Triple helix and regional development: a perspective from Oxfordshire in the UK

This paper illustrates that distinctive patterns of regional development can be understood as resulting from the relative dominance of the three components in the triple helix model at any one time. This approach can be used to understand why high growth sectors, such as biotechnology, are concentrated at particular locations. Using the example of the biotechnology sector in Oxfordshire (UK), we examine how differences in formal (e.g. institutional arrangements) and informal networks are influenced by broader geographical, political, economic and social environments. These differences produce distinctive regional forms of the triple helix model. Oxfordshire is a national centre of the sector, having the key ingredients of a concentration of universities and government laboratories, heavily supported by government, and a growing number of biotech firms. The distinctive features of the Oxfordshire variant are that the role of Oxford University, a world centre for biomedical research, is secondary at the regional level rather than being dominant as might be expected and that the availability of skills, underplayed in traditional presentations of the model, is far more significant.

[1]  Meric S. Gertler,et al.  Local Nodes in Global Networks: The Geography of Knowledge Flows in Biotechnology Innovation , 2005 .

[2]  C. Debresson,et al.  Networks of innovators:A review and introduction to the issue , 1991 .

[3]  M. Gittelman,et al.  National institutions, public–private knowledge flows, and innovation performance: A comparative study of the biotechnology industry in the US and France , 2006 .

[4]  Walter W. Powell,et al.  A Comparison of U.S. and European University-Industry Relations in the Life Sciences , 2001 .

[5]  Maureen McKelvey,et al.  Evolutionary Economics Perspectives on the Regional—National—International Dimensions of Biotechnology Innovations , 2004 .

[6]  Martin Meyer,et al.  Becoming an entrepreneurial university? A case study of knowledge exchange relationships and faculty attitudes in a medium-sized, research-oriented university , 2008 .

[7]  Maryann P. Feldman,et al.  Research Universities and Local Economic Development: Lessons from the History of the Johns Hopkins University , 2003 .

[8]  Juha Tuunainen,et al.  Reconsidering the Mode 2 and the Triple Helix: A Critical Comment Based on a Case Study , 2002 .

[9]  Susanne Giesecke,et al.  The contrasting roles of government in the development of biotechnology industry in the US and Germany , 2000 .

[10]  Dominic Power,et al.  The contribution of universities to innovation and economic development: in what sense a regional problem? , 2008 .

[11]  Philip Cooke,et al.  Introduction: Origins of the Concept , 1998 .

[12]  H. Smith,et al.  The biotechnology industry in Oxfordshire: enterprise and innovation , 2004 .

[13]  N. Krueger,et al.  Challenging the triple helix model of regional innovation systems: A venture-centric model , 2008 .

[14]  A. Markusen Sticky Places in Slippery Space: A Typology of Industrial Districts* , 1996 .

[15]  Henry Etzkowitz,et al.  Universities and the global knowledge economy , 1997 .

[16]  S. Bagchi‐Sen,et al.  University–Industry Interactions: the Case of the UK Biotech Industry , 2006 .

[17]  D. Keeble,et al.  University–business interaction in the Oxford and Cambridge regions , 2001 .

[18]  Henry Etzkowitz,et al.  The Triple Helix: University-Industry-Government Innovation in Action , 2008 .