A Triple Helix System for Knowledge-based Regional Development : From “ Spheres ” to “ Spaces ”

The Triple Helix model is increasingly relevant as a conceptual framework for regional development. Its capacity to describe the process as the result of the joint workings of the University, Industry and Government institutional spheres is expanded by introducing the novel concept of “Triple Helix Spaces”: Knowledge, Innovation and Consensus Spaces, which show the process and mechanisms by which the institutional spheres interact and co-evolve over time. The specific activities and formats of the Spaces provide guidelines for integrating endogenous and exogenous strategies. Our objective is to guide policy and practice at various stages in the creation and consolidation of knowledge-based regions. Introduction How can aspiring knowledge regions best learn from the world leaders? It is widely recognised that there are no universally-applicable measures for knowledge-based regional development, given widely different conditions in different world regions as, for example, emerging vs. declining industrial regions, urban vs. rural areas, etc. A general model based on a synthesis of contemporary best practice is often relied upon to provide general guidelines that are then more or less adapted to local realities in the attempt to create technopoles, innovative milieus, learning regions, clusters, industrial districts, science cities or regional innovation systems, etc. However, contemporary best practice may not always be the most productive starting point for an aspiring region, as it sets the bar very high and often ignores the early developmental phases that may be more relevant to an emerging region. Simply taking a mechanism that has been highly successful in one area and recreating it in another may not work. Rather than imitating features of late development stages in the life cycle of successful knowledge regions around the world, emerging regions may benefit more from adopting a model abstracted from the formative stages of such successful cases, and adapting it to the strengths, weaknesses and opportunities of the region. This would help avoid the mistake of taking the end result of a knowledge-based growth process for the start and ignoring the longterm nature of endogenous development. An immanent Triple Helix-based approach to regional development originated in Boston during the Great Depression of the 1930s (Etzkowitz, 2002), and has since

[1]  N. Dorfman,et al.  Route 128 : The Development of a Regional High Technology Economy : Research Policy , 1983 .

[2]  Staffan Jacobsson,et al.  Analyzing the functional dynamics of technological innovation systems: A scheme of analysis , 2008 .

[3]  Alan Murie,et al.  Toward a `New' Strategic Leadership of Place for the Knowledge-based Economy , 2009 .

[4]  Loet Leydesdorff,et al.  The Triple Helix, Indicators, and Knowledge-Based Innovation Systems , 2006 .

[5]  C. Edquist,et al.  From theory to practice: the use of systems of innovation approach in innovation policy , 2005 .

[6]  Henry Etzkowitz,et al.  The Endless Transition: A "Triple Helix" of University-Industry-Government Relations , 2014 .

[7]  Sang M. Lee,et al.  Culture, entrepreneurial orientation, and global competitiveness , 2000 .

[8]  Peter Maskell,et al.  Localized Learning and Industrial Competitiveness , 1995 .

[9]  Elizabeth Currid The Warhol economy : how fashion, art, and music drive New York City , 2007 .

[10]  Henry Etzkowitz,et al.  Artists Social Movements of the 1960's and 70's: From Protest to Institution Formation. , 1980 .

[11]  L. Leydesdorff Luhmann's sociological theory: its operationalization and future perspectives , 1996 .

[12]  Larry L. Leslie,et al.  Academic Capitalism: Politics, Policies, and the Entrepreneurial University , 1997 .

[13]  René J. Jorna,et al.  Enhancing the innovative capacity of small firms through triple helix interactions: challenges and opportunities , 2008, Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag..

[14]  Loet Leydesdorff,et al.  The New Communication Regime of University-Industry-Government Relations , 1997 .

[15]  W. Sombart Economic Life in the Modern Age , 2001 .

[16]  Jochen Markard,et al.  Technological innovation systems and the multi-level perspective: Towards an integrated framework , 2008 .

[17]  Loet Leydesdorff,et al.  Measuring the knowledge base of an economy in terms of triple-helix relations among 'technology, organization, and territory' , 2004, 0911.3414.

[18]  Jose Manoel Carvalho de Mello,et al.  University start-ups for breaking lock-ins of the Brazilian economy , 2009 .

[19]  Stefan Kuhlmann,et al.  Future governance of innovation policy in Europe — three scenarios , 2001 .

[20]  N. Luhmann Soziale Systeme : Grundriß einer allgemeinen Theorie , 1984 .

[21]  Anders Broström,et al.  The Triple Helix : University-industry-government innovation in action , 2011 .

[22]  L. Leydesdorff The triple helix: an evolutionary model of innovations , 2000 .

[23]  B. Asheim,et al.  Location, agglomeration and innovation: Towards regional innovation systems in Norway? , 1997 .

[24]  Staffan Jacobsson,et al.  Analysing the dynamics and functionality of sectoral innovation systems , 2005 .

[25]  Loet Leydesdorff,et al.  Configurational Information as Potentially Negative Entropy: The Triple Helix Model , 2008, Entropy.

[26]  W. Dolfsma,et al.  Lock-in & Break-out from Technological Trajectories: Modeling and policy implications , 2009, 0911.1311.

[27]  Rosalba Casas,et al.  The building of knowledge spaces in Mexico: a regional approach to networking , 2000 .

[28]  H. Etzkowitz Entrepreneurial scientists and entrepreneurial universities in American academic science , 1983, Minerva.

[29]  Harvey Molotch,et al.  The Regional World , 1998 .

[30]  Loet Leydesdorff,et al.  The mutual information of university-industry-government relations: An indicator of the Triple Helix dynamics , 2003, Scientometrics.

[31]  Henry Etzkowitz,et al.  Unity and Diversity in High-tech Growth and Renewal: Learning from Boston and Silicon Valley , 2008 .

[32]  Alexander Kaufmann,et al.  The Role of the Region for Innovation Activities of SMEs , 2001 .

[33]  Margaret O'Mara Making Silicon Valley: Innovation and the Growth of High Tech, 1930–1970 , 2006 .

[34]  H. Etzkowitz Innovation in Innovation: The Triple Helix of University-Industry-Government Relations , 2002 .

[35]  Manuel Castells,et al.  Technopoles of the World: The Making of Twenty-First-Century Industrial Complexes , 1994 .

[36]  L. Leydesdorff,et al.  Emergence of a Triple Helix of University-Industry-Government Relations , 1996 .

[37]  Ulf Sandström,et al.  Institutionalizing the triple helix: research funding and norms in the academic system , 2000 .

[38]  L. Leydesdorff,et al.  The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and , 2000 .

[39]  P. Cooke Regional Innovation Systems, Clusters, and the Knowledge Economy , 2001 .

[40]  Maryann P. Feldman,et al.  Homegrown Solutions: Fostering Cluster Formation , 2004 .

[41]  Henry Etzkowitz,et al.  MIT and the Rise of Entrepreneurial Science , 2002 .

[42]  Poh Kam Wong,et al.  Towards an “Entrepreneurial University” Model to Support Knowledge-Based Economic Development: The Case of the National University of Singapore , 2007 .

[43]  Henry Etzkowitz,et al.  Triple Helix of innovation: introduction , 1998 .

[44]  Jose Manoel Carvalho de Mello,et al.  Networking for regional innovation and economic growth: the Brazilian Petropolis technopole , 2004, Int. J. Technol. Manag..

[45]  Stefan Kuhlmann,et al.  Functions of innovation systems: A new approach for analysing technological change , 2007 .

[46]  Staffan Jacobsson,et al.  Innovation systems: analytical and methodological issues , 2002 .

[47]  Mike Wright,et al.  Academic Entrepreneurship in Europe , 2007 .

[48]  G. Simmel,et al.  Conflict and the Web of Group Affiliations , 1955 .

[49]  Sang Joon Kim,et al.  A Mathematical Theory of Communication , 2006 .

[50]  G. Marks,et al.  Governance in the European Union , 1996 .

[51]  Y. Gingras,et al.  The place of universities in the system of knowledge production , 2000 .

[52]  Charles Edquist,et al.  Systems of innovation perspectives and challenges , 2004 .

[53]  P. Cooke,et al.  The governance of innovation in Europe : regional perspectives on global competitiveness , 2000 .

[54]  D. Maillat,et al.  Conditions-cadres et compétitivité des régions : une relecture , 2001 .

[55]  B. Oviatt,et al.  Entrepreneurial Intensity: Sustainable Advantages for Individuals, Organizations, and Societies , 1999 .

[56]  Henry Etzkowitz,et al.  The Norrköping Way : A Knowledge-based Strategy for Renewing a Declining Industrial City , 2011 .

[57]  Scott Shane,et al.  Academic Entrepreneurship: University Spinoffs and Wealth Creation , 2004 .

[58]  D. Doloreux,et al.  What we should know about regional systems of innovation , 2002 .

[59]  T. Kuhn,et al.  The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. , 1964 .

[60]  H. Etzkowitz,et al.  The Innovating Region: Toward a Theory of Knowledge-Based Regional Development , 2005 .

[61]  P. Wynarczyk,et al.  The Economic Performance of Innovative Small Firms in the South East Region and Elsewhere in the UK , 1996 .

[62]  A. Stevens The Enactment of Bayh–Dole , 2004 .