Attempts by governments to reproduce the Silicon Valley model of innovation-driven regional development — so-called 'Silicon Somewhere' projects — have mostly disappointed. Giest (2017, reissued 2020) proposed that transfer outcomes track the receiving region's mode of learning: imitation (direct copying), trial-and-error (incremental adjustment during implementation), and adaptive learning (anticipatory analysis and pre-implementation redesign), viewed as a continuum whose adaptive end increases the capacity to cope with transfer obstacles. The claim rests on four cases built from secondary documentation (New Jersey, Texas, South Korea, Medicon Valley) and is explicitly inconclusive: the author states directly that the study does not offer a conclusive answer on the connection between the type of learning and the success or failure of transfer, acknowledges that its base of publicly available documentation does not typically provide detailed accounts of learning strategies, and observes that the cases present little evidence of active 'unlearning' of prior institutional routines. The open problem is to adjudicate this learning-mode account on broader comparative evidence across additional industries and governance regimes.

Background

Policy transfer is the use of knowledge about policies, administrative arrangements, institutions, and ideas from one political system in the development of policy in another — a process studied since the 1990s under the labels of lesson-drawing (Rose, 1991) and policy transfer (Dolowitz and Marsh, 1996). A recurring puzzle in this literature is why transferred policies so often fail at their destination. A prominent family of failures is the attempt to replicate the Silicon Valley model (SVM): the innovation ecosystem of research universities, venture finance, low-barrier start-up formation, and dense informal inter-firm networks that produced California's semiconductor and software agglomeration. Because the SVM's apparent success made it globally desirable, many regions sought to copy it — the phenomenon critics call 'Silicon Somewhere' (Hospers, 2006) — and most copies did not generate a self-sustaining high-technology cluster.

Giest (2017, reissued as a 2020 book chapter) analyzed four of these transfers: New Jersey and Texas in the United States, South Korea, and the Danish–Swedish Medicon Valley life-science region. Notably, three of the four cases drew on the same external consultant — Stanford's Frederick Terman, whose export attempts are documented by Leslie and Kargon (1996) — yet the outcomes diverged. Giest's explanation is a three-fold typology of the learning processes in the receiving region: imitation (direct copying with minimal adjustment and little real learning), trial-and-error learning (sequential, experimental modification during implementation), and adaptive learning (anticipatory analysis of fit with local institutional, industrial, and labor-market preconditions, sequencing of structural reforms, and continuous recalibration). These three modes are understood as points on a continuum of learning depth, with movement toward the adaptive end claimed to increase — probabilistically, not deterministically — policymakers' capacity to cope with the obstacles that arise when reproducing a Silicon-Valley-like cluster. In the four cases, imitation-style transfers (New Jersey, Texas) failed to produce integrated clusters, while South Korea's adaptive transfer under a strong developmental state (a government that directly steers industrialization through coordinated bureaucracies and targeted finance) succeeded and Medicon Valley achieved partial, constrained success.

Giest explicitly frames this as non-conclusive. The analysis is based on publicly available documentation — official reports and prior case studies — which, the author acknowledges, does not typically provide detailed accounts of different learning strategies, limiting concrete evidence of the very processes the typology is about; more evidence is needed, in the author's words, to make a sharper distinction between the learning categories and pre-existing conditions such as a working innovation system. Contextual factors are discussed alongside the learning modes — the pre-existence of a working innovation system, lost first-mover advantages, and limited time to adjust policies — though the author argues that the innovation ecosystem and the learning mechanisms 'go hand in hand'. The cases present little evidence of active 'unlearning', the deliberate dismantling of prior institutional routines (which the theory discussion notes might sometimes be necessary to remove institutions that hinder implementation of a new policy), a dynamic the author suggests could be part of the adaptation and updating of policies over time. And the author states directly that the study does not offer a conclusive answer on the connection between type of learning and transfer success or failure, and that more cases are needed to support the argument that the three types of learning mechanisms affect the outcome of policy transfer differently.

Problem Statement

On evidence that goes beyond Giest's four secondary-documentation cases, adjudicate whether and how the receiving region's mode of learning causally shapes the outcome of Silicon-Valley-model policy transfers — the connection between type of learning and transfer success or failure that Giest (2017, 2020) explicitly left without a conclusive answer. Throughout, the outcome of a transfer means whether the receiving region established a self-sustaining high-technology cluster of the kind the Silicon Valley model is meant to produce; the capacity to cope with transfer obstacles that the continuum is claimed to raise is treated as the candidate mechanism linking learning mode to that outcome, not as the outcome itself. The single objective has two jointly linked components — the second is a precondition for establishing the first, not an independent question: (1) Generalization of the typology and continuum — establish, across a broader set of transfers spanning additional industries and governance regimes, whether the three learning modes (imitation, trial-and-error, adaptive learning) are analytically separable in practice — that is, distinguishable from the transfer record by observable criteria that do not depend on how the analyst reads the timeline — and whether movement along the continuum toward adaptive learning does increase the capacity to cope with transfer obstacles, or whether the apparent pattern is an artifact of four cases; and (2) Sharper distinction from pre-conditions — make the sharper distinction the source calls for between the learning categories and pre-existing contextual conditions (such as a working innovation system, first-mover position, and industry time horizons), on evidence that overcomes the source's admitted limitation that publicly available documentation does not typically provide detailed accounts of different learning strategies. The adjudication should conclude with an explicit statement of which parts of the learning-mode account are supported, which are refuted or confounded, and under what scope conditions, at the generality of the original claim (no restriction to particular cases, industries, or regimes). The adjudication rests on a bounded comparative study that draws on transfers beyond Giest's four and spans more than one additional industry and governance regime, addressing both components jointly and stating the scope conditions under which each holds; exhaustiveness over cases is not required. For that statement, 'supported' means the component survives the added evidence, 'refuted' means the added evidence contradicts it, and 'confounded' means the added evidence cannot separate the component from pre-existing contextual conditions.

References

  1. Giest, Sarah (2017). Overcoming the failure of 'silicon somewheres': learning in policy transfer processes. Policy & Politics 45(1):39–54. DOI: 10.1332/030557316x14779412013740. https://doi.org/10.1332/030557316x14779412013740
  2. Giest, Sarah (2020). Overcoming the failure of 'silicon somewheres': learning in policy transfer processes. In: Policy Learning and Policy Failure, pp. 49–70. Bristol: Policy Press. DOI: 10.1332/policypress/9781447352006.003.0003. https://doi.org/10.1332/policypress/9781447352006.003.0003
  3. Dolowitz, David; Marsh, David (1996). Who Learns What from Whom: A Review of the Policy Transfer Literature. Political Studies 44(2):343–357. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9248.1996.tb00334.x. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.1996.tb00334.x
  4. Rose, Richard (1991). What is Lesson-Drawing? Journal of Public Policy 11(1):3–30. DOI: 10.1017/s0143814x00004918. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0143814x00004918
  5. Hospers, Gert-Jan (2006). Silicon Somewhere? Policy Studies 27(1):1–15. DOI: 10.1080/01442870500499934. https://doi.org/10.1080/01442870500499934
  6. Leslie, Stuart W.; Kargon, Robert H. (1996). Selling Silicon Valley: Frederick Terman's Model for Regional Advantage. Business History Review 70(4):435–472. DOI: 10.2307/3117312. https://doi.org/10.2307/3117312
  7. Dunlop, Claire A. (2020). Policy learning and policy failure: definitions, dimensions and intersections. In: Policy Learning and Policy Failure, pp. 1–22. Bristol: Policy Press. DOI: 10.1332/policypress/9781447352006.003.0001. https://doi.org/10.1332/policypress/9781447352006.003.0001
  8. Stone, Diane (2020). Between policy failure and policy success: bricolage, experimentalism and translation in policy transfer. In: Policy Learning and Policy Failure, pp. 71–92. Bristol: Policy Press. DOI: 10.1332/policypress/9781447352006.003.0004. https://doi.org/10.1332/policypress/9781447352006.003.0004
  9. Speldekamp, Daniël; Saka-Helmhout, Ayse; Knoben, Joris (2020). Reconciling Perspectives on Clusters: An Integrative Review and Research Agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews 22(1):75–98. DOI: 10.1111/ijmr.12216. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12216
  10. Veldhuizen, Caroline; Coenen, Lars (2022). Smart Specialization in Australia: Between Policy Mobility and Regional Experimentalism? Economic Geography 98(3):228–249. DOI: 10.1080/00130095.2022.2032637. https://doi.org/10.1080/00130095.2022.2032637
  11. Zhang, Jian; Li, Xin; Liu, Xinyue; Chen, Wenbo (2022). International evaluation of the National Natural Science Foundation of China: a process of evaluation-enabled policy transfer. Journal of Asian Public Policy (published online 28 September 2022; print issue 17(3):541–564, 2024). DOI: 10.1080/17516234.2022.2127534. https://doi.org/10.1080/17516234.2022.2127534
  12. Kemmerling, Achim; Makszin, Kristin (2023). Repackaging in South–North Policy Learning: The Chilean Model of Pension Reform as a Lopsided Exportschlager. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice 25(5):528–545. DOI: 10.1080/13876988.2023.2169606. https://doi.org/10.1080/13876988.2023.2169606
  13. Dunlop, Claire A.; Radaelli, Claudio M.; Wayenberg, Ellen; Zaki, Bishoy L. (2024). Policy learning and policy innovation: interactions and intersections. Policy & Politics 52(4):547–563. DOI: 10.1332/03055736y2024d000000049. https://doi.org/10.1332/03055736y2024d000000049
  14. Yamada, Makio (2025). Revisiting lesson-drawing: methods to assess policy's institutional transferability. Policy Design and Practice 9(1):82–91 (published online 8 December 2025; print issue 2 January 2026). DOI: 10.1080/25741292.2025.2574112. https://doi.org/10.1080/25741292.2025.2574112
  15. Raudla, Ringa; Juuse, Egert; Kuokštis, Vytautas; Cepilovs, Aleksandrs; Ylönen, Matti (2025). Drivers of fintech policy evolution: the role of policy learning and institutions. Policy & Politics 53(1):87–108. DOI: 10.1332/03055736y2024d000000042. https://doi.org/10.1332/03055736y2024d000000042
  16. Zaki, Bishoy (2026). Policy Learning: Mapping the Conceptual Minefield. Policy Studies Journal (published online 21 June 2026). DOI: 10.1111/psj.70138. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.70138