Social Innovations and Fourth-Generation Science and Technology Parks: An Analysis from the Global South

Over the past decade, Latin American academics and policymakers have promoted initiatives that critically foster relationships between universities, research institutes, and their surroundings, challenging the traditional linear, supply-driven knowledge model. These initiatives aim to develop fourth-generation science and technology parks, characterized by their emphasis on environmental concerns and social inclusion in governance and the design of socio-technical adaptations (DJonlagić Alibegović et al., 2022; Noronha et al., 2023). This paper explores the involvement of social groups and popular movements in technology co-production within two case studies. Despite rhetoric supporting social participation, the paper hypothesizes that such involvement is minimal. Methodologically, this exploratory study uses a multiple case study approach, combining field visits, document analysis, and secondary data. The parks were identified through databases such as National Association of Entities Promoting Innovative Enterprises (Anprotec); The Global Institute on Innovation Districts (GIID); International Association of science parks & areas of innovation (IASP); Inova data BR - a platform for integrating, monitoring and developing Brazil's Technology Parks and their resident companies and organizations. Selection criteria included location in Latin America, a democratic political regime, and university involvement in governance. The analysis of 34 characteristics of fourth-generation parks, based on official documents and websites, narrowed the focus to 88 parks (of 183 existing parks), with 7 aligned with social participation and sustainability goals. From these, two parks were selected: Distritotec (Monterrey, Mexico) and Parque Patricios (Buenos Aires, Argentina). Our initial findings showed societal participation in some instances, such as cultural and artistic initiatives, services like a hub for local producers, and guidance for independent workers. However, there was little social participation in the co-production of socio-technological development.