2019.
According to RPJMN 2014-2019 cited by Soenarso (2015), Government of Indonesia
has distinct STP concept and goals as follows:
I. Development of National Science Techno Park (NSTP), directed and serves as :
1) Centre for science development and advanced technologies

11
Cited from Keputusan Menteri Riset dan Teknologi Republik Indonesia Nomor 20/M/Kp/IV/2014 tentang
Masterplan Revitalisasi Pusat Penelitian Ilmu Pengetahuan dan Teknologi dan Pengembangan Indonesia
Science Park and Technology Park (I-STP).(In Indonesian).
12
In Indonesia, each government institution including R&D institution has special funding, special strategic
plan, inlinear activity agenda, specific goal, and different interest which are separated from another government
instutitons. Consequently, coordination among government R&D institutions is completedly difficult to happen
in Indonesia (at national level).
12
 2) Centre for advanced technologies in the field of new entrepreneurial development
3) Center for advanced technology services to business and industry

II. Development of Science Park (SP) in every province directed and serves as:
1) Providers of knowledge of the latest technology to the community;
2) Provider of technology solutions that are not resolved in the techno park;
3) Advanced technology application development center for the local economy.

III.Development of Techno Park (TP) in regency/city, directed and serves as :

1) Centre for application of technology to stimulate the economy in regency/city;
2) Training facilities, apprenticeship, technology dissemination center, and business
advocacy center to the public at large;

Institutionally, STP, SP, and TP can be described as follows (Soenarso, 2015):

Development of NSTP :
1.Revitalization of research area towards advanced and modern N STP
2.Developing new NSTP in excellent sectors
3.Developing a NSTP based on Higher Educations (HE)
Development of Science parks Province :
1.Kemenristek-Dikti develop a Science Park which affiliates to university
2.Other ministries or R&D Institutes develop Science Park which appropriate with its
competency
Development of Techno Parks Regency/City: through ministry and R&D Institute
competencies and affiliate with nearest university/polytechnics .
1. Technology application to the community level through the dissemination of technology,
training and apprenticeship by universities / R&D institutes.
2. Community introduced by the application of technology to aid the production process to
improve competitiveness.
3. The role of universities / R&D institutes for assistance, training and technical consulting
4. The role and support of the local government in terms of providing of infrastructure and
facilities.
5. Triple Helix concept introduced.

President
Director Teams:
13
Minister of National Development Planning
(Bappenas)
Coordinator Minister for Economy Affairs
(Menko Perekonomian)
Coordinator Minister for Maritime (Menko
Maritime)
STP Programs Coordinator Minister for Human and
Culture Development (Menko PMK)
Figure 3. Establishment of Science-Techno Park Toward Competitive Nation
Source: Deputy of Economy Ministry for National Development Planning (2015)

In linear with definition of STP written in RPJMN 2014-2019, Ministry of Research,

Technology, and Higher Education (Kemenristekdikti) is main player in establishing,
growing and developing STP in Indonesia. Based on Kemenristekdiktis strategic plan in
2015-2019 period, it is mentioned about agenda to build 100 STP around Indonesia
comprising N-STPat national level; SP at province level; and TP at regency/municipality
level. In this case, the direction of policy and strategy in developing STP projects as follows:
1. Development of National Science and Technology Park (N-STP) is directed to function:
a) centre for developing advanced science and technology; b) centre for fostering new
entrepreneurs at advanced technology field; and c) service centre for advanced
technology to community.
2. Development of Science Park (SP) at province level is directed to function: a) as a recent
knowledge provider conducted by local lecturers of universities, researchers of public
R&D institutions, and technology experts to be marketable products; b) as a solution
provider at technology field which is not unresolved at TP level; c) centre for developing
continued technology application for local economy.
3. Development of Techno Park (TP) at regency/municipality level is directed to function: :
a) centre for applied technology at various fields like agriculture, livestock, fishery and its
processing results, manufacture industry, creative economy, and other services which has
been studied and appraised by R&D institutions, private agencies, government,
universities to be applied at economy scale; and b) as space provider for training,
apprenticeship, technology dissemination centre, and business advocation centre to wide
community.

14
 Kemenristekdikti has also more detailed policy to achieve target which is legally
documented on Kemenristekdiktis strategic agenda:

1. Development of N-STP will be implemented through four schemes namely: a) whole

revitalization of Puspiptek-Serpong area; b) revitalisation of BPPTs technology
incubator in Puspiptek-Serpong; c) revitalisation of Cibinong Science Centre (CSC)
Indonesian Institute of Sciences (LIPI) and establishment of innovation centre located
in CSC; d) development of maritime technology innovation centre in Penajam
Regency (East Kalimantan Province), as well as development of N-STP in many
universities around Indonesia.
2. Development of SP at province level will be implemented by: a) Kemenristekdikti in
affiliation with universities in developing SP; and b) ministries/public institutions
concerning with SP which has been built in accordance with existence of its
competency.
(Strategic Plan of Kemenristekdikti at 2015-2019 Period)

Ministry of Industry (Kemenperin) defines techno park as institution functioning at

innovation, R&D activities, empowering and mentoring to new entrepreneurs at telematics
sector 13.
President of Republic
of Indonesia

Agency for National Coordinating Ministry of

Development Planning Economy Affairs
(Bappenas) (Kemenko Perekonomian)

Other ministries Other non Ministry of Research, Ministry of

ministry Technology, and Industry
government Higher Education (Kemenperin)
institutions (Kemenristekdikti)

National STI National

Policy industrial Policy

National development projects at STI and industry field

STP projects

Figure 4. Institution in framework of science-technology-innovation (STI) policy and

industrial policy
Source: Analysis result (2016)
Notes: : Hierarchy structure line
: Coordination line

13
Working paper of Directorate for Electronics and Telematics Industry General Directorate for Steel-
Machinery-Transportation Means and Electronics Industry Ministry of Industry (2016).
15
 Practically until 2016, Government of Indonesia reduces the number of STP from 100
units to 22 units. Each selected ministry/non-ministry institution has STP project attached in
its annual strategic plan (Table 3).

Table 3. Strategic Plan of STP Project at Each Ministry/Non-Ministry Institution

No. Ministry Legality Evaluation by Description
or non- ministry or non-
ministry ministry institution
institution Targete Continued
d STP STP
project project
1 Indonesian B- 1 STP 1 STP STP of Cibinong. It is potentially predicted to
Institute of 2141/SU/ 7 TP 1 TP grow as similar as STP in South Korea and
Sciences KS/III/20 China
(LIPI) 16 TP of Banyumulek in West Nusa Tenggara
(issued in Province. It is potential to grow as the most
10 March completed techno park in the end of 2019 due to
2016) support of local government.
2 National B- 1 NSTP 1 NSTP NSTP at nuclear area of Pasar-Jumat region is
Nuclear 2529/BA 3 TP 3 ATP focused as center of excellence (scientific
Energy TAN/SU laboratory) through institution reinforcement in
Agency of /KS00/03 utilising science and technology at nuclear field,
Indonesia /2016 particularly at agriculture field.
(BATAN) (issued in ATP at Regency of Musi Rawas (South
10 March Sumatera Province): increase of local rice seed
2016) variety.
ATP at Regency of Klaten (Central Java
Province): increase of local rice seed variety.
ATP at Regency of Polewali Mandar, West
Sulawesi: increase of local rice seed variety.

The budget for 1 NSTP and 3 ATP is accounted for

IDR 155 billion in period 2016-2018.
3 Agency for 63/SETA 1 NSTP 1 NSTP NSTP-BPPT Puspiptek-Serpong
Assessmen MA/BPP 8 TP 5 TP TP at Regency of Pelalawan (Riau Province):
t and T/03/201 Development of palm oil industry
Applicatio 6 (issued TP at Regency of Pekalongan (Central Java
n of in 10 Province): Development of fishery
Technolog March TP at Regency of Bantaeng (South Sulawesi
y (BPPT) 2016) Province): Centre for seed provider at east
Indoneasia area
TP at Regency of Central Lampung (Lampung
Province): Applied technology of local products
(rice, cassava, cattle)
Baron TP at Regency of Gunung Kidul
(Yogyakarta Province): Technology edu-
tourism
Three other areas namely: Municipality of
Cimahi; Regency of Grobogan, and Regency of
Penajem Paser Utara, they are not continued as
STP, but it will be continued as centre for
science and technology dissemination.
4 Ministry of 151/ILM 5 STP 5 STP Bandung Techno Park at Bandung city (West
Industry ATE/3/2 Java Province): R&D development (allocated
(Kemenper 016 budget by IDR 120 billion) (5 hectare area to
in) (Issued be built)
in 14 Tohpati Centre at Denpasar city (Bali
March Province): Centre for creating animation &
16
 2016) games; incubator centre; centre for training and
education; centre for certification and
competency test; centre for telematics tourism
(wide area by 1,2 hectare)
IBC at Semarang city (Central Java Province):
incubator creation and telematics innovation
(wide area by 550 m2)
Centre for development of mobile phone design
at Batam city (Riau Islands Province):
Development of R&D for mobile phone design
and increase of human resource competency at
animation field (especially for application
mobile development) (allocated budget IDR 80
billion).
RICE Makassar at Makassar city (South
Sulawesi Province): Centre for developing
telematics industry
5 Ministry of 32/M/III/ 7 STP 4 STP Solo Techno Park at Surakarta city (Central
Research,T 2016 Java Province)
echnology, (issued in Marine Science Techno Park at Regency of
and Higher 17 March Jepara (Central Java Province)
Education 2016) Palembang Techno Park at Palembang city
(Kemenrist (South Sumatera Province)
ekdikti) Riau Techno Park (Riau Province)
Other STP will be sustainably developed by
reinforcing an existing potential.
6 Ministry of B.220/B 24 TP - In 2015 KKP has built 4 TP units in Tegal,
Marine PSDMK Banyuwangi, Aertembaga/Bitung, and Ambon.
Affairs and PKP/TU. In this case, this project is limited to prepare
Fishery 150/III/2 facilities of workshop and training activities.
(KKP) 016 KKP will not continue STP projects. If there is
(issued in a request to develop STP, KKP will continue
24 March techno park (TP) development of salt comodity
2016) in Brebes Regency (Central Java Province).
7 Ministry of 45/LB.01 43 STP 1 STP Development of STP is located in Regency of
Agriculture 0/M/3/20 Subang (West Java Province) by wide area 300
(Kementan 16 hectare: Integrated excellence technology for
) (issued in bioindustry.
28 March Other 42 STP/TP will be developed as centre
2016) for disseminating agriculture technology to
support regional growth economy.
Total 100 STP 22 STP
Source: Minister for National Development Planning / Head of Bappenas, Presented to the National Policy
Coordination Meeting About Science Techno Park in Jakarta , February 6, 2015.

c. Recent Industrial Policy Concerning with STP Project

In Indonesia, the most authorized government institution dealing with firms (industry
sector) is held by Ministry of industry (Kemenperin). All regulations of industry (national and
foreign industry) are issued by Kemenperin. In case of investment, Kemenperin collaborates
with National Investment Coordinating Board (BKPM) to regulate investment policy in
Indonesia. Specifically, Kemenperin has many policies related to national industry
development in Indonesia, starting from agriculture machines industry, tranportation and
automotive industry; manufacture industry; steel industry, small and medium industry,
electricity and telecommunication/telematics industry, computer industry, and so on.
Kemenperin focuses on development of telematics industry as part of STP project in
Indonesia. Telematics industry is developed through STP concept in which involvement of
17
R&D activities is very essential. In Indonesia, telematics industry needs to be supported from
creation of new ideas and R&D activities. Based on document of national industry policy
mentions explicitly that telematics industry is one of national development pillars. It has been
noted on long-medium term action plan during 2014-2019 in which telematics industry
roadmap comprises development of technopark at information technology (IT) field.
IT industry and its communities need a geographic proximity/closed environment to
mediate various interests among businessman, academician/scientists in developing IT
products and services. It is aimed to accelerate capability of telematics businessman and its
communities. More specific, Kemenperin defines techno park as joint activity which is based
on optimalisation of research results in which the research and development (R&D) activities
are together conducted among academician, businessman/entrepreneurs, government
agencies, and communities. The main goal is to encourage new entrepreneurs at telematics
sector and to grow capable human resources on telematics sector 14. Therefore, Kemenperin
has several programs to grow telematics industry through STP concept in Indonesia (Table 4).

Table 4. Kemenperins Techno Park at Telematics Field

No. Name of Techno Location Partner of Focus
Park university
1 Tohpati Centre Denpasar city Udayana Animation and games based on local content.
(Bali University at It is aimed to enlarge local and national
Province) Denpasar city market in which Bali is very popular abroad
2 Bandung Techno Bandung city Telkom Telecommunication design centre and
Park (BTP) (West Java University at technology innovation centre in developing
Province) Bandung city hardware and software which is supported
through collaboration with universities and
businessman/industry.
3 Creation of incubator Semarang Sultan Agung Business incubator for mentoring and
and Telematics city (Central University at developing creative enterprises at
Innovation of Java Semarang city information communication technology
Semarang (IKITAS) Province) (ICT) sector in supporting growth of infant
entrepreneurs to be real entrepreneurs
4 Development of Batam city
State To create supporting ecosystem on existing
laboratory for testing (Riau IslandsPolytechnic of mobile phone industry
mobile phone Province) Batam at Batam
city
5 Regional centre of Makassar city Sultan To grow and disseminate telematics potential
Excellence (RICE) (South Hasanuddin in East Indonesia area
Makassar Sulawesi University at
Province) Makassar city
Source: Directorate for Electronics and Telematics Industry General Directorate for Steel-Machinery-
Transportation Means and Electronics Industry Ministry of Industry (2016).

Output programs of TP at telematics field

1. Materializing local industry ecosystem at telematics field from upstream to
downstream industry. it can be built starting from R&D activities at university and
R&D institutes to be implementable products (industry as end user).
2. Realizing mentoring and empowering in telematics industry and its community
through forming agile human resources at telematics field as well as utilisation of
telematics for human wellbeing.
3. Developing sustainable R&D activities and innovative products at telematics field.
14
Working paper of Directorate for Electronics and Telematics Industry General Directorate for Steel-
Machinery-Transportation Means and Electronics Industry Ministry of Industry (2016).
18
 4. Fostering, mentoring, and developing telematics industry and its community.
5. Creating intense cooperation with large industry (firms) at both national and
international level in improving potency of telematics industry to be host in Indonesia.

Recent industrial policies to support TP at telematics field

1. Facilitating to grow and develop new start-up companies at telematics sector. Training
and incubating are two activities consistently focused on new players to be new
entrepreneurs at telematics field.
2. Providing technical tools like server, render farm, motion capture, computer, printer,
and other office tools.
3. Facilitating business meeting at international level (Malaysia, South Korea, Taiwan,
internship program at telematic sector abroad (South Korea), Incre Festival.
4. Facilitating promotion to invest telematics sector both at domestic and abroad level
(Communic ASIA since 2005 year and CeBIT since 2012 year).
5. In specific area, Kemenperin has facilitated and developed many IT centres like at
Tohpati centre located in Denpasar city (Bali Province) and Bandung Techno Park
(BTP) located in Bandung city (West Java Province) as described on Table 4 above.

d. Connectivity between STP with Industrial Policy in Indonesia: Does it Happen ?

Mani (2002) mentions that each developing country merely imitates and adopts
existing technology from overseas. Case of Indonesia, many local electronics and automotive
corporations are as an imitator and assembler of foreign technology. To increase their
technology capacity, they interact directly to foreign corporation (multi national corporations)
as working partner (Rianto et al., 2009).
In Indonesia, development of STP is categorized into three ways; 1) N-STP at
national level, SP at provincial level, and TP at municipality/regency level. Clearly that
function of TP at municipality/regency is as technology bussines incubator. This incubator
provides production house, promises excellence services for investors/entrepreneurs, and
supports closely interwined relationship among local universities, research centres, and
financial institutions as well (Deputy of Economy Ministry for National Development
Planning, 2015).
STP project is mainly aimed to reduce dependence of foreign technology, or
Indonesia must be self-reliance in creating and growing new technology produced at
domestic area. Since 100 STP projects was announced by Government of Indonesia in 2014,
really it is only planned as many as 22 STP projects around Indonesia in 2016. Some
ministries and non-ministry government institutions are assigned to implement STP projects
in several areas.
Reduction of STP number is caused limitation on many aspects such as funding, time,
infrastructures, and urge of need at each ministry or non-ministry government institution.
Besides, downgrade of 22 STP projects is also influenced by internal program of each
ministry/non ministry institution. At common, several STP projects are shifted and changed
to be centre of S&T dissemination, centre for S&T excellence, or centre for training and
education by which those centres are not classified into STP concept.
Conceptually, S&T and industrial policy must be materialized in a STP project. It
means that if each government institution runs STP project, both concurrent policies are
present in an exact time and right place/object. For 2014-2016 period, STP project is sectoral
domain of each ministry/non-ministry government institution. Even at document stage,
connectivity between S&T policy issued by Ministry of Research, Technology, and Higher
19
Education (Kemenristekdikti) and industrial policy issued by Ministry of Industry
(Kemenperin) is still questionable. STP project is prone to be exclusivity project of each
institution, there is no joint cooperation between both policies in implementing STP project
around Indonesia.
There are determinant factors why connectivity between S&T policy and industrial
policy is ineffective at practice as follows:
Weak coordination among related actors to develop STP
In Indonesia, coordination among actors (government agencies, private/business
sectors, academician, community) is classical problem. Related to development for
national STI policy, coordination of each actor is hindered by vested-interests and
hierarchy structure embedded in each ministry, non-ministry government institution,
private sectors, R&D institution, and other involved institutions. Eventhough
coordinator institution of STI policy 15 is created, but this problem is still unresolved
until now. Study of Triyono (2014) mentions that coordination on each actor
concerning with STI policy in Indonesia is hampered due to weak coordination among
ministry of research and technology 16 , R&D institutions, and private sector. It is
caused by which each of them has separated programs in developing STI field. Even,
each institution wants to emerge internal programs in order to attract attention of
public and other stakeholders.
As part of STI policy, STP is totally influenced by STI policy patttern and actors who
run this policy. Establishment of 22 STP projects around Indonesia should not be
targeted in limited time during Joko Widodo as a President of Indonesia (2014-2019
period). As a new mergered ministry, Kemenristekdikti 17 is internally evolving to be
stable institution. In doing STP projects, this ministry is composed by new staffs with
different background and capability. It is big homework to connect industrial policy
issued by Kemenperin to support STP which is also conducted by Kemenristekdikti.

To connect of cross-ministry policies is more difficult than policy of one ministry.

Eventhough, Kemenristekdikti and Kemenperin are technically coordinated by Ministry for
Coordinationg Economy Affairs (Kemenko Perekonomian), but their performance is difficult
to be united and sustained together. Whatever policies are issued by them must be based on
medium-long term development plan document (RPJMN) 2015-2019 issued by Agency for
National Development Planning (Bappenas). STP program is formally included in RPJMN
which must be implemenetd by technical ministry and non-ministry government institution in
Indonesia. Unfortunately, Bappenas is only government agency for formulating and planning
national policies in Indonesia 18.

15
STI policy is coordinated by Ministry of Research, Technology, and Higher Education (Kemenristekdikti).
16
This research was conducted and funded by Government of Indonesias budget in 2011 year. At this time,
name of Ministry of Research and Technology (Kemenristek) was still used. In 2014 year (President of Joko
Widodo), its name has been changed to Ministry of Research, Technology, and Higher Education
(Kemenristekdikti) until now. More detailed see http://www.pubinfo.id/instansi-245-kemenristekdikti-ri--
kementerian-riset-teknologi-dan-pendidikan-tinggi-republik-indonesia.html (In Indonesian).
17
In Joko Widodo period, Kemenristekdikti is fusion between two different existing institutions before, namely
Ministry of Research and Technology (Kemenristek) and General Directorate of Higher Education at Ministry
of National Education (Dirjen Pendidikan Tinggi di Kemendiknas).
18
In New Order Era (1965-1998), Bappenas had two concurrent functions namely as a policy formulator/planner
and a policy implementator as well. But in reformation era (1998 until now), role of Bappenas has been limited
only one function namely formulator or planner of policies in Indonesia. More detailed, see Asmaras study
(2014), Implementasi Program-program RPJMN Bidang Iptek Tahun 2010-2014 Rentang Waktu 2010-2011,
pages: 131-184, in Tata Kelola Sistem Inovasi Nasional, Jakarta: LIPI Press. (In Indonesian).
20
 Bappenas plans agenda of STP and its output at general. Technically, each involved
ministry or non-ministry government institution determines what main STP goal is. STP is
widely developed through interest and specific field of institution, for example: Ministry of
Agriculture (Kementan) develops agriculture-based STP; National Nuclear Energy Agency of
Indonesia (BATAN) develops nuclear-based STP; Indonesian Institute of Sciences (LIPI)
develops scientific-based STP and so on. Uniquely, Kemenristekdikti focusing on STI policy
and Kemenperin focusing on industrial policy also develop STP at its ministry level.
Unfortunately, both ministries are not well connected each other in developing STP, even STI
and industrial policy issued by them are not directly pertained to STP projects initiated by
Kementan, BATAN, LIPI, and other institutions.

Rigid pattern of funding scheme at R&D and industry field

R&D funding is classical problem in managing R&D activities in Indonesia.
Governmental budget for R&D activities is achieved by 0,09% of gross domestic bruto
(GDB) from 1 % of GDB targeted before 19 (Pappiptek LIPI, 2014). Again, unresolved
problem in developing STI policy is rigidity of R&D funding scheme from governmental
budget. Many studies about rigidity of R&D funding scheme reveal that governmental
funding scheme is difficult to be flexible in case of spending R&D activities in Indonesia
(Ariana et al., 2014; Mulyanto, 2014; Brodjonegoro and Greene, 2014). R&D funding
problem is totally related to STI policy implementation. Often, STI policy failures to be
implemented when funding scheme is not accordance with real condition at practice. Case in
Indonesia, R&D funding is available in the large number, but it cannot be spent due to
rigidity of governmental R&D funding scheme.
For example, Government of Indonesia allocates R&D budget at national level
dispersed to several ministries and non-ministry government institutions at R&D field.
Pattern of R&D funding is the same with general funding in government institutions at non-
R&D field. In other word, Government of Indonesia does not differ about how R&D
institutions manage R&D funding scheme comprising how they increase R&D-based income
and spend R&D budget. Many regulations pertain to R&D activities including general
taxation and customs laws.
In an industrial sector, funding is one of serious factors causing assistance of
Kemenperin such as infrastructures and production machines at the wrong place. In other
meaning, rigid funding procedure and late funding scheme often compound industrial policy
in practice. Classical funding problem at technical ministry such as Kemenperin is time
imprecision when funding is needed to be implemented as soon as possible. Industrial policy
and its supporting activities are often hampered or late due to rigidity pattern and limitation
of available funding.
For example, Kemenperin has planned several programs to support domestic firms
and also small-medium enterprises (SMEs) through assistance of machines, technical tools,
building/infrastructures, and others. Often, Kemenperins assistance is not accordance with
need of assistance receivers at field (real condition). Consequently, many tools, machines,
infrastructures are not used (useless) by receivers. It is influenced of not only internal funding

19
R&D spending in Indonesia is far lower compared to Organisation for Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD) accounted by at least 2% at average. Cited from Law of Ministry of Research, Technology,
and Higher Education Number 13 Year 2015 about Strategic Plan of Ministry of Research, Technology, and
Higher Education in 2015-2019 period. (in Indonesian)

21
scheme at Kemenperin, but also of external laws influencing funding spending scheme at
Kemenperin.
In STP context, connection between STI and industrial policy is more less influenced
by laws as follows:
a. Government of Indonesia Law (Peraturan Pemerintah) No. 35 Year 2007 about
Allocation of Corporation Income in part. (In Indonesian). In this regulation is
related to taxation and customs law.
b. Government of Indonesia Law No. 93 Year 2010 about Contribution in
Overcoming National Disaster, Contribution to Research and Development
Activities, Contribution to Education Facility, Contribution to Sport
Empowerment, Spending for Building Social Infrastructure Withdrawn from
Gross Income.(In Indonesian).
c. Law of PMK 231/KMK.03/2001 s.t.d.d. PMK 70/PMK.011/2013 about third
change on decision of Ministry of Finance Number 231/KMK.03/2001 about
Added Value Tax and Sales Tax of Luxurious Commodity on Imported
Commodity which is Excluded from Import Duty.(In Indonesian).
d. Law of KMK 143/KMK.05/1997 s.t.d.d. PMK 51/PMK.04/2007 about second
change on decision of Ministry of Finance Number 143/KMK.05/1997 about
Exclusion Import Duty and Customs on Import Goods for Research and
Development of Science and Technology. .(In Indonesian).
e. Law of PMK 103/PMK.04/2007 about Exclusion of Import Duty on Imported
Books of Science and Technology. .(In Indonesian).

Government of Indonesia has many general and specific laws related to STI and
industrial policies Unfortunately, taxation incentives and customs as described above are not
implemented by business (industry) sector. According to them, this incentive is not attracting
at business sector. National Act Number 18 Year 2002 about National System for Research,
Development, and Application of Science and Technology20 is not significantly appearing to
reinforce R&D investment. Besides, innovation culture has not grown yet in society (Law of
Ministry of Research, Technology, an Higher Education Number 13 Year 2015 about
Strategic Plan of Ministry of Research, Technology, an Higher Education in 2015-2019
period).
In industrial law, National Act Number 3 Year 2014 about Industry, it also comprises
R&D activities at industry sector (including procurement and utilisation of technology) as
well as linkage among R&D institutions/universities, and business sectors. In practice, this
law is difficult to be implemented by firms due to business interest reason. For them,
developing technology in internal firm is loss for production at short term. Domestic firms
prefer to buy foreign technology or hire foreign experts to work in their firms.
Connection between National Act Number 18 Year 2002 and National Act Number 3
Year 2014 is still questionable. Eventhough, policy at document stage is ready, but it is very
different context at implementation stage. Government of Indonesia still faces obstacles to
fund STI policy and industrial policy (STP projects) around Indonesia because classical
funding problem can not be tackled through two national acts mentioned above. This means
that firms run production activities by themselves, R&D institutions do R&D activities by
themselves, and policy makers (government) issue inappropriate policies to firm and R&D
institutions. In nutshell, each of institutions supporting STP run separately.The result, STP is

20
This act is being revised by house of respresentatives (DPR) and executive (related ministry and non-ministry
government institutions).
22
owned by each institution funding STP project exclusively, not owned by Indonesia in
context of nation.

Unreadiness of human resources in handling STP projects, mainly at local area

Issue of S&T human resources is still debatable discussion. in one hand, several
communities deem that S&T human resources in handiling STP is not enough ready in this
moment, but in another hand, several communities think that S&T human resources is totally
ready in handiling STP in this moment and future.
For the first communities 21, they tends to see that S&T human resources especially at
local region are not capable in the scientific field. For Science Park (SP) at province level and
Techno Park (TP) at municipality/regency level, the number of researcher/scientist is very
limited, even their capability is various and not focused at specific academic field. For those
concerning enterprises either large corporations or SMEs, connection to R&D institution
and/or universities is not interwined. Contribution of S&T human resources is very weak to
enterprises at local region. And the last, officials and staffs at local government are more
concerned to administrative routines, not to S&T and innovation affairs. Even, rarely does
each local government has R&D institutions/agency on the government structure internally.
For the second communities, readiness of S&T human resources in handling STP
projects particularly at national level, and some SP and TP at provincial and
municipality/regency level. At national level (STP), presence of R&D institutions,
universities is more advanced than at local area. In addition, staffs at central government are
divided into administrative affairs and R&D affairs (researchers, planner, assesor). Central
government through ministries 22 and non-ministry government institutions strongly support
R&D activities and linkage between R&D institutions, universities and enterprises (large
enterprises, multi national corporations, and SMEs). Even, central government can fund STP
projects starting at national level until provincial and municipality/regency level. Factually,
SP and TP built in some municipality and regency areas around Indonesia are initiated,
funded, and operated by central government agencies like Kemenperin, BATAN, LIPI,
Kementan, Kemenristekdikti, and so on.

5. CONCLUSION

Science Techno Park (STP) is yielded through intervention of two policies namely
science-technology-innovation (STI) policy and industrial policy. Conceptually, strong
connection and cooperation are closely interwined among related actors: R&D
institutions/universities, government (ministry or non-ministry), and business sector (firms).
They are wholly connected in a particular area funded and facilitated by government. Case of
Indonesia, first STP was established in 1976 and named as Centre for Science and
Technology Research (Puspiptek) located in Serpong district, South Tangerang city. It is
aimed not only to conduct R&D activities, but also to train science and technology (S&T)
human resources, to incubate R&D results, to provide technical services, to boost R&D-based
industry in Indonesia especially.
Since Joko Widodo officially leads Indonesia starting 2014 year, Government of
Indonesia has announced that Indonesia needs 100 STP projects around Indonesia by which
they are divided into National Science Techno Park (N-STP or STP) at national level,

21
See http://itechmagz.com/2013/09/20/mutlak-penguatan-sdm-iptek-daerah (In Indonesian).
22
At central government, ministry has special unit in dealing with R&D institutions. For example R&D
institution at Ministry of Industry (Balitbang Kemenperin); R&D institution at Ministry of Agriculture
(Balitbang Kementan), and so on.
23
Science Park (SP) at Provincial level, and Techno Park (TP) at municipality/regency level.
Practically, growing 100 STP projects is not easy. In 2016, several ministries and non-
ministries government institutions involved on STP projects reduce the number of STP from
100 units to 22 units. The main reason is that STP is integrated program involving many
policies and interests, so that it needs much money, long time, and various actors.
As the oldest STP at national level, Puspiptek for example, is still facing classical
problems such as weak coordination due to ego-sectoral of each R&D institution and
unclearity of goal at practice due to various interests and programs embeded at each R&D
institution. Related to ambitious goal of Government of Indonesia to grow 22 STP projects
with existing classical problems (weak coordination, rigid R&D funding scheme, and lack of
capable human resources in S&T fields especially at local area is being faced until now. It
needs strategic plans and many efforts to realize this project. In other word, it is not ample to
accomplish 22 STP projects during four- five years.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This research is funded by Centre for Science and Technology Development Studies
(Pappiptek) Indonesian Institute of Sciences (LIPI) through governmental research budget
of 2016 year.

REFERENCES

Ariana, Lutfah; Trina, Fizzanty; Wati, Hermawati; Dian, Prihadyanti; Nur, Laili; and
Purnama, Alamsyah. 2014. Perilaku Organisasi Litbang dalam Alokasi Anggaran dan
Skenario Kebijakan (Alokasi Angggaran Litbang Pemerintah). Jakarta: LIPI Press. (In
Indonesian).
Asmara, Anugerah Yuka. 2014 .Implementasi Program-program RPJMN Bidang Iptek Tahun
2010-2014 Rentang Waktu 2010-2011, p: 131-184, dalam Tata Kelola Sistem Inovasi
Nasional di Indonesia. Jakarta: LIPI Press. (In Indonesian).
Brodjonegoro, Satryo Soemantri and Greene, Michael P. 2014. Creating an Indonesian
Science Fund. Paper was presented at Forum of Knowledge Initiative Sector (KSI) on
October 6th, 2014 in Jakarta Indonesia.
Bromley, Daniel W. 1989. Economic Interests and Institutions: The Conceptual Foundations
of Public Policy. New York: Basil Blackwell Inc.
Chaminade, Cristina and Edquist, Charles. 2010. Rationale for Public Policy Intervention in
the Innovation Process: Systems of Innovation Approach, in The Theory and Practice
of Innovation Policy; Editor: Smits, Ruud E; Kuhlmann, Stefan; and Shapira, Philips.
Cheltenham-UK: Edward Elgar: 95-114.
Department of Business Innovation and Skills. 2014. Innovation Report 2014: Innovation,
Research, and Growth, pages: 1-55.
Deputy of Economy Ministry for National Development Planning. 2015. Pedoman
Perencanaan Science Park dan Techno Park Tahun 2015-2019. (In Indonesian).
Dikti. 2016. Science Techno Park Dibahas Dalam APEC PPSTI. Accesed from
http://www.dikti.go.id/science-techno-park-dibahas-dalam-apec-ppsti/.(In Indonesian).
Directorate for Electronics and Telematics Industry General Directorate for Steel-
Machinery-Transportation Means and Electronics Industry Ministry of Industry. 2016.
Pages: 1-6.

24
Dodgson, Mark. 2000. Policies for Science, Technology, and Innovation in Asian Newly
Industrializing Economies, pages: 229-268; in Technology, Learning, & Innovation.
Editor: Linsu Kim & Richard R. Nelson. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.
Etzkowitz, Henry. 2011. Silicon Valley: The Sustainability of an Innovative Region. Earlier
versions were presented as Keynote Address to the First Science City Conference, York,
U.K. 2005 to the conference on Cluster Policies at the Institute for Entrepreneurship.
Audencia Nantes School of Management. Nantes. Frances. Oct. 2009 and the
Commercialising University Research Workshop, University of London Birkbeck,
Centre for Innovation, 23-24 Oct. 2011.pages: 1-25.
Itech. 2013. Mutlak Penguatan SDM Iptek Daerah. Accesed
from http://itechmagz.com/2013/09/20/mutlak-penguatan-sdm-iptek-daerah/. (In
Indonesian).
Kamoto, Judith; Clarkson, Graham; Dorward, Peter; Shepherd, Derek. 2013. Doing more
harm than good? Community based natural resource management and the neglect of
local institutions in policy development. Land Use Policy, Volume 35, November 2013,
Pages 293-301.
Kartika, Lindawati and Maarif, M. Syamsul. 2013. Desain Manajemen Perubahan Dalam
Pengembangan Indonesia-Science Techno Park (I-STP) Menunjang Pembangunan
Ekonomi Indonesia. Agrimedia Vol 18 (2): 11-13. (In Indonesian).
Kementerian Perindustrian. 2015. Buku Profil Inkubator Bisnis TOHPATI. Balai Diklat
Industri Denpasar. Edisi Kedua. (In Indonesian).
Keputusan Menteri Riset dan Teknologi Republik Indonesia Nomor 20/M/Kp/IV/2014
tentang Masterplan Revitalisasi Pusat Penelitian Ilmu Pengetahuan dan Teknologi dan
Pengembangan Indonesia Science Park and Technology Park (I-STP).(In Indonesian).
Kihlgren, Alessandro. 2003. Promotion of Innovation Activity in Russia through The
Creation of Science Parks: The Case of St. Petersburg (19921998). Technovation
23 :6576.
Kim, Linsu and Neslon, Richard R. 2000. Introduction, pages: 1-9, In Technology, Learning,
and Innovation: Edited by Linsu Kim and Richard R. Nelson. Cambridge-UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Kim, Linsu. 2000. Koreas National Innovation System in Transition; in Technology,
Learning, & Innovation. Editor: Linsu Kim & Richard R. Nelson. Cambridge UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Law of Ministry of Research, Technology, and Higher Education Number 13 Year 2015
about Strategic Plan of Ministry of Research, Technology, and Higher Education at
2015-2019 Period (In Indonesian).
Lee, Kong Rae. 2000.Technological Learning and Entries of User Firms for Capital Goods in
Korea, pages: 170-192; In Technology, Learning, and Innovation: Edited by Linsu Kim
and Richard R. Nelson. Cambridge-UK: cambridge University Press.
Lee, Won-Young. 2000. The Role of Science and Technology Policy in Koreas Industrial
Development, pages: 269-303, ; In Technology, Learning, and Innovation: Edited by
Linsu Kim and Richard R. Nelson. Cambridge-UK: Cambridge University Press.
Majchrzak, Ann. 1984. Methods for Policy Research: Applied Social Research Methods
Series Volume 3. London-UK: Sage Publications.
Mani, Sunil. 2002. Government, Innovation, and Technology Policy: An International
Comparative Analysis. Cheltenham-UK: Edward Elgar.
Minister for National Development Planning / Head of Bappenas, Presented to the National
Policy Coordination Meeting about Science Techno Park in Jakarta , February 6, 2015.
(In Indonesian).
25
Mulyanto. 2014. Performance of Indonesian R&D institutions: Influence of type of
institutions and their funding source on R&D productivity. Technology in Society,
Volume 38, August 2014, Pages 148-160.
National Development Plan for Short-Middle term Period (RPJMN) 2014-2019. (In
Indonesian).
National Gographic. 2015. Pemerintah Akan Bangun 100 Science Techno Park di 100 Desa
Indonesia. Diakses dari http://nationalgeographic.co.id/berita/2015/03/pemerintah-
akan-bangun-100-science-techno-park-di-100-desa-indonesia (In Indonesian).
North, Douglass C. 1990. Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance.
Cambridge-UK: Cambridge Universit Press.
Nugroho, Riant. 2014. Metode Penelitian Kebijakan. Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar. (In
Indonesian).
Ooms, Ward; Werker, Claudia; Marjolein, C.J.Canils;, Herman, van den Bosch. 2015.
Research orientation and agglomeration: Can every region become a Silicon Valley?
Technovation 45-46: 7892.
Pappiptek-LIPI. 2014. Indicator of National Science and Technology in Indonesia. Jakarta:
Pusat Penelitian Perkembangan Ilmu Pengetahuan dan Teknologi (Pappiptek)
Lembaga Ilmu Pengetahuan Indonesia (LIPI). (In Indonesian).
Porter, Michael. 1990. The Competitive advantage of Nations.London-UK: Macmillan Press
LTD.
Puspiptek. 2016. Profil Kawasan Pusat Penelitian Ilmu Pengetahuan dan Teknologi. Accesed
from http://puspiptek.ristekdikti.go.id/?page_id=112.(In Indonesian)
Rianto, Yan; Chichi, Shintia Laksani; Dian, Prihadyanti. 2009. Pembelajaran Teknologi Di
Perusahaan Manufaktur Indonesia: Kajian Interaksi Antara MNC dengan Perusahaan
Lokal. Jakarta: LIPI Press. (In Indonesian).
Ristekdikti. Kementerian Riset, Teknologi, dan Pendidikan Tinggi
(Kemenristekdikti) http://www.pubinfo.id/instansi-245-kemenristekdikti-ri--
kementerian-riset-teknologi-dan-pendidikan-tinggi-republik-indonesia.html. (In
Indonesian).
Setyodarmodjo, Soenarko. 2005. Public Policy: Pengertian Pokok Untuk Memahami dan
Analisa Kebijaksanaan Pemerintah. Surabaya: Airlangga University Press. (In
Indonesian).
Soenarso, Wisnu Sardjono. 2015. Science and Techno Park: Supporting Regional Economic
Development, Synergy Academics, Business and Local Government. Accesed
from www.britishcouncil.id/sites/default/files/parallel_b_-
_wisnu_sardjono_ristek.pdf+&cd=12&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=id. (In Indonesian).
Soenarso, Wisnu Sardjono. No year. Pengembangan Science Park and Technology Park di
Indonesia. Accessed
from www.opi.lipi.go.id/data/1228964432/data/13086710321320826500.makalah.pdf+
&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=id (In Indonesian)
Triyono, Budi. Pengaturan Kelembagaan (Institutional Setting) dan Koordinasi Antar Aktor
Sistem Inovasi Nasional di Indonesia, pages: 41-72, dalam Tata Kelola Sistem Inovasi
Nasional di Indonesia. Jakarta: LIPI Press. (In Indonesian).
Vsquez-Urriago, ngela Roco; Andrs, Barge-Gilb, Aurelia, Modrego Rico. 2016. Science
and Technology Parks and cooperation for innovation:Empirical evidence from Spain.
Research Policy 45: 137147.
Wikipedia. Indonesian Aerospaces. Accesed
from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesian_Aerospace.

26
Yin, Robert K. 2003. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. London-UK: SAGE
Publications.

27