See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/262009893

Triple Helix Systems: An Analytical Framework for Innovation Policy and

Practice in the Knowledge Society

Article in Industry and Higher Education · August 2013

DOI: 10.5367/ihe.2013.0165

CITATIONS READS

983 15,612

2 authors:

Marina Ranga Henry Etzkowitz

European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Seville Stanford University
50 PUBLICATIONS 2,822 CITATIONS 94 PUBLICATIONS 25,870 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Marina Ranga on 22 June 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Triple Helix systems: an
analytical framework for
innovation policy and
practice in the Knowledge
Society

Marina Ranga and Henry Etzkowitz

Abstract: This paper introduces the concept of Triple Helix systems as an

analytical construct that synthesizes the key features of
university–industry–government (Triple Helix) interactions into an
‘innovation system’ format, defined according to systems theory as a set
of components, relationships and functions. Among the components of
Triple Helix systems, a distinction is made between (a) R&D and non-R&D
innovators; (b) ‘single-sphere’ and ‘multi-sphere’ (hybrid) institutions; and
(c) individual and institutional innovators. The relationships between
components are synthesized into five main types: technology transfer;
collaboration and conflict moderation; collaborative leadership;
substitution; and networking. The overall function of Triple Helix systems –
knowledge and innovation generation, diffusion and use – is realized
through a set of activities in the knowledge, innovation and consensus
spaces. This perspective provides an explicit framework for the systemic
interaction between Triple Helix actors that was previously lacking, and a
more fine-grained view of the circulation of knowledge flows and
resources within and among the spaces, helping to identify existing
blockages or gaps. From a Triple Helix systems perspective, the
articulation and the non-linear interactions between the spaces can
generate new combinations of knowledge and resources that can
advance innovation theory and practice, especially at the regional level.

Keywords: Triple Helix systems; knowledge space; innovation space;

consensus space; university–industry–government interaction; innovation
systems; regional innovation policy

Marina Ranga (corresponding author) is with the Human Sciences and Technology
Advanced Research Institute (H-STAR), 210 Panama Street, Cordura Hall, Stanford
University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA. E-mail: marina.ranga@stanford.edu. Henry
Etzkowitz is with the International Institute of Triple Helix, Palo Alto and Beijing
(www.triplehelix.net). E-mail: henry.etzkowitz@triplehelixassociation.org.

INDUSTRY & HIGHER EDUCATION Vol 27, No 3, August 2013, pp 237–262, doi: 10.5367/ihe.2013.0165
The Triple Helix and innovation policy and practice

Recent decades have seen a shift from innovation ‘innovation system’ format that encompasses structural
sources confined to a single institutional sphere, whether and functional concepts of innovation systems theory
new product development in industry, policy making in (Carlsson and Stankiewicz, 1991; Carlsson et al, 2002;
government or the creation and dissemination of Carlsson, 2003; Edquist 2005; Bergek et al, 2008).
knowledge in academia, to the interaction among these Thus, Triple Helix systems are defined as a set of the
three institutional spheres as the source of new and following.
innovative organizational designs and social
(1) Components, consisting of the institutional spheres
interactions. This shift entails not only various
of university, industry and government, each with a
mechanisms of restructuring of the sources and
wide array of actors, among whom a distinction is
development path of innovation, but also a rethinking of
made between: (a) individual and institutional
our main models for conceptualizing innovation (for
innovators; (b) R&D and non-R&D innovators; and
example, national, regional, sectoral, technological
(c) ‘single-sphere’ and ‘multi-sphere’ (hybrid)
innovation systems, the Triple Helix, and so on) that
institutions.
may often fail to capture important innovation dynamics
(2) Relationships between components (technology
because of issues such as diffuseness and loose
transfer, collaboration and conflict moderation,
definition, methodological or performance measurement
collaborative leadership, substitution, and
gaps.
networking).
The concept of the Triple Helix of
(3) Functions, in the sense of competencies of the
university–industry–government relationships initiated
system components that determine the system’s
in the 1990s by Etzkowitz (1993) and Etzkowitz and
performance. The main function of a Triple Helix
Leydesdorff (1995), encompassing elements of
system is seen in a broader sense, that of generation,
precursor works by Lowe (1982) and Sábato and
diffusion and utilization of knowledge and
Mackenzi (1982), interprets the shift from a dominating
innovation. This function is realized not only with
industry–government dyad in the Industrial Society to a
the techno-economic competencies described in
growing triadic relationship between university, industry
innovation system theory, but also with
and government in the Knowledge Society. The Triple
entrepreneurial, societal, cultural and policy
Helix thesis is that the potential for innovation and
competencies that are embedded in what we call the
economic development in a Knowledge Society lies in a
‘Triple Helix spaces’: the knowledge, innovation and
more prominent role for the university and in the
consensus spaces.
hybridization of elements from university, industry and
government to generate new institutional and social Triple Helix systems provide a fine-grained view of
formats for the production, transfer and application of innovation actors and the relationships between them, in
knowledge. This vision encompasses not only the a vision of a dynamic, boundary-spanning and
creative destruction that appears as a natural innovation diachronic transition of knowledge flows within the
dynamics (Schumpeter, 1942), but also the creative system. Triple Helix systems accommodate both
renewal that arises within each of the three institutional institutional and individual roles in innovation and
spheres – university, industry and government – as well explain variations in innovative performance in relation
as at their intersections. to the development of and articulation between the
Through subsequent development, a significant body knowledge, innovation and consensus spaces.
of Triple Helix theoretical and empirical research has Transcending sectoral or technology boundaries, Triple
grown over the last two decades that provides a general Helix systems emphasize boundary permeability among
framework for exploring complex innovation dynamics the institutional spheres as an important source of
and for informing national, regional and international organizational creativity, allowing individuals to move
innovation and development policy-making.1,2 This within and between the spheres and engage in
body of research has an implicit systemic dimension recombination of elements to create new types of
that arises primarily from the vision of Triple Helix organizations. Empirical guidelines for policy makers,
interactions as manifestations of social systems, but university and business managers can be derived from
does not provide an explicit analytical framework for this analytical framework, in order to strengthen
conceptualizing Triple Helix interactions into an collaboration among Triple Helix actors and enhance
innovation system. regional development.
The novel analytical concept of Triple Helix systems The paper is organized as follows. The next section
introduced in this paper aims to fill this gap. Triple introduces the conceptual framework of Triple Helix
Helix interactions (heretofore loosely referred to as a systems and summarizes the literature upon which it
‘metaphor’ or a ‘framework’) are synthesized into an relies. The subsequent three sections provide a detailed

238 INDUSTRY & HIGHER EDUCATION August 2013

 The Triple Helix and innovation policy and practice

6WDWH 7ULODWHUDOQHWZRUNV DQG

6WDWH K\EULGRUJDQL]DWLRQV

$FDGHPLD
,QGXVWU\
,QGXVWU\ $FDGHPLD

,QGXVWU\ $FDGHPLD
6WDWH ,QGXVWU\

D µ6WDWLVW¶ (b) ‘Laissez-faire’ F µ%DODQFHG¶

Figure 1. Triple Helix configurations.

Source: Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff (2000).

account of the structural elements of Triple Helix policies aimed to strengthen university–industry links,
systems: components, relationships between and so on.
components, and functions. The penultimate section The (neo-) institutional perspective distinguishes
describes the formation and functioning of Triple Helix between three main configurations in the positioning of
spaces; and the final section provides a summary of the the university, industry and government institutional
findings, a discussion of the policy relevance of Triple spheres relative to each other (see Figure 1):
Helix systems for regional innovation policy, especially
(1) A statist configuration, in which government plays
in developing countries, a set of policy
the lead role, driving academia and industry, but also
recommendations and directions for further research.
limiting their capacity to initiate and develop
innovative transformations (as, for example, in
Triple Helix systems: conceptual Russia, China, and some Latin American and
framework Eastern European countries);
(2) A laissez-faire configuration, characterized by
A substantial body of the Triple Helix literature has
limited state intervention in the economy (such as in
been developed over the last two decades that can be
the USA and some Western European countries),
broadly viewed from two complementary perspectives.
with industry as the driving force and the other two
First, there is the (neo-) institutional perspective,
spheres acting as ancillary support structures with
which examines the growing prominence of the
limited roles in innovation – universities acting
university among innovation actors through national and
mainly as providers of skilled human capital and
regional case studies (for example, in Latin America:
government mainly as a regulator of social and
Mello and Rocha, 2004; Etzkowitz, Mello and Almeida,
economic mechanisms; and
2005; Saenz, 2008; Bianco and Viscardi, 2008; Luna
(3) A balanced configuration, specific to the transition
and Tirtido, 2008; in Africa: Konde, 2004; Kruss, 2008;
to a Knowledge Society, in which university and
Booyens, 2011; in the USA: Campbell et al, 2004;
other knowledge institutions act in partnership with
Feldman and Desrochers, 2004; Boardman 2009; Wang
industry and government and even take the lead in
and Shapira, 2012; in Europe: Klofsten et al, 1999;
joint initiatives (Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff, 2000).
2010; Inzelt, 2004; Geuna and Nesta, 2006; Lawton
Smith and Bagchi-Sen, 2010; Geuna and Rossi, 2011; The balanced configuration offers the most important
Svensson et al, 2012) and through comparative insights for innovation, because the most favourable
historical analyses (for example, Etzkowitz, 2002; environments for innovation are created at the
Furman and MacGarvie, 2009 ). These studies look at intersections of the spheres. This is where creative
various aspects of the university’s ‘third mission’ of synergies emerge and set in motion a process of
research commercialization and involvement in ‘innovation in innovation’, create new venues for
socio-economic development, such as forms, interaction and new organizational formats, as
stakeholders, drivers, barriers, benefits and impact, individual and organisational actors not only perform
university technology transfer and entrepreneurship, their own role, but also ‘take the role of the other’ when
contribution to regional development, government the other is weak or under-performing (Etzkowitz, 2003,

INDUSTRY & HIGHER EDUCATION August 2013 239

The Triple Helix and innovation policy and practice

2008). Through this creative process, the relationships (Parsons, 1951; Parsons and Shils, 1951; Parsons and
among the institutional spheres of university, industry Smelser, 1956) and communication (Luhmann, 1975,
and government are continuously reshaped in ‘an 1984; Shannon, 1948). However, neither provides an
endless transition’ (Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff, 1998), explicit analytical framework for conceptualizing
in order to enhance innovation by bringing forth new Triple Helix interactions as innovation systems. To fill
technologies, new firms and new types of relationships. this gap, we introduce the concept of Triple Helix
The second of the two perspectives is the (neo-) systems as an analytical construct defined from the
evolutionary perspective, inspired by the theory of perspective of innovation systems theory, discussed
social systems of communication (Luhmann, 1975, briefly below and highlighting some relevant elements
1984) and the mathematical theory of communication for our study.
(Shannon, 1948). From this perspective, university, The ‘innovation systems’ concept was introduced in
industry and government are co-evolving sub-sets of the late 1980s to examine the influence of knowledge
social systems that interact through an overlay of and innovation on economic growth in evolutionary
recursive networks and organizations that reshape their systems, in which institutions and learning processes are
institutional arrangements through reflexive of central importance (Freeman, 1987; Freeman and
sub-dynamics, such as markets and technological Lundvall, 1988). The systems perspective was used to
innovations (see, for example, Leydesdorff, 1996, 1997, understand better how institutional arrangements could
2000, 2006, 2008; Leydesdorff and Meyer, 2006; facilitate interactions among economic actors in market
Dolfsma and Leydesdorff, 2009). These interactions are as well as non-market transfer of knowledge (Carlsson,
part of two processes of communication and 2003). The concept was refined as ‘national innovation
differentiation: a functional one, between science and systems’ (NIS), which includes a set of innovation
markets, and an institutional one, between private and actors (firms, universities, research institutes, financial
public control at the level of universities, industries and institutions, government regulatory bodies, and so on),
government, which allow various degrees of selective their activities and their inter-linkages at the aggregate
mutual adjustment (Leydesdorff and Etzkowitz, 1996, level (Freeman, 1988; Dosi et al, 1988; Lundvall, 1988,
1998). In addition, internal differentiation within each 1992; Nelson, 1993; Edquist, 1997, 2005). The
institutional sphere generates new types of links and ‘national’ dimension of innovation systems favoured
structures between the spheres, such as industrial liaison user–producer interactions through cultural and
offices in universities or strategic alliances among institutional proximity and localized learning (Lundvall,
companies, creating new network integration 1992).3 Nevertheless, it became increasingly blurred as
mechanisms (Leydesdorff and Etzkowitz, 1998). The a result of business and technology internationalization
institutional spheres are also seen as selection extending technological capabilities beyond national
environments, and the institutional communications borders, and the growing integration of innovation
between them act as selection mechanisms, which may systems, driven by economic and political processes,
generate new innovation environments and thus ensure such as European Union consolidation.
the ‘regeneration’ of the system (Etzkowitz and Because the NIS approach did not fully capture the
Leydesdorff, 2000; Leydesdorff, 2000). The interactions interactions between innovation actors, more
between the Triple Helix actors can be measured in disaggregated levels of the innovation system were
terms of probabilistic entropy, which, when negative, introduced, such as the following.
suggests a self-organizing dynamic that may be
temporarily stabilized in the overlay of communications • Regional Innovation Systems (for example, Cooke,
among the carrying agencies (see, for example, 1996; Maskell and Malmberg, 1997) emerged in the
Leydesdorff, 2003; Leydesdorff et al, 2006). The context of the increasing regionalisation of the early
interaction is also captured by specific indicators (such 1990s at technological, economic, political or
as bibliometrics, patent indicators) that can provide cultural levels in many countries. The concept has a
insights into trends and patterns of public–private broad definition: it encompasses, for instance, a set
cooperation, its geographical concentrations and of regional actors aiming to reinforce regional
implications (for example, Kwon et al, 2012; Tijssen innovation capability and competitiveness through
2006, 2012; Azagra-Caro et al, 2010; Leydesdorff and technological learning (Doloreux and Parto, 2005),
Meyer, 2010). regional ‘technology coalitions’ arising from
Both these perspectives have an implicit, underlying geographical distribution of economic and
systemic dimension of Triple Helix interactions technological effects over time (Storper, 1995), or
originating from their vision of such interactions as dynamic, self-organizing business environments
manifestations of social systems characterized by action (Johannson et al, 2005), and so on.

240 INDUSTRY & HIGHER EDUCATION August 2013

 The Triple Helix and innovation policy and practice

&RPSRQHQWV 5HODWLRQVKLSV )XQFWLRQV

8QLYHUVLW\±LQGXVWU\± y 7HFKQRORJ\ y 0DLQIXQFWLRQ

JRYHUQPHQWLQVWLWXWLRQDO WUDQVIHUDFTXLVLWLRQ JHQHUDWLRQ GLIIXVLRQDQG
VSKHUHV y &ROODERUDWLRQDQG XVHRINQRZOHGJHDQG
FRQIOLFWPRGHUDWLRQ LQQRYDWLRQ
y 5 'DQGQRQ5 ' y &ROODERUDWLYH
LQQRYDWRUV OHDGHUVKLS y 5HDOL]HGWKURXJK
y µ6LQJOHVSKHUH¶DQGµPXOWL y 6XEVWLWXWLRQ DUWLFXODWLRQRIWKH
VSKHUH¶ K\EULG LQVWLWXWLRQV y 1HWZRUNLQJ ƒ NQRZOHGJHVSDFH
y ,QGLYLGXDO LQQRYDWRUVDQG ƒ LQQRYDWLRQVSDFH
LQVWLWXWLRQDOLQQRYDWRUV ƒ FRQVHQVXVVSDFH

Figure 2. A synthetic representation of Triple Helix systems.

• Sectoral Innovation Systems (Breschi and Malerba, innovation system is defined as the generation,
1997; Malerba, 2002) examine industry structure as diffusion and utilization of technology, while the
a determinant the performance heterogeneity of a competencies necessary to achieve this function are
firm and explore coordination forms in supply chains described in terms of four types of capabilities: (a)
(hierarchy, market and hybrid forms) selective (strategic) capability; (b) organizational
• Technological Innovation Systems (Carlsson and (integrative or coordinating) ability; (c) technical or
Stankiewicz, 1991; Carlsson, 1997; Bergek et al, functional ability; and (d) learning (adaptive)
2007) focus on the network of agents that interact in ability.4
functions of a specific technology or set of
Building on this structural characterization of
technologies.
innovation systems, combined with a structure/process
All these system frameworks are characterized by three approach of innovation systems (Bergek et al, 2008)
elements (Carlsson and Stankiewicz, 1991; Carlsson, that relates the structure of the system with the
1998, 2003; Carlsson et al, 2002; Hekkert et al, 2008), processes (dynamics and achievements) in which the
as follows. system is involved, we define a Triple Helix system
(Figure 2) as a set of the following.
(1) Components (and boundaries) of the system. The
components include various actors that normally (1) Components (and boundaries): the components are
interact in the process of innovation (individuals and represented by the institutional spheres of university,
firms, higher education and research institutions, industry and government, each with its own
government agencies, financial and trade institutional and individual actors. Among these
associations and other units making up the actors, a distinction is made between: (a) individual
institutional infrastructure). The boundaries between and institutional innovators; (b) R&D and non-R&D
components can be defined by geography or innovators; and (c) ‘single-sphere’ and
administrative units, as in the case of ‘multi-sphere’ (hybrid) institutions. The boundaries
spatially-bounded systems (regional, national identified in other innovation systems take on a new
innovation systems), or by economic sectors or meaning in Triple Helix systems because they are no
technologies, as is the case with spatially open longer separating elements between the university,
systems (such as technology innovation systems or industry and government spheres, but unifying ones.
sectoral innovation systems). Geographical, sectoral and technology boundaries
(2) Relationships among system components, which are superseded in Triple Helix systems by the
include new knowledge combinations generated by boundary permeability among the university,
the innovation actors, either through own efforts or industry and government spheres. This allows a
by using technology transfer from other actors, better circulation of people, ideas, knowledge and
provided they have sufficient absorptive capacity. capital within and across the institutional spheres,
Internal R&D capacity of the actors is essential in stimulates organizational creativity as well as the
this process, but non-R&D (non-market) interactions combination of regional and local resources for
are also important. realizing joint objectives and new institutional
(3) Functions of the system, in the sense of formats.
competencies of the components that determine the (2) Relationships among system components: the
system’s performance. The main function of an market- and non-market relationships between

INDUSTRY & HIGHER EDUCATION August 2013 241

The Triple Helix and innovation policy and practice

system components, emphasized in the innovation the other hand, in more advanced contexts, where
systems theory and manifested primarily through innovation stakeholders are more mature and have
technology transfer or acquisition, are also important attained more complex forms of interaction, that
in Triple Helix systems. In addition, we include here simplified perspective is no longer sufficient. A more
other relationships derived from the triadic nature of differentiated approach to the Triple Helix actors is
the interaction, such as: collaboration and conflict necessary to understand their behaviour and specific
moderation, collaborative leadership and contributions to a complex division of labour in the
substitution. Networking, which is not a production and use of knowledge for innovation. To
manifestation specific to triadic systems, but rather substantiate this differentiated approach, we make three
of the increasingly collective nature of science, important distinctions between:
technology and innovation, is also relevant here and
• Individual and institutional innovators;
is included among the relationships. These
• R&D and non-R&D innovators; and
relationships are important because they reflect
• ‘Single-sphere’ and ‘multi-sphere’ (hybrid)
change-inducing, evolutionary social and economic
institutions.
mechanisms at work in Triple Helix interactions.
(3) Functions of the system: if innovation systems Individual and institutional innovators
theory defines the main function of an innovation
Innovation systems focus predominantly on institutions
system as the generation, diffusion and utilization of
(especially firms), which are seen as key explanatory
technology (for example, Carlsson et al, 2002, p
factors in understanding why some innovation processes
235), we see the main function of a Triple Helix
in certain regions, countries or sectors fare better than
system in a broader sense, as that of generating,
others (Edquist, 1997, 2005).
diffusing and utilizing knowledge and innovation.
However, various definitions of ‘institutions’ in
This goes beyond technology and involves a broader
studies may be confusing about what institutions are,
set of competencies that extend beyond the four
what role they play and what the mechanisms are
types of competencies described by the innovation
through which they work (Carlsson, 2003).5 In addition,
systems theory (selective, organizational, technical
this strong reliance on institutions gives low visibility to
and learning abilities), to incorporate in addition
the individual innovator.
entrepreneurial, societal, cultural and policy aspects.
Triple Helix systems acknowledge the importance of
These competencies are manifested in what we call
individual innovators (scientists, business people, policy
the ‘Triple Helix Spaces’: the Knowledge,
makers, students, entrepreneurs, venture capitalists,
Innovation and Consensus Spaces, which encompass
business angels, and so on) and their role in initiating
these cumulated competencies and bring them to a
and consolidating institutional processes. Individual
next level as a result of multiple combinations that
roles in innovation are accommodated through concepts
allow new opportunities for innovation.
such as the ‘innovation organizer’ and the
‘entrepreneurial scientist’ that provide a phenomenology
Components of Triple Helix systems of behavioural types (Schutz, 1964) and highlight ways
in which individual and institutional innovation initiate
Much of the Triple Helix literature focuses on the
and reinforce each other.
institutional spheres of university, industry and
government as holistic, ‘block’ entities, without going • The innovation organizer is defined as a person who
deeper to the level of sphere-specific actors. This typically occupies a key institutional position,
obscures some specific institutional identities, missions, enunciates a vision for knowledge-based
objectives and needs, and the way they influence the development and has sufficient respect and authority
interaction dynamics. On the one hand, this simplified to exercise convening power to bring the leadership
perspective can sometimes be beneficial, especially in of the institutional spheres together (see examples in
contexts where one or more of the spheres are still in Box 1). Innovation organizers can come from any
the early development phases and the culture of institutional sphere. They coordinate a mix of
collaboration is weak, as it may increase the top-down and bottom-up processes and innovation
applicability and suitability of the Triple Helix model to stakeholders from different organizational
local policy and practice. The simplicity of the model is backgrounds and perspectives, who come together to
appealing to policy makers and may help mobilize local build a platform for new ideas, promote economic
innovation agents, bring legitimacy to policy efforts and and social development and ensure agreement and
improve coherence between different policy strands support for their realization. A process of
involved in innovation (Rodrigues and Melo, 2010). On ‘cross-institutional entrepreneurship’ spanning the

242 INDUSTRY & HIGHER EDUCATION August 2013

 The Triple Helix and innovation policy and practice

Box 1. Innovation organizers.

In 1930s New England, MIT’s President Compton was the innovation organizer who played a key role in
getting support for a new model of knowledge-based economic development that relied heavily on university-
originated technologies and that included the invention of the venture capital firm (Etzkowitz, 2002). In mid-
1990s New York, the Head of the New York Federal Reserve Bank took the lead in calling for high-tech
development to be seen as the engine of New York’s economy, as an alternative to finance. Later, in 2011, New
York’s Mayor Bloomberg took on the innovation organizer role with an initiative to attract to the city leading
technological universities, like Cornell, to fill the gap in the region’s innovation environment (Saul et al, 2011).
A relevant example in Europe is the general manager of Belgium’s Catholic University of Leuven (K.U.
Leuven), Koenraad Debackere, who has had a central role in organizing and promoting technology transfer and
entrepreneurship at the university and in the region. He brought together ideas, people and resources from all the
Triple Helix strands – the university, local government and the business community – as a K.U. Leuven
professor, Managing Director of the university’s technology transfer office, Chairman of the university’s venture
fund, co-founder and Chairman of Leuven Inc, the innovation network of Leuven high-tech entrepreneurs, as
well as a board member of IWT-Vlaanderen, the Flemish government agency that supports science and
technology development in Flemish industry.
The innovation organizer role can also be extended from an individual to an institution, or indeed a
consortium of institutions, as in the case of Birmingham University’s consortium of Triple Helix actors who
projected the post-Rover, post-automotive future of the UK’s West Midlands region. The consortium envisaged
the development of the region as a future technology corridor including a biomedical complex based on area
research, steered by boundary-spanning collaborative leadership that was capable of transcending entrenched
local interests (Gibney, Copeland and Murie, 2009).

Triple Helix spheres is thus initiated for improving entrepreneur’, because only rarely does a single
the conditions for knowledge-based development. individual embody all of these required elements.
• The entrepreneurial scientist concept combines However, national cultural differences are important
academic and business elements. The entrepreneurial in this respect. In the USA, there is a strong ideology
scientist simultaneously attends to advancing the of individual entrepreneurship that usually
frontiers of knowledge and mining its practical and suppresses the contributions of collaborators and
commercial results for industrial and financial pushes a single individual to the forefront
returns. The underlying foundation of this (Freiberger and Swaine, 2000).6 In contrast, in the
development is the polyvalent nature of knowledge, Nordic countries – for example Finland – work is
which is at the same time theoretical and practical, extremely collectively focused and it is unusual for
publishable and patentable. Different academic the role of an individual in a workplace to be
entrepreneurial styles and degrees of involvement over-emphasized. In Sweden, individuals are
can be distinguished, including: (a) a direct interest culturally inhibited from attempting an
in the formation of a spin-off firm and in taking a entrepreneurial act unless backed up by a group, so
leading role in this process; (b) handing over these that collective entrepreneurship is rather the norm.
results to a technology transfer office for disposition;
(c) playing a supporting role, typically as member of R&D and non-R&D innovators
a Scientific Advisory Board; and (d) having no This distinction is based on whether or not there is
interest in entrepreneurship, but rather in firm in-house (intramural) R&D. It emerges from the
formation as a useful source for developing recognition that R&D is not the only driver of
technology needed to advance basic research goals. innovation. Other factors can also drive organizational
Communities of complementary entrepreneurial innovative capacity, such as firm/business unit size and
individuals are particularly visible in high-tech industry effects (Cohen et al, 1987), intangible resources
entrepreneurship, which is nearly always a collective (Galende and Suarez, 1999), internal factors (Galende
phenomenon. A new high-tech firm typically takes and de la Fuente, 2003), informal processes of learning
off with the support of individuals with technical and and experience-based know-how (Jensen et al, 2007),
business expertise backed by an experienced technology adoption, incremental changes, imitation,
entrepreneur, constituting together the ‘collective and new combinations of existing knowledge (Arundel

INDUSTRY & HIGHER EDUCATION August 2013 243

The Triple Helix and innovation policy and practice

et al, 2008). In low- and medium–high-technology and technological (including organizational) knowledge
industries which are characterized by weak internal across different sectors of activity, approach to
innovation capabilities, there are strong dependencies on intellectual property rights and the privatisation of
the external provision of machines, equipment, software knowledge, as well as the approach of trust, memory
and suppliers, as well as on process, organizational and and the fragmentation of knowledge (David and Foray,
marketing innovations (Heidenreich, 2009). 2003) make an important difference between the single-
and multi-sphere (hybrid) institutions.
• R&D innovators can be found in each of the
university, industry and government institutional • Single-sphere institutions, delineated within the
spheres and, beyond that, in the non-profit sector boundaries of a single institutional sphere, whether
(for example, charities, foundations, university or industry or government, are
professional/trade associations, service characterized by rigid institutional boundaries, low
organizations, non-profit corporations and trusts). In levels of interaction with another institutional
universities, key R&D performers are academic sphere, a high degree of specialization and work
research groups and interdisciplinary research centralization, limited mobility of workers, and so
centres; in the business sector, company R&D on. Their functioning is specific to the laissez-faire
divisions or departments; in the government sector, configuration described in Figure 1.
public research organizations, mission-oriented • Multi-sphere (hybrid) institutions operate at the
research laboratories, and so on. One can also intersection of the university, industry and
mention here a functional equivalent of R&D government institutional spheres and synthesize
activities in arts and design fields, or more broadly elements of each sphere in their institutional design.
in the creative industries, which generates artistic They are representative of the balanced Triple Helix
and cultural activities in a similar fashion to configuration described in Figure 1. Technology
scientific R&D but with their own distinct discovery, transfer offices in universities and government
methodologies, validation and dissemination research laboratories, industrial liaison offices,
procedures.7 business support institutions (science parks, business
• Non-R&D innovators are most often associated with and technology incubators, start-up accelerators),
company units involved in non-R&D activities, such financial support institutions (public and private
as design, production, marketing, sales, acquisition venture capital firms, angel networks, seed capital
of technology or machinery produced elsewhere, funds, and so on) can be included in this category.
customization or modification of products and They have smaller-scale hierarchies, with fewer
processes obtained from elsewhere, personnel layers and less centralized decision-making, in order
training and competence-building, interaction with to increase flexibility and responsiveness to
users, acquisition of patents and licences, changing market demands. In addition, institutional
consultancy services, and so on. On a broader scale, boundaries are more permeable (Etzkowitz, 2012)
non-R&D innovation is also present in technology because the single institutional spheres of university,
transfer, incubation activities, financing, negotiation, industry and government become more laterally
creation and change of organizations, and so on. diversified and increase collaboration in order to
These activities are not confined to industry borders improve work effectiveness. Subsequently,
and can also be found in various forms in boundaries between the job categories involved in
government and academia as well as in the these hybrid structures become looser and jobs
non-profit sector. require greater sharing of tasks and knowledge.

‘Single-sphere’ and ‘multi-sphere’ (hybrid) institutions

Relationships among components of Triple
This distinction arises from the transition from the Helix systems
Industrial to the Knowledge Society which is
characterized by increasing knowledge-intensive Technology transfer
activities, communication and interconnectivity between Technology transfer via markets or non-market
people and institutions, mobility of people and financial interactions is recognized as the core activity in an
capital, delocalization and globalization of production innovation system (Carlsson et al, 2002, p 234). It is
sites, labour and social relationships, and so on. also important in Triple Helix systems because
Elements such as generation and internalization of new universities increasingly generate and transfer
skills and abilities required for integration into dynamic technology, especially in areas such as biotechnology,
work environments, uneven development of scientific nanotechnology, ICT or medical technologies (for

244 INDUSTRY & HIGHER EDUCATION August 2013

 The Triple Helix and innovation policy and practice

example, Cooke, 2004; Meyer, 2006; Van Looy et al, combined with social and cultural benefits such as
2007; Wong, 2007; Lawton Smith and Bagchi-Sen, positive social perception of entrepreneurs, stronger
2010). Due to their greater capacity to generate and bonds between the university and the community and
transfer technology, universities are no longer just a increased attractiveness of the university and the region
traditional source of human resources and knowledge, to national and international talent and investors.
but are also key innovation stakeholders, with ever Gaining the status of ‘university city’ is very important
increasing internal organizational mechanisms and for many cities around the world and offers them the
resources allocated to this purpose rather than placing possibility of access to highly-skilled employees,
reliance solely on informal ties. Technology transfer high-growth entrepreneurs and venture capital
offices, science parks, business incubators, start-up investment, often leading to the transformation of the
accelerators and venture capital capacities have been region into a world-class entrepreneurial ecosystem
created as intermediary elements within university (Ranga et al, 2013). Universities are also extending their
administrative structures in order to facilitate the capabilities from educating individuals to educating
capitalization of knowledge and ensure the interface organizations, through entrepreneurship and incubation
with the external world. programmes and new training modules (Almeida et al,
Greater university involvement in technology 2012).
transfer has also brought about greater university
involvement in the protection of intellectual property, Collaboration and conflict moderation
in order to manage ethically the uses of university Collaboration and conflict moderation is a specific form
inventions in the public interest that also had significant of interaction in triadic entities, which have a higher
implications for regional economic development potential for turning tension and conflict of interest into
and self-generation of resources for university convergence and confluence of interest, compared to
development – see Baldini (2006) for a review of dyadic relationships, which are more subject to collapse
literature on university patenting and licensing. The into oppositional modes (Simmel, [1922] 1955). This
harmonization of the individual inventor and the capacity to transform tension and conflict of interest into
university’s interests regarding the development of an converging interests relating to common objectives and
invention and the allocation of financial rewards became ‘win–win’ situations is all the more important given that
a key issue that took different forms in different the very nature of conflicts and tensions is changing in
countries – for example, the professors’ privilege in the Knowledge Society, in line with the changing nature
Scandinavian countries (see, for example, Iversen et al, of work, the workplace and organizations (Heerwagen
2007; Mets, 2010). et al, 2010). Useful analytical tools for exploring
The involvement of universities in technology conflict moderation in Triple Helix systems can be taken
transfer has also increased their capacity to provide from the organizational innovation and cross-functional
graduates with entrepreneurial education and talent, collaboration literature (see De Clercq et al, 2009, for a
who can contribute to economic growth through firm detailed review), which identifies two key conflict
formation and job creation. Various forms of dimensions: (a) task conflict (functional, cognitive or
entrepreneurship education are now being delivered in constructive conflict), which is content-driven and is
universities around the world in order to develop generated by differences of opinions of an
entrepreneurial skills, theoretical and practical organization’s functional departments about particular
experience in developing a business, to stimulate new tasks (Amason and Sapienza, 1997); and (b)
ways of learning and to achieve an entrepreneurial relationship conflict (dysfunctional, affective or
mindset as an additional asset in approaching careers. destructive conflict), which is person-driven and is
Academic entrepreneurship also has benefits for faculty, generated by incompatibilities or clashes between
who can secure more research funding for academic different personalities in different departments, leading
projects and ensure the stability of their research to negative feelings such as tension and frustration (Jehn
laboratories and continuous engagement of the students and Mannix, 2001; Finkelstein and Mooney, 2003).
employed by the laboratory, develop a greater Task conflict has been shown to play a positive role in
responsiveness to the needs of local business and innovation by leading to a reconsideration of dominant
entrepreneurs and have the possibility of testing their perspectives and beliefs in an organization and
expertise outside the university boundaries, often stimulation of original and divergent viewpoints (Van
making an impact on the regional and national Dyne and Saavedra, 1996), while relationship conflict
economy. Important gains have also been noted at the has a negative effect on the high-quality knowledge
community level, where economic benefits such as job exchanges and decision-making (Amason, 1996; Jehn,
creation and tax revenues from university start-ups are 1995; Jehn and Mannix, 2001; Pelled et al, 1999).

INDUSTRY & HIGHER EDUCATION August 2013 245

The Triple Helix and innovation policy and practice

In Triple Helix systems, task conflicts can sometimes competence according to specific challenges, foster
arise within the university sphere, where ‘third mission’ change in thinking and practical implementation
activities clash with long established academic norms, through vision and reflection, and create new
procedures and reward systems. Many academics fear a opportunities for knowledge exchange (for example,
loss of their research freedom or a weaker academic Chrislip, 2002; Archer and Cameron, 2009). They can
performance caused by the entrepreneurial engagement. develop clear project charters, conduct joint
Relationship conflict is sometimes found at the problem-solving tasks and ensure a high level of project
university–business interface because of cultural satisfaction by the individual members of the
differences and diverging interests between firms and partnership (Ruuska and Teigland, 2009).
universities that may impede knowledge exchange and
bring challenges on collaborative projects if not Substitution
properly addressed. Potential sources of conflict can This type of interaction arises when institutional spheres
also be found both at the micro-level of interacting fill gaps that emerge when another sphere is weak.
individuals, and at the meso-level of institutional Substitution between spheres is exemplified by
frameworks, rules and regulations (or lack thereof) that government agencies taking up, in addition to their
can create obstacles for the collaboration (for example, traditional function of regulation and control, that of
a weak culture of collaboration and organizational silos, investment and provision of public venture capital – a
a lack of incentives for the entrepreneurial behaviour of traditional task for the industry sphere (see, for example,
academics, the obligation in some universities for Huggins, 2008; Gebhardt, 2012). Similarly, universities,
faculty to take a leave of absence to develop a spin-off, in addition to their teaching and research activities,
bias in the reporting of results, scarcity of data to often engage in technology transfer and firm formation,
evaluate technology transfer activities, and so on). providing support and even funding to encourage
Conflict resolution implies not only addressing entrepreneurial ventures, thus enacting some of the
institutional gaps and diverging institutional logics, traditional role of industry. Industry can also take the
better monitoring of university–industry relationships role of the university in developing proprietary
and the dissemination of best entrepreneurial practices, education and training solutions, often at the same high
but also using social skills and dialogue to manage level as universities (see, for example, Pixar University,
expectations, addressing individual fears and creating Intel Educator Academy, Cisco Networking Academy,
shared cultural spaces for knowledge exchange Apple University).9,10,11,12 Substitution between spheres
(Campbell et al, 2004; Mets et al, 2008; Goldstein, can also be observed at a higher level, in countries with
2010; Bjerregaard, 2010). These conflict-moderating no or weak regional governments, where there may not
measures can be initiated and developed from both the be a governmental actor available to take the lead in
university and industry sides, while the government promoting innovation developments, but other actors –
helix can exert an additional moderating effect by such as universities, firms or regional development
promoting supportive policies and programmes (see, for agencies – may come forward to set a future achievable
example, Brazil’s 2004 Innovation Law, which objective (playing an Innovation Organizer role, as
establishes the legal framework for public–private described above). Substitution within spheres is also
partnerships and provides incentives for building and possible, especially in ecosystems with small, low-tech
strengthening collaboration between universities, firms with little or no R&D potential that find
research institutes and private companies; incentives collaboration with vocational training institutions more
to encourage the participation of universities and attractive and suited to their needs than collaboration
research institutes in the innovation process; and with the university (Ranga et al, 2008).
incentives for promoting innovation within private
companies).8 Networking
Networking in formal and informal structures at
Collaborative leadership national, regional and international level is not a
Collaborative leadership is an integral part of the phenomenon unique to Triple Helix interactions, but is
collaboration and conflict moderation capacity. widely found in this case too, as a manifestation of the
‘Innovation organizers’ as individual or institutional collective nature of science, technology and innovation.
leaders play a key role in this type of relationship. They The aggregation may be stronger or weaker, depending
can connect people from different sectors to bridge on the network’s age, scope, membership, activities and
gaps, bring together differing views, generate consensus visibility in the public domain (the Association of
and balance conflicts of interest. They can integrate University Technology Managers (AUTM), the
skills and enable people to develop their own European Technology Platforms and the Joint

246 INDUSTRY & HIGHER EDUCATION August 2013

 The Triple Helix and innovation policy and practice

Technology Initiatives are just three examples).13 formation, to physical and virtual networking. All these
Networks have been described over the last decades mechanisms also have social, cultural and policy
under diverse labels, such as ‘techno-economic dimensions, as exemplified in Box 2.
networks’ (Callon, 1992) and ‘networks of innovators’
(Cusumano and Elenkov, 1994; DeBresson and Amesse, The innovation space
1991; Freeman, 1991) and have emerged as an The innovation space consists in particular of the
organizational form better suited to the limitations of competencies of the ‘multi-sphere’ (hybrid)
hierarchies and markets – ‘neither market nor hierarchy’ organizations and entrepreneurial individuals and
(for example, Powell, 1990). More flexible than institutions discussed earlier. Its ultimate purpose is the
hierarchies, more invested in the public good than development of local innovative firms, in parallel with
markets and more effective in responding to changing the attraction of talent and innovative firms from
conditions than either hierarchies or markets, networks elsewhere, the creation and development of intellectual
have been seen as ‘the middle way’ between the loose and entrepreneurial potential, and competitive advantage
coupling of markets and the tight relationships of for the region and the country. These joint institutional
hierarchies. and individual innovation efforts that come together in a
Research networks in academia have been compared form of ‘public’ entrepreneurship go well beyond
to a ‘joint venture’, whose stability appears to be of formation of firms and provide the energy and focus for
critical importance socially, politically and a variety of institution-formation projects (Schumpeter,
economically, in order to generate a particular division 1951; Etzkowitz and Schaflander, 1969). The new
of labour among the participants (David et al, 1999). institutional formats that thus emerge depend on the
Networking reflects the growing non-linearity and strengths and weaknesses of the actors involved, their
interactivity of innovation processes (Kaufmann and motivations, aptitudes, location, entrepreneurial
Tödtling, 2001) and provides several benefits capacities, institutional support for new firm formation
(Steinmueller, 1994).14 and level of local economic and technological
performance (Mason and Harrison, 1992; Thwaites and
Functions of Triple Helix systems Wynarczyk, 1996; Lee and Peterson, 2000). The new
institutional formats need to be integrated into a
The main function of Triple Helix systems to generate, broader, national or region-wide innovative and
diffuse and utilize knowledge and innovation goes entrepreneurial environment that provides a broader
beyond the technology function and four types of range of services and support structures (for example, to
competencies (selective, organizational, technical and market intellectual property, create spin-off firms,
learning) described in the innovation systems theory. It identify market opportunities and partners), and partner
incorporates a broader set of knowledge, learning, with local city and regional governments to secure
entrepreneurial, societal, cultural and policy resources in order to achieve their objectives.
competencies that are achieved in what we label the The creation of an innovation space can take place
‘Triple Helix spaces’: the knowledge, innovation and through various mechanisms, including, for example,
consensus spaces. the creation of a university in regions without higher
education capacity, building an integrated environment
The knowledge space
for university technology transfer and entrepreneurship
The knowledge space encompasses the competencies of or relocation of artists to declining urban districts to
knowledge generation, diffusion and use of the Triple stimulate arts/technology-based economic renewal. As
Helix components. The construction of this space is an in the case of the knowledge space, all these
essential step in the transition to a Knowledge Society mechanisms go beyond the single function of
and has the purpose of creating and developing technology generation, diffusion and use and encompass
knowledge resources in order to strengthen the local, entrepreneurial, social, cultural and policy competences,
regional and national knowledge base, to avoid as exemplified in Box 3.
fragmentation and to reduce the duplication of research
efforts. To this end, knowledge resources can be
aggregated locally within a region, nationally or The consensus space
internationally across regions (for example, the The consensus space is the set of competences that
European Commission’s initiatives to consolidate the bring together the Triple Helix system components to
European Research Area) through a wide range of engage in ‘blue-sky’ thinking, discuss and evaluate
mechanisms, from dispersal or relocation of existing proposals for advancement towards a knowledge-based
resources, to creation of new ones through institution regime. Even when the initiative comes from a

INDUSTRY & HIGHER EDUCATION August 2013 247

The Triple Helix and innovation policy and practice

Box 2. Mechanisms for the creation of a knowledge space.

1. Dispersal of some national public research resources from more research-intensive regions to less
research-intensive ones. Some government research labs were moved from Mexico City to other regions of
Mexico after the mid-1980s earthquake, with a double rationale: to protect them from a new earthquake, and
to provide research capacity to regions where it had hitherto been lacking and so address the problems of the
locality. This policy was eventually broadened to an explicit knowledge-based regional development strategy,
with more research institutes being transferred from the capital to other regions to strengthen their knowledge
base (Casas et al, 2000).
2. Relocation and aggregation of existing research resources. The North Carolina state used its political clout
to induce the relocation of federal government labs from outside the state to the North Carolina’s Research
Triangle Park, where they were used as an attractor of corporate labs, within what became an initial framework
for high-tech development strategy (Hamilton, 1966).
3. Attraction of leading researchers through the foundation of a science-based university. The San Diego branch
of the University of California, gestated in the 1950s, became the basis for a leading high-tech complex and
contributed to the transformation of San Diego from a naval base and military retirement community to a
knowledge-based conurbation. The coalition of academic, business and political leaders that called for the
founding of this campus recognized the attraction of leading researchers in fields with commercial potential,
like molecular biology, as an economic development strategy. The strategy of the San Diego campus was
replicated by the Merced campus, recently established as an ‘entrepreneurial university’ to promote high-tech
development in an agricultural region, and create location-specific knowledge assets to induce new investment
and create new value.
4. Creation of new university resources to support the development of new industries or raise existing ones to
a higher level. The State University of Rio de Janeiro in Friburgo created a new campus providing an
IT-oriented PhD programme to supply knowledge inputs to a neighbouring declining industrial region, rather
than simply training support personnel for existing firms as might have happened on an undergraduate campus.
In Norkopping, Sweden, in the wake of deindustrialization, a Council representing the city region’s business
and political leadership was established. It decided to create a university campus with advanced academic
research groups to revive the paper industry, one of the local traditional industries (Svensson et al, 2011). The
New York Inter-University Seminar on Innovation, bringing together innovation scholars and practitioners
across the metropolitan region in the mid-1990s, through Triple Helix leadership, hypothesized the lack of an
MIT-like academic institution as the missing link to catalyse the city’s strong academic research base for
economic development. This analysis eventually percolated to the city’s leadership. Mayor Bloomberg’s
recent competition to fill the gap resulted in the creation of the Cornell-Technion Technology Graduate School
and the upgrading of NYU and Columbia innovation initiatives. Amsterdam’s mayor, working with the
Amsterdam Economic Board, is currently engaged in organizing a similar initiative (according to Rik Bleeker,
Amsterdam Economic Board, interview with the 2nd author, 17 May 2013).
5. Virtual congregation of geographically dispersed groups from university and industry around common
research themes, with government support. The Canadian Networks of Centres of Excellence (NCE) brought
together widely dispersed academic and firm research units, motivated to work together by large government
sponsorship, typically dividing up the funds to extend existing local projects, with a suitable overlay of
collaborative rhetoric. The interaction and discussion necessary to prepare a proposal generated new research
ideas and genuine intellectual collaborations spanning geographical and organizational boundaries.
6. Networking of existing knowledge-based organisations and creation of new ones through collaboration
among existing players, in order to become internationally competitive. The Stockholm School of
Entrepreneurship was created as a joint initiative of Stockholm University, Royal Institute of Technology
(KTH), and more recently included the Royal Art College. The Oresund project, linking southern Sweden
(Skane) and Copenhagen, included the creation of Oresund University, which encourages collaboration
between universities on both sides of the strait that previously divided this cross-border region. The Karolinska
Institute initiated a university-building strategy of incorporating several small schools in the biological
sciences, nursing and other loosely related fields scattered across Sweden and even across the Norwegian
border, in order to create a greater ‘critical mass’ of research, training and commercialization activities.

248 INDUSTRY & HIGHER EDUCATION August 2013

 The Triple Helix and innovation policy and practice

Box 3. Mechanisms for the creation of an innovation space.

1. Creation of a university in a region without higher education capacity, as a means of raising the technological
level of existing clusters or as a source of new ones. MIT is the classic instance of a university founded to raise
the technological level of existing clusters. It was founded in 1862 to support the Boston textile, leather and
mechanical industries by infusing them with new ideas from science-based technology. Limited resources at
the time precluded much effort in this direction apart from providing industry with trained engineers. By the
time MIT had developed research capabilities in the early 20th century, the industries it was intended to
support had largely moved from the region to be close to raw materials, lines of distribution and access to
inexpensive labour. In this context, MIT moved to the next stage of regional development, from supporting
existing industries to contributing to the creation of new industries through firm formation from its research
programmes and by playing a collaborative role with business and government in creating a venture capital
industry to support new firm formation and growth (Etzkowitz, 2002). In the 1950s, the regional leadership
of San Diego deployed this explicit model of a science-based entrepreneurial university as a strategy for the
creation of a new science-based industry in a region that was heretofore known as a naval base and retirement
community. A new campus of the University of California was created as part of a long-term strategy to foster
industrial development, and recruited leading scientists in areas with both theoretical and practical potential,
such as biotechnology. A few decades later, by assiduously pursuing the strategy of developing a critical mass
of research groups and institutes in biotechnology-related fields, the foundations were laid for significant firms
to emerge from this base. San Diego has since grown to be one of the three major centres of industrial
biotechnology in the USA, along with Boston and Northern California. Indeed, the regional biotechnology
industry is larger than the entire UK industry in this field (Caspar, 2007).
2. Building an integrated environment for university technology transfer and entrepreneurship. Over the last two
decades, the Flemish Catholic University of Leuven (K.U. Leuven) and its technology transfer office Leuven
R&D have become the core of a thriving regional innovation network including incubators, science parks,
business centres, venture capitalists, spin-off companies and international R&D intensive companies, several
networking initiatives and technology clusters (Debackere, 2000; Debackere and Veugelers, 2005).
3. Relocation of artists to declining urban districts to stimulate arts/technology-based economic renewal. The
creative use of New York City zoning authority, allowing professional artists to move into abandoned
industrial buildings and organize themselves as a Foundation for the Community of Artists, preserved Soho
for a time as a low-cost space for qualified artists, and regulated the transition of a declining manufacturing
district into Soho as the arts equivalent of a Science City based on advanced academic research (Etzkowitz
and Raiken, 1980). Barcelona’s @22 urban science park project, aimed to recycle an old industrial district into
a platform for knowledge-based enterprises, has been very successful in attracting national and multinational
firms to locate in Barcelona. However, its top-down design failed to take account of and incorporate
spontaneous bottom-up developments, like the influx of artists that could have made it an even greater success
as a hybrid technology/arts district, with greater potential to spawn creative industries at the interface.
Recently the @22 leadership realized the earlier error to remove the artists and developed a scheme to attract
them back.

particular strand of the Triple Helix, it needs to draw negotiate shared purposes. Although government does
actors from other spheres into a collaborative process, not occupy a privileged position, it can participate and
where the collaborative leadership and conflict take an initiating role, like others. That contributes to
moderation relationships between system components shifting the state boundaries towards more transparent
are most prominent. Through cross-fertilizing diverse delineations between public, private and voluntary
perspectives, ideas may be generated and results may be sectors:
achieved that actors are not likely to have accomplished
individually. The consensus space reflects various ‘The processes of consensus-building, decision-
aspects of the governance concept, in a broader sense, making or even implementation of decisions are not
including government and non-government actors who merely determined by state actors or formal
interact continuously to exchange resources and governments. Rather, due to growing complexity and

INDUSTRY & HIGHER EDUCATION August 2013 249

The Triple Helix and innovation policy and practice

segmentation of modern societies and issue areas, it The ‘space’ thus created is considered as the
is the interaction of societal and state actors that functional equivalent of a ‘stem cell space’, which will
defines problems, builds up the necessary degree of further differentiate to become a knowledge, an
consensus on problems and solutions, consolidates innovation or a consensus space through the
conflicting interests, and (pre-) determines political mobilization of specific components, relationships and
decisions.’ (Kuhlmann, 2001, p 957) resources and creation of new institutional formats,
under the influence of specific environment factors, like
This interaction is rooted in trust and is regulated by local or regional needs, geographical location, local and
rules of the game negotiated and agreed by the regional resources and assets, and so on. We see this
participants. Organizations in the consensus space are process as similar to the stem cell differentiation
interdependent: rather than seeing themselves as determined by the interaction of a cell’s genes with the
isolated entities, firms, universities and local physical and chemical conditions outside the cell,
government actors begin to see themselves as part of a usually through signalling proteins embedded in the cell
larger whole or, in some cases, of newly-created surface. The mechanisms for the formation of the
identities such as Oresund (linking Copenhagen in knowledge, innovation and consensus spaces presented
Denmark and Skane in Southern Sweden) or the above illustrate this differentiation.
Leuven–Aachen–Eindhoven Triangle; and, at other Once the spaces have been formed, they interact with
times, of a reviving traditional locality such as each other in a continuous and diachronic transition that
Norrköping, Sweden (Svensson et al, 2012). Achieving occurs in different directions as a non-linear process.
consensus may make the difference between an For example, the consensus space is a key factor in
environment with untapped resources and one that has catalysing the interaction between the knowledge and
put them to use to achieve economic and social innovation spaces when these are present, or for
development. Several mechanisms for creating a speeding up their development when they are weak or
consensus space are possible, from the creation or absent. Also, when a knowledge space or an innovation
transformation of an organization to analyse problems space exists without a consensus space, full advantage is
and formulate solutions, to the provision of access to the unlikely to be taken of their potential due to the lack of
resources required to implement a project, or provision a convening and organizing process to create the
of solutions to conflict or crisis situations (see Box 4 for intermediary and transfer organizations and networks –
details). the innovation space – that are the breeding ground of
new knowledge-based clusters.
The directions of transition depend on different
Formation and functioning of the Triple regional circumstances and different stages of regional
Helix spaces development that were defined elsewhere in a four-stage
model of regional growth and renewal (Etzkowitz and
The formation of the knowledge, consensus and Klofsten, 2005), as follows.
innovation spaces is conceptualized as the result of the
(1) Genesis: creating the idea for a new regional
interaction between the university, industry and
development model.
government spheres, which gradually get closer together
(2) Implementation: starting new activities and
and start to overlap. Figure 3 presents the formation of a
developing infrastructure to realize the idea.
space in a 3D adaptation of the Cassini ovals.15 It shows
(3) Consolidation and adjustment: integration of
four configurations of the transition from independent to
activities to improve the efficiency of the new
overlapping spheres that are equivalent to the transition
activities and infrastructure.
from the laissez-faire to the balanced configuration
(4) Self-sustaining growth and renewal of the system, by
represented in Figure 1. This is a simplified
identifying new areas of growth.
representation of the interaction among the university,
industry and government institutional spheres, profiling Three examples of interactions between spaces are
relatively equal contributions to the formation of a discussed below, in connection with these different
‘space’. In real life, there are different degrees of regional development stages.
involvement of the spheres (asymmetrical contributions)
to the ‘space’. In fact, this different degree of New England Council, USA, 1920–1950
involvement of the spheres is the main factor that The New England Council case (Figure 4) exemplifies
induces the substitution mechanisms discussed above, the importance of the knowledge and consensus spaces
whereby the stronger sphere ‘takes the role’ of the at the ‘genesis’ stage for initiating the innovation space.
weaker one or enhances its development. A transition from the consensus space to the knowledge

250 INDUSTRY & HIGHER EDUCATION August 2013

 The Triple Helix and innovation policy and practice

Box 4. Mechanisms for the creation of a consensus space.

1. Creation or transformation of an organization to provide a home for brainstorming, analysis of problems and
formulation of plans. Examples include the Pittsburgh High-Tech Council, the Petropolis Technopole in Rio
de Janeiro State (Mello and Rocha, 2004), or the Board of the Recife Brazil Science Park, explicitly
representing key local innovation actors playing a ‘quasi-political’ role for enhancing local innovation
capacity. Similarly, the Knowledge Circle of Amsterdam meets regularly to formulate and propose ideas for
enhancing knowledge-based development. After-hours clubs in New York City can also be considered as a
consensus space, providing venues for artists, fashion designers and other creative individuals to develop new
projects across arts and fashion disciplines (Currid, 2007).
2. Provision of access to the resources required to implement a project. This can be achieved through the very
process of including actors from different backgrounds in the strategy review and formulation process. An
example is the 1930s New England Council representing university, industry and government leadership in the
region, which invented the contemporary format for the venture capital firm, building on family investment
firms with a professional staff. They worked out a political strategy to make the venture capital firm a viable
entity by lobbying to change laws that prevented large financial institutions from investing in risky ventures
(Etzkowitz, 2002).
3. Providing solutions to conflict or crisis situations, such as socio-economic crises caused by loss of
manufacturing industries and failure to create alternative industries, financial and social crises, etc
(Etzkowitz et al, 2008). This was the case of the US when it faced the first wave of loss of manufacturing
industries to foreign competitors in the 1970s, which triggered a compromise between opponents and
proponents of direct government support for industry, a controversial concept in a national system in which
industry was expected to be the prime mover and source of innovation, while the firm, led by ‘heroic
entrepreneurs’, was the protagonist.
Japan faced economic and social stasis in the 1990s, when the production capacities of national
manufacturing industries were increasingly outsourced abroad, leaving a gap that could not be filled by a real
estate bubble that eventually burst, or by emerging companies that proved to be too weak to restart the
economy. A shift to a knowledge-based economy was sought, in which universities would play a greater role,
moving on from the position of R&D labs for industry they had played earlier.
Sweden’s movement of leading corporations and entrepreneurs abroad in the early 1990s or mergers with
foreign firms that also outsourced economic activities abroad caused a financial crisis and a policy dilemma of
whether to continue to support a relatively small group of older, large corporations, several of which, like Volvo
and Saab, had become branches of multinational corporations, or to shift focus to firm formation as a strategy
for discontinuous innovation in emerging technologies. The dilemma was solved by adopting a start-up culture
to revive the national industrial base with large national participation. Brazil’s strategy to address persisting
extremes of wealth and poverty included various government policy measures encouraging innovation as a
renewal and growth strategy, made possible by the introduction of the Innovation Law in 2004 (ibid).

space and further to the innovation space is identified in institutions, which represented an already strong
this case. The formation of the consensus space is knowledge space. The Council focused on enhancing
exemplified by the creation of the Council by the the start-up phenomenon of firms emanating from the
Governors of the six New England states, by putting turn of the century from MIT and Harvard, involved
together resources to develop a renewal strategy for a with scientific instruments and the newly-emerging
region that had been in economic decline from the early radio industry in the 1920s, and invented the venture
20th century due to the departure of industries and firms capital firm to expand and intensify the creation of the
to regions with raw materials and cheap labour. After innovation space.
initial attempts to attract branch plants and renew SMEs
in dying industries, the Council turned to the region’s Silicon Valley, California, in the mid-1990s
unique resource and comparative advantage – its high Silicon Valley in the mid-1990s exemplifies a transition
concentration of academic resources, including MIT, from a knowledge space to a consensus space and then
Harvard and a wide range of other academic to an innovation space in the ‘self-sustaining growth and

INDUSTRY & HIGHER EDUCATION August 2013 251

The Triple Helix and innovation policy and practice

D E

F G

Figure 3. Interaction between the Triple Helix institutional spheres in the formation of a space: (a) institutional spheres
apart – a laissez-faire regime; (b) institutional spheres getting closer together and starting to interact; (c) institutional
spheres increasingly overlapping; and (d) institutional spheres overlapping in a balanced regime – formation of a ‘stem
cell space’.

&RQVHQVXVVSDFH

,QQRYDWLRQVSDFH

.QRZOHGJHVSDFH

*HQHVLV ,PSOHPHQWDWLRQ &RQVROLGDWLRQ 6HOIVXVWDLQLQJ

DQGDGMXVWPHQW JURZWKDQGUHQHZDO

Figure 4. New England Council, 1920–1950.

252 INDUSTRY & HIGHER EDUCATION August 2013

 The Triple Helix and innovation policy and practice

,QQRYDWLRQVSDFH

&RQVHQVXVVSDFH

.QRZOHGJHVSDFH

*HQHVLV ,PSOHPHQWDWLRQ &RQVROLGDWLRQ 6HOIVXVWDLQLQJ

DQGDGMXVWPHQW JURZWKDQGUHQHZDO

Figure 5. Silicon Valley in the mid-1990s.

renewal’ phase (Figure 5). In the innovation space, computer networking, winnowed from a larger
many successful firms had either outgrown their collection (Miller, 1997).
university links or were spin-offs of an earlier
generation of firms and had never developed extensive Stockholm’s Kista Science City, Sweden
academic links. Indeed, by this time many of the The development of Stockholm’s Kista Science City
Valley’s high-tech firms tended to view themselves as a exemplifies how a successful consensus space further
self-generated phenomenon, a cluster of inter-related enhanced a knowledge-intensive and business-intensive
firms, rather than as part of a broader university– platform created through the interplay between the
industry–government complex. However, in the knowledge and the innovation spaces (Figure 6). The
economic downturn of mid-1990s, such firms felt the history of Kista starts in the early 1970s when an
need to connect or reconnect to academic institutions Ericsson unit moved there, soon to be followed by
and local government in order to move the region IBM.16 In the early 1980s, Stockholm’s mayor
forward. A new organization, Joint Venture Silicon envisaged the creation of an electronics centre which,
Valley, was established for this purpose and a public once completed a few years later, attracted a significant
process, in the form of a series of open meetings number of electronics, engineering and computer
focused on generating ideas for the future technological science research institutes, academic research units and
candidates, was initiated. A venture capital approach business firms and became an established ICT centre of
was adopted, with a few promising ideas, such as national and international prestige – known also in the

.QRZOHGJH6SDFH

&RQVHQVXV6SDFH

,QQRYDWLRQ6SDFH

*HQHVLV ,PSOHPHQWDWLRQ &RQVROLGDWLRQ 6HOIVXVWDLQLQJ

DQGDGMXVWPHQW JURZWKDQGUHQHZDO

Figure 6. Stockholm’s Kista Science City.

INDUSTRY & HIGHER EDUCATION August 2013 253

The Triple Helix and innovation policy and practice

late 1980s as Sweden’s Silicon Valley. In 2000 induced by signalling proteins embedded in the cell
Stockholm’s business community, academia and surface.
municipality saw the centre as the cornerstone for the The functioning of Triple Helix systems relies on the
foundation of Kista Science City. To implement this non-linear, diachronic transition from one space to
vision, Kista Science City AB was created and was soon another in varying directions, with one space catalysing
ranked second by Wired magazine alongside similar the interaction between the others when they are
developments in Boston and Israel. In 2002, the IT present, or speeding up their development when they are
university was opened as a joint venture between the weak or absent. The direction of transitions is related to
Royal Institute of Technology KTH and the University different regional circumstances and development
of Stockholm and this fuelled the formation of new stages, which highlights the relevance of the Triple
business networks in Kista Science City’s growth areas, Helix systems to regional innovation strategies.
especially ICT. Ericsson and many other businesses
moved their offices to Kista and activities expanded to Policy relevance and policy implications
the entire region. In 2010, Kista Science City hosted The Triple Helix systems approach offers a broad
more than 1,000 ICT companies and more than 5,000 perspective for understanding the sources and
ICT students and scientists – a high concentration of development paths of innovation in different contexts.
expertise, innovation and business opportunities within By introducing the Triple Helix model into a systems
ICT that is unique in Sweden. framework, a clearer, more fine-grained view can be
achieved of:
Policy relevance and implications and • Key contributors to innovation and their interactions
further research in correlation with their specific roles;
• Circulation of knowledge flows and resources within
This paper introduces the concept of Triple Helix
and among the knowledge, innovation and consensus
systems as an analytical construct that organizes the key
spaces and identification of existing blockages or
features of university–industry–government (Triple
gaps; and
Helix) interactions into an ‘innovation system’ format
• New combinations of knowledge and resources that
defined according to systems theory as a set of
can be generated through the articulation between
components, relationships and functions. This
the spaces, generating a conceptual machinery for
perspective provides an explicit framework for the
the advancement of innovation theory and practice.
systemic interaction between Triple Helix institutional
actors that was hitherto lacking. In defining the An innovation strategy centred on the Triple Helix
components of Triple Helix systems, three important systems can be an attractive, novel perspective for
distinctions are made: between R&D and non-R&D policy makers, especially in regions that aim to pursue a
innovators; between ‘single-sphere’ and ‘multi-sphere’ knowledge-intensive development model and thus
(hybrid) institutions; and between individuals and enhance their knowledge base and build ‘steeples of
institutions. The relationships between components are excellence’ from research themes with commercial
synthesized into five main types: technology transfer, potential and innovative firms that can realize that
collaboration and conflict moderation, collaborative potential. Such regions can be found in both developed
leadership, substitution and networking. The functions and developing countries, as shown by the recent 2011
of Triple Helix systems are defined as a set of categorisation of OECD regions using
competencies that are achieved in what we call the innovation-related variables that distinguishes between
‘knowledge, innovation and consensus spaces’ and are knowledge hubs, innovation production zones and
designed to realize the Triple Helix systems’ overall non-S&T-driven regions (Ajmone Marsan and Maguire,
function of knowledge and innovation generation, 2011).
diffusion and use. The formation of the spaces is Various innovation policy approaches have been
envisioned as a two-step process: interaction of the adopted at the regional level. Some European regions
Triple Helix institutional spheres and formation of a view innovation activities and the business innovation
‘stem cell space’, followed by the differentiation of the process as a network process, in which business and
‘stem cell space’ into a knowledge, innovation or a interactions with other partners play a significant part
consensus space through the mobilization of actors, (Sternberg, 2000), while other European regions have
relations and resources and the creation of new focused on SME policy, on how SMEs innovate and to
institutional formats. The differentiation is triggered what extent they rely on other firms and organizations in
by specific environmental factors (such as local or their innovation activities (Asheim et al, 2003; Tödlling
regional needs), similar to stem cell differentiation and Kaufmann, 2001). Several Nordic regions have

254 INDUSTRY & HIGHER EDUCATION August 2013

 The Triple Helix and innovation policy and practice

adopted a cluster policy to explore similarities and developing countries that want to increase their
differences between regional clusters of SMEs in innovation potential.
different countries and develop social networking New ways of achieving all of these objectives can be
arrangements to boost and secure social capital and trust found from adopting a Triple Helix systems perspective,
(Asheim et al, 2003). Several Canadian regions have through consolidation of and articulation between the
also followed a cluster policy based on two main types knowledge, innovation and consensus spaces. As we
of ‘emerging’ models of clusters: have shown earlier, when one space is weak or missing,
the other spaces can accelerate its formation and
(1) Regionally embedded and anchored regions where
development, creating new innovation opportunities. At
the local knowledge/science base represents a major
the same time, the non-linear interactions and
generator of new, unique knowledge assets; and
communications between the spaces also need to take
(2) ‘Entrepôt’ regions where much of the knowledge
into account the correlation of regional R&D and
base required for innovation and production is
innovation policies with other policies (education,
acquired through straightforward market
employment, trade, exports, fiscal). Going beyond a
transactions, often from non-local sources (Wolfe,
single region to the level of multi-regional collaboration
2003; Holbrook and Wolfe, 2002) (see details in
is also key to creating a ‘critical mass’ of human and
Doloreux and Parto, 2004).
financial resources for broad-scope projects that involve
Some developing countries, where regional innovation higher risks and raise higher coordination challenges.
policy is in its infancy, have only started to build their These objectives resonate to a large extent with the
first regional innovation strategies under the coordination European Union’s new focus on ‘research and
of the local regional innovation agencies or regional innovation strategies for smart specialization’. The new
development agencies – for example, Izmir, the first policy requires national and regional authorities across
region in Turkey to develop its own Regional Innovation Europe to identify unique characteristics and assets of
Strategy (see Izmir Development Agency, 2012). each country and region, highlighting each region’s
A Triple Helix systems-centred regional innovation competitive advantages, and rallying regional
strategy can be particularly relevant in the context of stakeholders and resources around an excellence-driven
developing countries, because these countries, while vision of their future, in order to use the EU’s Structural
seeking inspiration from the experience of developed Funds more efficiently and create synergies between
countries, are also looking for novel models and different EU, national and regional policies, as well as
solutions that could be better adapted to the realities and between public and private investments (European
challenges of their own environment. A multitude of Commission, 2013).
labels has emerged for these new innovation models, The policy implications arising from the adoption of
from ‘pro-poor innovation’ and ‘grassroots innovation’, a Triple Helix systems approach to innovation focus in
to ‘frugal innovation’ and ‘inclusive innovation’, and so particular on the measures that support the formation
on. Irrespective of the name, common objectives of and consolidation of the Knowledge, Innovation and
these models are the creation of new markets for Consensus spaces. We have shown earlier that an
innovative goods and services among those at the base important condition for creating and strengthening a
of the pyramid, introduction of new technologies – Knowledge Space is the achievement of a ‘critical mass’
particularly information and communication of R&D and non-R&D actors, academic research and
technologies, and creation of new contexts and new education resources in a local area. Policies to develop
locations for innovation (UNIDO, 2003). this ‘critical mass’ could concentrate on mapping
Developing countries committed to the transition to a regional/national innovation actors and analysing their
knowledge-based development model also aim to evolution and future trends; understanding their
develop a better research infrastructure, a highly priority-setting; the scope of operations (regional,
qualified workforce and greater innovative potential of national, international); and regional impact. Policy
domestic enterprises, with a stronger competitive initiatives might also be directed at improving human
advantage. A shift from an exogenous regional resources for R&D in sciences and arts at national or
development approach, based on relocation/attraction of regional level, improving the labour market for
firms from elsewhere, often subsidiaries or R&D centres researchers, promoting better policies for employment,
of large multinationals, to an endogenous regional education and training, and immigration to attract
development approach, based on local factors – such as world-class researchers, thus making research careers
strong knowledge base, skilled labour services, more available and attractive, especially for women and
proximity to knowledge sources, and regional minorities, reducing ‘brain drain’ and improving ‘brain
technology strategies and plans – is in progress in many gain’.

INDUSTRY & HIGHER EDUCATION August 2013 255

The Triple Helix and innovation policy and practice

Similar policy actions are important in developing major catalysts in the creation of the consensus space,
the innovation space: mapping of ‘single-sphere’ and but how do consensus spaces get created in times of
‘multi-sphere’ (hybrid) institutions and promoting economic upturn? Or how can cross-institutional
policies that support their formation and activity; leadership arise in them where, to date, it has been
creation of seed funds; increased participation of conspicuously absent? A comparative analysis of the
industry and other private stakeholders in university and creation of consensus spaces under various regional
public research institutes’ priority-setting; stimulation of conditions in different historical periods and stages of
the commercialization of university-generated regional development will be most useful to clarify what
technologies; fiscal measures to encourage the creation impetuses lead Triple Helix actors to come together to
of innovative, high-tech start-ups; implementation of create a consensus space. We also need to refine our
national and regional programmes to promote risk and analysis of good practice in creating innovation spaces:
venture capital funds; improved access to equity what are the conditions under which importation of
financing for research and innovation activities; and so organizational innovations is successful and when do
on. these innovations impede development? What
The formation and development of the consensus methodology should be developed for such an analysis?
space can be accelerated by strengthening the dialogue What gaps need to be filled with what type of
and collaboration between national and regional organizational innovation and what elements need to be
innovation stakeholders and creating new platforms for brought together to create organizational innovation? In
communication, promoting collaborative governance the past, the venture capital model was created from such
measures, such as public consultation and feedback and an analysis (Etzkowitz, 2002); what form should such
collaborative leadership models and practices. analysis and solutions take in our present context? An
initial step might be a synthesis of models that highlight
Further research the importance of creative leadership and counter-
The analytical construct of Triple Helix systems we cyclical funding, targeted at innovation gaps and ‘valleys
propose here still needs a better understanding of of death’ that emerge as a consequence of economic
several issues, including the following. crises (Benner, 2012; Ranga and Etzkowitz, 2012).
Assessing the performance of Triple Helix systems by
The development of the knowledge, innovation and means of hybrid indicators that capture dynamic
consensus spaces. First, the formation and processes at the intersection of the university, industry
differentiation of the spaces depend essentially on the and government institutional spheres rather than within
motivation of the Triple Helix actors to engage in joint single spheres. Such indicators are currently rare.17
projects and set common goals. This is not an easy Also, the design of indicators that characterize the
process, because setting joint agendas often involves specific dynamics of each space may be a challenging
changes of vision, crossing organizational silos, process, especially for the innovation and consensus
thinking beyond the boundaries of a single institutional spaces. For example, the number of spin-offs that have
sphere, harmonizing institutional and individual graduated from university incubators, monitored in
objectives, resources, cultures, and so on. Such some universities, could be a relevant indicator for the
outcomes can be accelerated by top-down or bottom-up innovation space, while the number of collaborative
initiatives that not only need a favourable environment projects involving Triple Helix actors, also often
to reach fruition but also require policy measures that monitored in entrepreneurial universities, could become
integrate innovation and entrepreneurship better within a good proxy for the consensus space.
the larger socio-economic context, and especially
research, education, labour market and development
policies. Individual and collective Innovation Conclusions
Organizers whether in Ontario, Brainport Research To conclude, it is interesting to note that while
Triangle (Leuven–Aachen–Eindhoven), the Lagos Schumpeter’s theory of creative destruction shows how
Innovation Council – among others – are key to outmoded economic regimes disappeared, the Triple
overcoming institutional inertia. Helix systems delineate how new regimes appear
Second, we also need to understand more about the through creative reconstruction. By revealing the
growth of the spaces over time, especially in relation to ‘workings of the engine’, they provide new insights into
the regional development stages, and about the the process of knowledge-based development that is
functional requirements that are necessary for often considered opaque and hidden, such insights
supporting each development stage. For example, we encouraging initiatives and practices that carry the seeds
know that economic downturn and political crises are of innovative developments.

256 INDUSTRY & HIGHER EDUCATION August 2013

 The Triple Helix and innovation policy and practice

Moreover, by providing a clearer view of innovation historical styles that may be reinterpreted in new ways with new
materials or hybridized into new formats.
actors, knowledge and resources flows within and 8
See details on Brazil’s 2004 Innovation Law at
among the spaces and of existing blockages and gaps http://www.scidev.net/en/editorials/brazils-innovation-law-
between them, the Triple Helix systems can help lessons-for-latin-america.html.
9
See http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Pixar-University-
accelerate the transition from the low-risk, low-gain Thinking-Outside-The-Mouse-2611923.php.
development model that is currently in place in many 10
See http://www.eucys2012.eu/index.php?option=com_
regions and countries and is conducive to slow, content&view=article&id=49&Itemid=36.
11
See http://www.cisco.com/web/learning/netacad/academy/
incremental innovation patterns with low economic index.html.
returns, to a higher-risk, higher-gain development model 12
See http://appleinsider.com/articles/11/10/06/apple_
that could favour more radical innovations and the university_revealed_as_plan_to_teach_executives_to_think_
like_steve_jobs.
accelerated creation of new markets, new growth 13
The European Technology Platforms (ETPs) are industry-led
opportunities, new jobs and new skills. multinational networks (36 ETPs in 2011) of various
stakeholders who define a common vision and implement a
medium- to long-term Strategic Research Agenda in key
Notes industrial areas for Europe’s competitiveness and economic
growth (http://cordis.europa.eu/technology-platforms/). The
1
An important part of this research has been published in special ETPs have provided major input to European research
issues of refereed journals introducing papers presented at the programmes such as FP7, and some have been involved in the
Triple Helix conferences held since 1996 until present – see establishment of the Joint Technology Initiatives (JTIs), a form of
Appendix 1. Other examples of Triple Helix research can be long-term public-private partnerships that combine private sector
found for example, in Rothaermel et al’s (2007) literature review investment and/or national and European public funding (five
that identified 173 academic articles published in peer-reviewed JTIs in 2011) (http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/jtis/).
14
scholarly journals between1981–2005. For example, increasing network value with higher number of
2
See, for example, the VINN Excellence Centres and the participants, reduction of research projects overlapping through
VINNV
XT Programme of the Swedish Governmental Agency network centralisation, complementary investments for
for Innovation Systems VINNOVA, or Brazil’s 2004 Innovation information dissemination that may lead to economic benefits
Law that incentivizes the interaction between firms, public and easier access to information flows within the network by
universities and research centres, or the European Union’s governments and firms, increasing their choices about
Europe 2020 Strategy and its Innovation Union flagship specialisation, co-operation and competition (Steinmueller,
initiative. 1994).
3 15
In the sense of specific national factors, like history and culture, The Cassini ovals (ellipses) are a family of curves identified by
institutions, laws and policies that shaped technological the astronomer Giovanni Cassini in 1860, which he believed
capabilities of a country. defined the path the Earth takes around the Sun. A Cassini oval
4
These capabilities ensure the capacity of a system to make is a plane curve defined as the set (locus) of points in the plane
innovative choices of markets, products, technologies and where the product of the distances from the point to two fixed
organizational structure; to engage in entrepreneurial activity; to points situated at a distance 2a apart is a constant called b2.
select key personnel and acquire key resources, including new The Cartesian equation of a Cassini oval is ((x-a)2 +y2)((x+a)2
competence; to organize and coordinate the resources and +y2)=b4, where the x and y are two points in the plane. The
economic activities within the organization; to implement general appearance of the oval is dictated by the relative values
technologies and utilize them effectively in the market; to learn of a and b. If a<b, the curve forms a single loop. This loop
from success as well as failure, to read and interpret market becomes increasingly pinched as a approaches b. When a>b,
signals and take appropriate actions, and to diffuse technology the curve is made up of two loops, while at a=b it is the same as
throughout the system (Carlsson et al, 2002, p 235). the ‘Bernoulli’s lemniscate’ that was documented about 14 years
5
Carlsson (2003) refers to views of institutions as networks or later (see further details at http://mathworld.wolfram.com/
organizations supporting technical innovation (Freeman, 1987; CassiniOvals.html). Here we present an adaptation of the
Nelson and Rosenberg, 1993), as rules or regimes that Cassini ovals from two to three spheres, to accommodate our
determine behaviour (Lundvall, 1992) and as institutional three institutional spheres, the principle remaining the same.
16
arrangements defining both regimes and organizations Selected from ‘A History of Kista Science City’ at: http://blog.
(Carlsson and Stankiewicz, 1991). naver.com/PostView.nhn?blogId=beyondui&logNo=13008951563
6
For example, in the creation of the Apple origin myth, Steve 2&parentCategoryNo=96&viewDate=&currentPage=1&listtype=0
17
Jobs moved to the foreground, while Steve Wozniak, the For example, among the 25 indicators of the 2011 Innovation
technical collaborator, and Mark Makula, the experienced Union Scoreboard only one, public–private publications,
semiconductor executive, who gave the original duo credibility captures the effect of collaboration between the university and
with suppliers and financers, were elided (Freiberger and industry spheres, while most of the others describe single-
Swaine, 2000). sphere effects (for example, the indicators under the ‘Firm
7
For example, The Kitchen in New York City’s Soho District activities’ and ‘Output’ categories reflect firm-specific processes,
invents new forms of conceptual art, new artistic formats and and some of the indicators under ‘Enablers’ reflect some
modes of performance that inspire other artists and are academic processes). The OECD Science, Technology and
disseminated through international performance tours. Although Industry Scoreboard 2011 has two such indicators: Government-
The Kitchen members do not explicitly view themselves from an financed R&D in business (government-industry interface), and
innovation perspective, they instigate an innovation process in Patents citing non-patent literature and average citations
their domain. The fashion department of the Antwerp Academy received per patent cited (industry-university interface).
in Belgium encourages students to create and explore
innovative forms, original treatments of materials, stimulate
experimentation and improvisation, in a way similar to the References
teaching laboratory. The Costume Institute at the Metropolitan
Museum of Art in New York is the cultural memory of the industry Ajmone Marsan, G., and Maguire, K. (2011), ‘Categorisation of
that is regularly utilized as a source of ideas in the form of OECD regions using innovation-related variables’, OECD

INDUSTRY & HIGHER EDUCATION August 2013 257

The Triple Helix and innovation policy and practice

Regional Development Working Papers, 2011/03, OECD Campbell, E.G., Powers, J.B., Blumenthal, D., and Biles, B.
Publishing, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5 kg8bf42qv7k-en. (2004), ‘Inside the Triple Helix: technology transfer and
Almeida, M., Mello, J.M.C., and Etzkowitz, H. (2012), ‘Social commercialization in the life sciences’, Health Affairs, Vol 23,
innovation in a developing country: invention and diffusion of No 1, pp 64–76.
the Brazilian cooperative incubator’, International Journal of Carlsson, B., ed (1997), Technological Systems and Industrial
Technology and Globalisation, Vol 6, No 3, pp 206–224. Dynamics, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston/Dordrecht/
Amason, A.C. (1996), ‘Distinguishing the effect of functional and London.
dysfunctional conflict on strategic decision making: resolving Carlsson, B. (1998), ‘Innovation and knowledge spillovers: a
a paradox for top management teams’, Academy of systems cum evolutionary perspective’, in Eliasson, G., and
Management Journal, Vol 39, pp 123–148. Green, C., eds, Microfoundations of Economic Growth: A
Amason, A.C., and Sapienza, H.J. (1997), ‘The effects of top Schumpeterian Perspective, University of Michigan Press,
management team size and interaction norms on cognitive Ann Arbor, MI, pp 156–168.
and affective conflict’, Journal of Management, Vol 23, Carlsson, B. (2003), ‘Innovation systems: a survey of the
pp 495–516. literature from a Schumpeterian perspective’, paper for The
Archer, D., and Cameron, A. (2009), Collaborative Leadership – Elgar Companion to Neo-Schumpeterian Economics,
How to Succeed in an Interconnected World, Butterworth- downloaded 09 April 2012 from: http://
Heinemann, Oxford. faculty.weatherhead.case.edu/carlsson/documents/
Arundel, A., Bordoy, C., and Kanerva, M. (2008), ‘Neglected InnovationSystemsSurveypaper6.pdf.
innovators: how do innovative firms that do not perform R&D Carlsson, B., Jacobsson, S., Holmén, M., and Rickne, A. (2002),
innovate? – results of an analysis of the Innobarometer 2007 ‘Innovation systems: analytical and methodological issues’,
survey, No 215’, INNO-Metrics Thematic Paper, European Research Policy, Vol 31, No 2, pp 233–245.
Commission, DG Enterprise, Brussels. Carlsson, B., and Stankiewicz, R. (1991), ‘On the nature,
Asheim, B., Coenen, L., and Svensson-Henning, M. (2003), function, and composition of technological systems’, Journal
Nordic SMEs and Regional Innovation Systems, Nordisk of Evolutionary Economics, No 1, pp 93–118.
Industrifond, Oslo. Casas, R., de Gortari, R., and Santos, M.J. (2000), ‘The building
Azagra-Caro, J.M., Carat, G., and Pontikakis, D. (2010), of knowledge spaces in Mexico: a regional approach to
‘Geographical implications of the TH: inclining the columns to networking’, Research Policy, Vol 29, No 2, pp 229–241.
make the temple look straight, a first glance at monetary Chrislip, D. (2002), The Collaborative Leadership Fieldbook: A
indicators on university–industry cooperation’, Research Guide for Citizens and Civic Leaders, Jossey-Bass, San
Evaluation, Vol 19, No 2, pp 119–128. Francisco, CA.
Baldini, N. (2006), ‘University patenting and licensing activity: a Cohen, W.M., Levin, R.C., and Mowery, D.C. (1987), ‘Firm size
review of the literature’, Research Evaluation, Vol 15, No 3, and R&D intensity: a re-examination’, Journal of Industrial
pp 197–207. Economics, Vol 35, pp 543–563.
Benner, M. (2012), ‘Innovation policy in hard times: lessons from Cooke, P. (1996), Regional Innovation Systems, UCL Press,
the Nordic countries’, European Planning Studies, Vol 20, No London.
9, pp 1455–1468.
Cooke, P. (2004), ‘The molecular biology revolution and the rise
Bergek, A., Jacobsson S., and Hekkert, M. (2007), ‘Attributes in
of bioscience megacentres in North America and Europe’,
innovation systems: a framework for analysing energy
Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, Vol
system dynamics and identifying goals for system-building
22, No 2, pp 161–177.
activities by entrepreneurs and policy makers’, in Foxon, T.,
Kohler, J., and Oughton, C., eds, Innovations for a Low Currid, E. (2007), The Warhol Economy, Princeton University
Carbon Economy: Economic, Institutional and Management Press, Princeton, NJ.
Approaches, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham. Cusumano, M.A., and Elenkov, D. (1994), ‘Linking international
Bergek, A., Jacobsson, S., Carlsson, B., Lindmark, S., and technology transfer with strategy and management: a literary
Rickne, A. (2008), ‘Analyzing the functional dynamics of commentary’, Research Policy, Vol 23, No 2, pp 195–215.
technological innovation systems: a scheme of analysis’, David, P.A., and Foray, D. (2003), ‘Economic fundamentals of
Research Policy, Vol 37, No 3, pp 407–429. the Knowledge Society’, Policy Futures in Education, Vol 1,
Bianco,M., and Viscardi, N. (2008), ‘Research organization in pp 20–49.
the university: the case of a leading Uruguayan group in David, P.A., Foray, D., and Steinmueller, W.E. (1999), ‘The
basic science’, International Journal of Technology research network and the new economics of science: from
Management and Sustainable Development, Vol 7, No 3, metaphors to organizational behaviours’, in Gambardella, A.,
pp 237–249. and Malerba, F., eds, The Organisation of Innovative
Bjerregaard, T. (2010), ‘Industry and academia in convergence: Activities in Europe, Cambridge University Press,
micro-institutional dimensions of R&D collaboration’, Cambridge.
Technovation, Vol 30, No 2, pp 100–108. De Clercq, D., Thongpapanl N., and Dimov, D. (2009), ‘When
Boardman, P.C. (2009), ‘Government centrality to university– good conflict gets better and bad conflict becomes worse:
industry interactions: university research centers and the the role of social capital in the conflict–innovation
industry involvement of academic researchers’, Research relationship’, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
Policy, Vol 38, No 10, pp 1505–1516. Vol 37, pp 283–297.
Booyens, I. (2011), ‘Are small, medium- and micro-sized Debackere, K. (2000), ‘Managing academic R&D as a business
enterprises engines of innovation? – the reality in South at KU Leuven: context, structure and process’, R&D
Africa’, Science and Public Policy, Vol 38, No 1, pp 67–78. Management, Vol 30, pp 323–328.
Breschi, S., and Malerba, F. (1997), ‘Sectoral innovation Debackere, K., and Veugelers, R. (2005), ‘Improving industry
systems: technological regimes, Schumpeterian dynamics science links through university technology transfer units:
and spatial boundaries’, in Edquist, C., ed, Systems of an analysis and a case’, Research Policy, Vol 34, No 3,
Innovation: Technologies, Institutions and Organizations, pp 321–342.
Pinter/Cassell Academic, London and Washington. DeBresson, C., and Amesse, F. (1991), ‘Networks of innovators:
Callon, M. (1992), ‘The dynamics of techno-economic networks’, a review and introduction to the issue’, Research Policy, Vol
in Coombs, R., Saviotti, P., and Walsh, V., eds, Technological 20, No 5, pp 363–379.
Change and Company Strategies: Economic and Dolfsma, W., and Leydesdorff, L. (2009), ‘Lock-in and break-out
Sociological Perspectives, Academic Press, London. from technological trajectories: modelling and policy

258 INDUSTRY & HIGHER EDUCATION August 2013

 The Triple Helix and innovation policy and practice

implications’, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Academy of Management Executive, Vol 17, No 2,
Vol 76, pp 932–941. pp 101–113.
Doloreux, D., and Parto, S. (2004), ‘Regional innovation Freeman, C. (1987), Technology Policy and Economic
systems: a critical review’, ERSA Conference Papers, Performance: Lessons from Japan, Pinter, London.
ersa04p56, see: http://www.ulb.ac.be/soco/asrdlf/documents/ Freeman, C. (1988), ‘Japan: a new national innovation system?’,
RIS_Doloreux-Parto_000.pdf in Dosi, G., Freeman, C., Nelson, R.R., Silverberg, G., and
Doloreux, D., and Parto, S. (2005), ‘Regional innovation Soete, L., eds, Technical Change and Economic Theory,
systems: current discourse and unresolved issues’, Pinter, London.
Technology in Society, Vol 27, pp 133–153. Freeman, C. (1991), ‘Networks of innovators: a synthesis of
Dosi, G., Freeman, C., Nelson, R.R., Silverberg, G., and Soete, research issues’, Research Policy, Vol 20, No 5,
L., eds (1998), Technology and Economic Theory, Pinter, pp 499–514.
London. Freeman, C., and Lundvall, B.-Å., eds (1988), Small Countries
Edquist, C. (1997), ‘Systems of innovation approaches: their Facing the Technological Revolution, Pinter, London.
emergence and characteristics’, in Edquist, C., ed, Systems
Freiberger, P., and Swaine, M. (2000), Fire in the Valley: The
of Innovation: Technologies, Institutions and Organizations,
Making of the Personal Computer, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Pinter, London.
Edquist, C. (2005), ‘Systems of innovation: perspectives and Furman, J.L., and MacGarvie, M. (2009), ‘Academic
challenges’, in Fagerberg, J., Mowery, D.C., and Nelson, collaboration and organizational innovation: the development
R.R., eds, The Oxford Handbook of Innovation, Oxford of research capabilities in the US pharmaceutical industry,
University Press, New York, pp 181–208. 1927–1946’, Industrial and Corporate Change, Vol 18, No 5,
Etzkowitz, H. (1993), ‘Technology transfer: the second academic pp 929–961.
revolution’, Technology Access Report, No 6, pp 7–9. Galende, J., and de la Fuente, J.M. (2003), ‘Internal factors
Etzkowitz, H. (2002), MIT and the Rise of Entrepreneurial determining a firm’s innovative behaviour’, Research Policy,
Science, Routledge, London. Vol 32, No 5, pp 715–736.
Etzkowitz, H. (2003), Innovation in innovation: the Triple Helix of Galende, J., and Suarez Gonzales, I. (1999), ‘A resource-based
university–industry–government relations’, Social Science analysis of the factors determining a firm’s R&D activities’,
Information, Vol 42, pp 293–338. Research Policy, Vol 28, No 8, pp 891–905.
Etzkowitz, H. (2008), The Triple Helix: University–Industry– Gebhardt, C. (2012), ‘The entrepreneurial state: the German
Government Innovation in Action, Routledge, London. entrepreneurial regions program as an attenuator for the
Etzkowitz, H. (2012), ‘Triple Helix clusters: boundary financial crisis’, European Planning Studies, Vol 20, No 9,
permeability at university–industry–government interfaces as pp 1469–1482.
a regional innovation strategy’, Environment and Planning C: Geuna, A., and Nesta, L.J.J. (2006), ‘University patenting and its
Government and Policy, Vol 30, No 5, pp 766–779. effects on academic research: the emerging European
Etzkowitz, H., and Klofsten, M. (2005), ‘The innovating region: evidence’, Research Policy, Vol 35, No 6, pp 790–807.
towards a theory of knowledge-based regional development’, Geuna, A., and Rossi, F. (2011), ‘Changes to university IPR
R&D Management, Vol 35, pp 243–255. regulations in Europe and the impact on academic
Etzkowitz, H., and Leydesdorff, L. (1995), ‘The Triple Helix: patenting’, Research Policy, Vol 40, No 8, pp 1068–1076.
university–industry–government relations: a laboratory for Gibney, J., Copeland, S., and Murie, A. (2009), ‘Towards a
knowledge-based economic development’, EASST Review, ‘‘new’’ strategic leadership of place for the knowledge-based
Vol 14, pp 14–19. economy’, Leadership, Vol 5, pp 5–23.
Etzkowitz, H., and Leydesdorff, L. (1998), ‘The endless Goldstein, H.A. (2010), ‘The ‘‘entrepreneurial turn’’ and regional
transition: a ‘‘triple helix’’ of university–industry–government economic development mission of universities’, Annals of
relations’, Minerva, Vol 36, pp 203–208. Regional Science, Vol 44, No 1, pp 83–109.
Etzkowitz, H., and Leydesdorff, L. (2000), ‘The dynamics of Hamilton, W.B. (1966), ‘The research triangle of North Carolina:
innovation: from national systems and ‘‘Mode 2’’ to a Triple a study in leadership for the common weal’, South Atlantic
Helix of university–industry–government relations’, Research Quarterly, Vol 65, pp 254–278.
Policy, Vol 29, No 2, pp 109–123.
Heerwagen, J., Kelly, K., and Kampschroer, K. (2010), ‘The
Etzkowitz, H., and Raiken, L. (1980), ‘Artists’ social movements changing nature of organizations, work and workplace’,
of the 1960’s and 70’s: from protest to institution-formation’, downloaded on 08 April 2013 from: http://www.wbdg.org/
paper presented at Eastern Sociological Society Thematic resources/chngorgwork.php.
Session, Boston, MA, distributed by ERIC Clearinghouse,
ERIC No ED186326, see: http://www.eric.ed.gov/. Heidenreich, M. (2009), ‘Innovation patterns and location of
European low- and medium-technology industries’, Research
Etzkowitz, H., and Schaflander, G. (1969), Ghetto Crisis, Little
Policy, Vol 38, No 3, pp 483–494.
Brown, Boston, MA.
Etzkowitz, H., Mello, J.M.C., and Almeida, M. (2005), ‘Towards Hekkert, M., Suurs, R.A.A., Negro, S., Kuhlmann, S., and Smits,
‘‘meta-innovation’’ in Brazil: the evolution of the incubator and R. (2008), ‘Attributes of innovation systems: a new approach
the emergence of a Triple Helix’, Research Policy, Vol 34, No for analysing technological change’, Technological
4, pp 411–424. Forecasting and Social Change, Vol 74, pp 413–432.
Etzkowitz, H., Ranga, M., Benner, M., Guaranys, L., Maculan, Holbrook, A., and Wolfe, D. (2002), Knowledge, Clusters and
A.M., and Kneller, R. (2008), ‘Pathways to the Regional Innovation: Economic Development in Canada,
entrepreneurial university: towards a global convergence’, Queen’s School of Policy Studies, Kingston, Ontario.
Science and Public Policy, Vol 35, pp 1–15. Huggins, R. (2008), ‘Universities and knowledge-based
European Commission (2013), ‘Research and innovation venturing: finance, management and networks in London’,
strategies for smart specialisation’, see: http://ec.europa.eu/ Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, Vol 20, No 2,
regional_policy/sources/docgener/informat/2014/ pp 185–206.
smart_specialisation_en.pdf. Inzelt, A. (2004), ‘The evolution of university–industry–
Feldman, M.P., and Desrochers, P. (2004), ‘Truth for its own government relationships during transition’, Research Policy,
sake: academic culture and technology transfer at Johns Vol 33, No 6–7, pp 975–995.
Hopkins University’, Minerva, Vol 42, No 2, pp 105–126. Iversen, E.J., Gulbrandsen, M., and Klitkou, A. (2007), ‘A
Finkelstein, S., and Mooney, A.C. (2003), ‘Not the usual baseline for the impact of academic patenting legislation in
suspects: how to use board process to make boards better’, Norway’, Scientometrics, Vol 70, No 2, pp 393–414.

INDUSTRY & HIGHER EDUCATION August 2013 259

The Triple Helix and innovation policy and practice

Izmir Development Agency (2012), Izmir Regional Innovation Special Issue’, Research Policy, Vol 35, No 10, pp
Strategy, see: http://www.izka.org.tr/en/izmirde-yatirim/ 1441–1449.
izmirde-yatirim-ortami/izmir-kalkinma-ajansi/. Leydesdorff, L., and Meyer, M. (2010), ‘The decline of university
Jehn, K.A. (1995), ‘A multi-method examination of the benefits patenting and the end of the Bayh-Dole effect’,
and detriments of intra-group conflict’, Administrative Scientometrics, Vol 83, No 2, pp 355–362.
Science Quarterly, Vol 40, pp 256–282. Leydesdorff, L., Dolfsma, W., and Van der Panne, G. (2006),
Jehn, K.A., and Mannix, E.A. (2001), ‘The dynamic nature of ‘Measuring the knowledge base of an economy in terms of
conflict: a longitudinal study of intra-group conflict and group Triple Helix relations among technology, organization and
performance’, Academy of Management Journal, Vol 44, No territory’, Research Policy, Vol 35, No 2, pp 181–199.
238–251. Lowe, C.U. (1982), ‘The Triple Helix – NIH, industry, and the
Jensen, M.B., Johnson, B., Lorenz, E., and Lundvall B.A. academic World’, Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine, Vol
(2007), ‘Forms of knowledge and modes of innovation’, 55, pp 239–246.
Research Policy, Vol 36, No 5, pp 680–693. Luhmann, N. (1975), ‘Systemtheorie, Evolutionstheorie und
Kaufmann, A., and Tödtling, F. (2001), ‘Science–industry Kommunikationstheorie’, Soziologische Gids, Vol 22, No 3,
interaction in the process of innovation: the importance of pp 154–168.
boundary-crossing between systems’, Research Policy, Vol Luhmann, N. (1984), Soziale Systeme: Grundriß einer
30, No 5, pp 791–804. allgemeinen Theorie, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt, published in
Klofsten, M., Jones-Evans, D., and Schärberg, C. (1999), English (1995), as Social Systems, Stanford University
‘Growing the Linköping Technopole: longitudinal study of the Press, Stanford, CA.
Triple Helix development in Sweden’, Journal of Technology Luna, M., and Tirtido, R. (2008), ‘Business associations and
Transfer, Vol 24, No 2–3, pp 125–138. their contribution to knowledge networks in Mexico’,
Konde, V. (2004), ‘Internet development in Zambia: a Triple International Journal of Technology Management and
Helix of government–university–partners’, International Sustainable Development, Vol 7, No 3, pp 251–264.
Journal of Technology Management, Vol 27, No 5, pp Lundvall, B.-Å. (1988), ‘Innovation as an interactive process:
440–451. from user–producer interaction to national systems of
Kruss, G. (2008), ‘Balancing old and new organisational forms: innovation’, in Dosi, G., ed, Technology and Economic
changing dynamics of government, industry and university Theory, Pinter, London.
interaction in South Africa’, Technology Analysis and Lundvall, B.-Å., ed. (1992), National Systems of Innovation,
Strategic Management Vol 20, No 6, pp 667–682. Pinter, London.
Kuhlmann, S. (2001), ‘Future governance of innovation policy in Malerba, F. (2002), ‘Sectoral systems of innovation and
Europe: three scenarios’, Research Policy, Vol 30, No 6, pp production’, Research Policy, Vol 31, No 2, pp 247–264.
953–976. Maskell, P., and Malmberg, A. (1997), ‘Towards an explanation
Kwon, K.S., Park, H.W., So, M., and Leydesdorff, L. (2012), ‘Has of regional specialization and industry agglomeration’,
globalization strengthened South Korea’s national research European Planning Studies, Vol 5, pp 25–41.
system? – national and international dynamics of the Triple Mason, C., and Harrison, R. (1992), ‘Strategy for closing the
Helix of scientific co-authorship relationships in South Korea’, small firms finance gap’, in Caley, D., Leigh, R., and
Scientometrics, Vol 90, No 1, pp 163–176. Smallbone, D., eds, Small Enterprise Development, Paul
Lawton Smith, H., and Bagchi-Sen Sharmistha, S. (2010), ‘Triple Chapman, London.
Helix and regional development: a perspective from Mello, J.M.C., and Alves Rocha, F.C. (2004), ‘Networking for
Oxfordshire in the UK’, Technology Analysis and Strategic regional innovation and economic growth: the Brazilian
Management, Vol 22, pp 805–818. Petropolis technopole’, International Journal of Technology
Lee, M.S., and Peterson, S.J. (2000), ‘Culture, entrepreneurial Management, Vol 27, No 5, pp 488–497.
orientation and global competitiveness’, Journal of World Mets, T. (2010), ‘Entrepreneurial business model for classical
Business, Vol 35, pp 401–416. research university’, Inzinerine Ekonomika – Engineering
Leydesdorff, L. (1996), ‘Luhmann’s sociological theory: its Economics, Vol 21, No 1, pp 80–89.
operationalisation and future perspectives’, Social Science Mets, T., Andrijevskaja, J., and Varblane, U. (2008), ‘The role of
Information, Vol 35, pp 283–306. the University of Tartu in the development of
Leydesdorff, L. (1997), ‘The new communication regime of entrepreneurship in the region of South Estonia’,
university–industry–government relations’, in Etzkowitz, H., International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation
and Leydesdorff, L., eds, Universities and the Global Management, Vol 8, No 6, pp 648–664.
Knowledge Economy: A Triple Helix of University–Industry– Meyer, M. (2006), ‘Are patenting scientists the better scholars? –
Government Relations, Cassell Academic, London. an exploratory comparison of inventor-authors with their
Leydesdorff, L. (2000), ‘The Triple Helix: an evolutionary model non-inventing peers in nano-science and technology’,
of innovations’, Research Policy, Vol 29, No 2, pp 243–255. Research Policy, Vol 35, No 10, pp 1646–1662.
Leydesdorff, L. (2003), ‘The mutual information of Miller, W. (1997), ‘Stanford University Business School and Joint
university–industry–government relations: an indicator of the Venture Silicon Valley’, verbal interview with Henry
Triple Helix dynamics’, Scientometrics, Vol 58, pp 445–467. Etzkowitz.
Leydesdorff, L. (2006), The Knowledge-Based Economy: Nelson, R.R., ed. (1993), National Innovation Systems, Oxford
Modeled, Measured, Simulated, Universal Publishers, Boca University Press, New York.
Raton, FL. Nelson, R.R., and Rosenberg, N. (1993), ‘Technical innovation
Leydesdorff, L. (2008), ‘Configurational information as and national systems’, in Nelson, R.R., ed, National
potentially negative entropy: the Triple Helix model’, Entropy, Innovation Systems, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp
Vol 10, pp 391–410. 3–21.
Leydesdorff, L., and Etzkowitz, H. (1996), ‘Emergence of a Triple Parsons, T. (1951), The Social System, The Free Press, New
Helix of university–industry–government relations’, Science York.
and Public Policy, Vol 23, pp 279–86. Parsons, T., and Shils, E., eds (1951), Toward a General Theory
Leydesdorff, L., and Etzkowitz, H. (1998), ‘The Triple Helix as a of Action, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
model for innovation studies’, Science and Public Policy, Vol Parsons, T., and Smelser N.J. (1956), Economy and Society,
25, pp 195–203. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.
Leydesdorff, L., and Meyer, M. (2006), ‘Triple Helix indicators of Pelled, L.H., Eisenhardt, K.M., and Xin, K.R. (1999), ‘Exploring
knowledge-based innovation systems: introduction to the the black box: an analysis of work group diversity, conflict

260 INDUSTRY & HIGHER EDUCATION August 2013

 The Triple Helix and innovation policy and practice

and performance’, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol 44, Steinmueller, W.E. (1994), ‘Basic research and industrial
pp 1–28. innovation’, in Dodgson, M., and Rothwell, R., eds, The
Powell, W.W. (1990), ‘Neither market nor hierarchy: network Handbook of Industrial Innovation, Edward Elgar,
forms of organization’, Research in Organizational Behavior, Cheltenham, pp 54–66.
Vol 12, pp 295–336. Sternberg, R. (2000), ‘Innovation networks and regional
Ranga, L.M., Miedema, J.L., and Jorna, R.J. (2008), ‘Enhancing development: evidence from the European Regional
the innovative capacity of small firms through Triple Helix Innovation Survey (ERIS)’, European Planning Studies, Vol
interactions: challenges and opportunities’, Technology 8, No 4, pp 389–407.
Analysis and Strategic Management, Vol 20, pp 697–716. Storper, M. (1997), The Regional World, The Guilford Press,
Ranga, M., and Etzkowitz, H. (2012), ‘Great expectations: an New York.
innovation solution to the contemporary economic crisis’, Svensson, P., Klofsten, M., and Etzkowitz, H. (2012), ‘The
European Planning Studies, Vol 20, No 9, pp 1429–1438. Norrkoping way: a knowledge-based strategy for renewing a
Ranga, M., Perälampi, J., and Kansikas, J. (2013), ‘University declining industrial city’, European Planning Studies, Vol 20,
brainpower unchained: a comparative analysis of No 4, pp 505–525.
university–business cooperation in the US and Finland’, Thwaites, A., and Wynarczyk, P. (1996), ‘The economic
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice (forthcoming). performance of innovative small firms in the South East
Rodrigues, C., and Melo, A. (2010), ‘The Triple Helix Model as region and elsewhere in the UK’, Regional Studies, Vol 30,
inspiration for local development policies: an pp 135–149.
experience-based perspective’, Working Paper SACSJP, Tijssen, R.J.W. (2006), ‘Universities and industrially relevant
University of Aveiro, Aveiro. science: towards measurement models and indicators of
Rothaermel, F.T., Agung, S.D., and Jiang, L. (2007), ‘University entrepreneurial orientation’, Research Policy, Vol 35, No 10,
entrepreneurship: a taxonomy of the literature’, Industrial and pp 1569–1585.
Corporate Change, Vol 16, No 4, pp 691–791. Tijssen, R.J.W. (2012), ‘Co-authored research publications and
Ruuska, I., and Teigland, R. (2009), ‘Ensuring project success strategic analysis of public–private collaboration’, Research
through collective competence and creative conflict in Evaluation, Vol 21, No 3, pp 204–215.
public–private partnerships: a case study of Bygga Villa, a Tödtling, F., and Kaufmann, A. (2001), ‘The role of the region for
Swedish Triple Helix e-government initiative’, International innovation activities of SMEs’, European Urban and Regional
Journal of Project Management, Vol 27, No 4, pp 323–334. Studies, Vol 8, No 3, pp 203–215.
Sábato, J., and Mackenzi, M. (1982), La Producción de UNIDO (2003), ‘Strategies for regional innovation systems:
Technologia: Autónoma o Transnacional, Nueva Imagen, learning transfer and applications’, Policy Paper, see
Mexico. http://www.unido.org/fileadmin/user_media/Publications/
Saenz, T.W. (2008), ‘The path to innovation: the Cuban Pub_free/Strategies_for_regional_innovation_systems.pdf.
experience’, International Journal of Technology Van Dyne, L., and Saavedra, R. (1996), ‘A naturalistic minority
Management and Sustainable Development, Vol 7, No 3, influence experiment: effects on divergent thinking, conflict
pp 205–221. and originality in work-groups’, British Journal of Social
Saul, M.H., Gershman, J., and Grossman, A. (2011), ‘Cornell Psychology, Vol 35, No 1, pp 151–168.
wins contest for city tech campus’, The Wall Street Journal, Van Looy, B., Magerman, T., and Debackere, K. (2007),
19 December 2011, see: http://online.wsj.com/article/ ‘Developing technology in the vicinity of science: an
SB10001424052970204879004577107190097493490.html. examination of the relationship between science intensity (of
Schumpeter, J.A. (1942), Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, patents) and technological productivity within the field of
George Allen and Unwin, New York. biotechnology’, Scientometrics, Vol 70, No 2, pp 441–458.
Schumpeter, J. (1951), Essays on Economic Topics, Kennikat Wang, J., and Shapira, P. (2012), ‘Partnering with universities: a
Press, Port Washington, New York. good choice for nanotechnology start-up firms?’, Small
Schutz, A. (1964), Collected Papers II: Studies in Social Theory, Business Economics, Vol 38, No 2, pp 197–215.
Brodersen, A., ed, Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht. Wolfe, D. (2003) Clusters Old and New: The Transition to a
Shannon, C.E. (1948), ‘A mathematical theory of Knowledge Economy in Canada’s Regions, Queen’s School
communication’, Bell System Technical Journal, Vol 27, of Policy Studies, Kingston, Ontario.
pp 379–423 and pp 623–656. Wong, P.K. (2007), ‘Commercializing biomedical science in a
Simmel, G. (1922 [1955]), Conflict and the Web of Group rapidly changing ‘‘Triple Helix’’ nexus: the experience of the
Affiliations, Wolff. K, translator and ed, Free Press, Glencoe, National University of Singapore’, Journal of Technology
IL. Transfer, Vol 32, No 4, pp 367–95.

INDUSTRY & HIGHER EDUCATION August 2013 261

 The Triple Helix and innovation policy and practice

Appendix 1
Journal special issues based on papers presented at Triple Helix conferences
(1996–2011)
Journal reference Special Issue name and guest editors

Science and Public Policy ‘Science policy dimensions of the Triple Helix of
Vol 24, No 1 (1997). university–industry–government relations’ (Henry Etzkowitz and
Loet Leydesdorff).
Minerva ‘The endless transition’ (Henry Etzkowitz and Loet Leydesdorff).
Vol 36 , No 3 (1998)
Industry and Higher Education ‘A Triple Helix of university–industry–government relations’ (Henry
Vol 12, No 4 (1998). Etzkowitz and Loet Leydesdorff).
Science and Public Policy ‘The Triple Helix of innovation’ (Henry Etzkowitz and Loet
Vol 25, No 6 (1998). Leydesdorff).
Journal of Technology Transfer ‘University–industry–government relations: a Triple Helix’ (Henry
Vol 24, No 2–3 (1999). Etzkowitz and Loet Leydesdorff).
Research Policy ‘Triple Helix’ (Henry Etzkowitz and Loet Leydesdorff).
Vol 29, No 2 (2000).
Science and Public Policy ‘The Eastern European transition’ (Henry Etzkowitz and Karel
Vol 27, No 4 (2000). Muller).
Science, Technology & Human Values Vol 28, No 1 (2003).
International Journal of Technology Management & Sustainable ‘Knowledge for innovation in Latin America’ (Jose Manoel
Development Carvalho de Mello).
Vol 7, No 3 (2008).
Scientometrics ‘The Triple Helix of university–industry–government relations’
Vol 58, No 2 (2003). (Loet Leydesdorff and Martin Meyer).
Science and Public Policy ‘Boundary organisations in science: from discourse to
Vol 30, No 4 (2003). construction’ (Tomas Hellström and Merle Jacob).
International Journal of Technology Management
Vol 27, No 5 (2004).
Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, ‘The management of innovation revisited: strategy, control and
Vol 17, No 1 (2005). culture’ (Markus Pohlman, Christiane Gebhardt and Henry
Etzkowitz).
Research Policy ‘Triple Helix indicators of knowledge-based innovation systems’
Vol 35, No 10 (2006). (Loet Leydesdorff and M. Meyer).
Scientometrics ‘The scientometrics of a Triple Helix of university–industry–
Vol 70, No 2 (2007). government relations’ (Loet Leydesdorff and Martin Meyer).
Science and Public Policy ‘Building the entrepreneurial university: a global perspective’
Vol 35, No 9 (2008). (Henry Etzkowitz and Chunyan Zhou).
Industry and Higher Education ‘Knowledge exchange and the Third Mission of universities’
Vol 24, No 3 (2010). (Girma Zawdie and John Edmondson).
Journal of Technology Management and Innovation ‘Gender dimension in technology, innovation and
Vol 5, No 1 (2010). entrepreneurship’ (Marina Ranga and Henry Etzkowitz).
Technology Analysis and Strategic Management ‘The Triple Helix and innovation systems (Girma Zawdie and Loet
Vol 22, No 7 (2010). Leydesdorff).
Science and Public Policy ‘Triple Helix in the context of developing countries’ (Mohammed
Vol 38, No 1 (2011). Saad and Girma Zawdie).
Industry and Higher Education ‘Innovation policy as a concept for developing economies:
Vol 27, No 4 (2013) renewed perspectives on the Triple Helix system’ (Dessy Irawati
and Christiane Gebhardt).
Social Science Information ‘Silicon Valley: global model or unique anomaly?’ (Henry
Vol 52, No 4 (2013) Etzkowitz).

262 INDUSTRY & HIGHER EDUCATION August 2013

View publication stats