Quality & Quantity

, Volume 51, Issue 3, pp 963–988 | Cite as

Decomposing the Triple-Helix synergy into the regional innovation systems of Norway: firm data and patent networks

Article

Abstract

The Triple Helix model of university-industry-government relations allows us to use mutual information among geographical, sectorial, and size distribution of firms to measure synergy at various geographical scales in a nation. In this paper we decompose the synergy in Triple Helix relations and analyze the decomposition at the county level. We use micro-level data for all Norwegian firms from 2002 to 2014. This provides new and more detailed insight into the factors explaining the previously reported variation in synergy at county level in Norway. Furthermore, we analyze the county and city level distributions of all national as well as USPTO granted patents with at least one Norwegian inventor. Co-inventor networks for Norwegian USPTO patents are visualized using Google maps. The counties with technology-dominated synergies and strong knowledge institutions have a higher level of international co-inventor networks. Sectorial and geographical networks characterize the oil and gas dominated county, Rogaland. In contrast the knowledge institution dominated county of Sør-Trøndelag has broader networks both with regard to sectors and geography. In the small industry dominated county of Møre og Romsdal with high synergy, the lack of international co-inventor network is striking. This might be interpreted as a sign of industrial lock-in. The use of both firm level and patent data together give a broader and more precise picture of the innovation systems under study. The use of both national and international patent data also broadens the picture of the innovation activity of the nation.

Keywords

Triple Helix USPTO patents Regional innovation system Probabilistic entropy 

References

  1. Abramson, N.: Information Theory and Coding. McGraw Hill, New York (1963)Google Scholar
  2. Almeida, P., Kogut, B.: Localization of knowledge and the mobility of engineers in regional networks. Manag. Sci. 45(7), 905–917 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Asheim, B.T., Coenen, L.: Knowledge bases and regional innovation systems: comparing Nordic clusters. Res. Policy 34, 1173–1190 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Asheim, B.T., Isaksen, A.: Location, agglomeration and innovation: towards regional innovation systems in Norway? Eur. Plan. Stud. 5(3), 299–330 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Balconi, M., Breschi, S., Lissioni, F.: Networks of inventors and the role of academia: an exploration of Italian patent data. Res. Policy 33, 127–145 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Benner, M., Sandstrøm, U.: Institutionalizing the Triple Helix: research funding and norms in the academic system. Res. Policy 29(2), 291–301 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bettencourt, L.M.A., Lobo, J., Strumsky, D.: Invention in the city: increasing returns to patenting as a scaling function of metropolitan size. Res. Policy 36, 107–120 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Breschi, S., Lissioni, F.: Mobility of skilled workers and co-invention networks: an anatomy of localized knowledge flows. J. Econ. Geogr. 1–30 (2009)Google Scholar
  9. Carlino, G.A., Chatterjee, S., Hunt, R.M.: Urban density and the rate of invention. J. Urban Econ. 61, 389–419 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Choi, S., Yang, J.S.W., Park, H.W.: Quantifying the Triple Helix relationship in scientific research: statistical analysis on the dividing pattern between developed and developing countries. Qual. Quant. 49, 1381–1396 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. de Nooy, W., Mrvar, A., Batagelj, V.: Exploratory Social Network Analysis with Pajek. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Etzkowitz, H., Leydesdorff, L.: The Triple Helix—University-industry-government relations: a laboratory for knowledge-based economic development. EASST Rev. 14, 14–19 (1995)Google Scholar
  13. Etzkowitz, H., Leydesdorff, L.: The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and ‘Mode 2’ to a Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations. Res. Policy 29(2), 109–123 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fitjar, R.D., Rodríguez-Pose, A.: Firm collaboration and modes of innovation in Norway. Res. Policy 42(1), 128–138 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Furman, J.L., Porter, M.E., Stern, S.: The determinants of national innovation capacity. Res. Policy 31, 899–934 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Grillitsch, M., Nilsson, M.: Innovation in peripheral regions: do collaborations compensate for lack of local knowledge spillovers? Ann. Reg. Sci. 54, 299–321 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gulbrandsen, M., Smeby, J.C.: Industry funding and university professors’ research performance. Res. Policy 34, 932–950 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ivanova, I., Strand, Ø., Leydesdorff, L.: Synergy cycles in the Norwegian innovation system: the relation between synergy and cycle values (in preparation)Google Scholar
  19. Ivanova, I., Leydesdorff, L.: Rotational symmetry and the transformation of innovation systems in a Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 86, 143–156 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Isaksen, A.: Innovation dynamics of global competitive regional clusters: the case of the Norwegian centers of expertise. Reg. Stud. 43(9), 1155–1166 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Isaksen, A., Onsager, K.: Regions, networks and innovative performance: the case of knowledge-intensive industries in Norway. Euro. Urban Reg. Stud. 17(3), 227–243 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Isaksen, A., Karlsen, J.: Can small regions construct regional advantages? The case of four Norwegian regions. Euro. Urban Reg. Stud. 20(2), 243–257 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jaffe, A.B., Tratjienberg, M.: Patents, Citations, and Innovations: A Window on the Knowledge Economy. MIT Press, Cambridge (2002)Google Scholar
  24. Jensen, M.B., Johnson, B., Lorenz, E., Lundvall, B.Å.: Forms of knowledge and modes of innovation. Res. Policy 36, 680–693 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jung, K., Park, H.W.: Interactions among Networks in the age of “Big Data”: social, knowledge, and triple-helix networks. J. Contemp. East. Asia 13(1), 1–4 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Khan, G.F., Park, H.W.: Triple Helix and innovation in Asia using scientometrics, webometrics, and informetrics. Scientometrics 90, 1–7 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kim, J.K.: A hyperlink and semantic network analysis of the Triple Helix (University-Government-Industry): the interorganizationel communication structure of nanotechnology. J. Comput. Med. Commun. 17, 152–170 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kwon, K.-S.: Are scientific capacity and industrial funding critical for universities’ knowledge transfer activities?—a case study of South Korea. J. Contemp. East. Asia 10(1), 15–23 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kwon, K.-S., Martin, B.R.: Synergy or separation mode: the relationship between the academic research and the knowledge-transfer activities of Korean academics. Scientometrics 90, 177–200 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lengyel, B., Leydesdorff, L.: Regional innovation systems in Hungary: the failing synergy at the national level. Reg. Stud. 45(5), 677–693 (2011) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Leydesdorff, L., Bornmann, L.: Mapping (USPTO) patent data using overlays to Google Maps. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 63(7), 1442–1458 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Leydesdorff, L., Dolfsma, W., van der Panne, G.: Measuring the knowledge base of an economy in terms of triple-helix relations among ‘technology, organization, and territory’. Res. Policy 35(2), 181–199 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Leydesdorff, L., Ivanova, I.: Mutual redundancies in inter-human communication systems: steps towards a calculus of processing meaning. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 65(2), 386–399 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Leydesdorff, L., Meyer, M.: Triple Helix indicators of knowledge-based innovation systems: introduction to the special issue. Res. Policy 35(10), 1441–1449 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Leydesdorff, L., Park, H.W.: Can synergy in triple-helix relations be quantified? a review of the development of the triple-helix indicator. Triple Helix J. Univ. Ind. Gov. Innov. Entrep. 1(4), 1–19 (2014)Google Scholar
  36. Leydesdorff, L., Persson, O.: Mapping the geography of science: distribution patterns and networks of relations among cities and institutes. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 61(8), 1622–1634 (2010)Google Scholar
  37. Leydesdorff, L., Strand, Ø.: The Swedish system of innovation: regional synergies in a knowledge-based economy. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 64(9), 1890–1902 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Meyer, M., Grant, K., Morlacchi, P., Weckowska, D.: Triple Helix indicators as an emergent area of enquiry: a bibliometrical perspective. Scientometrics 99, 151–174 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Narula, R.: Innovation systems and ‘inertia’ in R&D location: Norwegian firms and the role of systemic lock-in. Res. Policy 31, 795–816 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Park, H.W.: An interview with Loet Leydesdorff: the past, present, and future of the Triple Helix in the age of big data. Scientometrics 99, 199–202 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ranga, M., Etzkowitz, H.: Triple Helix systems: an analytical framework for innovation policy and practice in the knowledge society. Ind. High. Educ. 27(3), 237–262 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Research Concil Of Norway.: (RCN) Science and Technology Indicators for Norway 2014. 978-82-12-03364-1 (PDF). http://www.forskningsradet.no/servlet/Satellite?blobcol = urldata&blobheader = application%2Fpdf&blobheadername1 = Content-Disposition%3A&blobheadervalue1 =+attachment%3B + filename%3D%2220141Komplettrapportendelig201410.pdf%22&blobkey = id&blobtable = MungoBlobs&blobwhere = 1274505537435&ssbinary = true. Accessed by 10 Oct 2014Google Scholar
  43. Reis, J., Tereso, J.D.: Map of Norwegian counties. http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norges_fylker#mediaviewer/File:Norway_counties.svg. Accessed by 10 Oct 2014
  44. Reve, T., Sasson, A.: Et kunnskapsbasert Norge (Norwegian)/A knowledge-based Norway. Universitetsforlaget, Oslo (2012)Google Scholar
  45. Robin, S., Schubert, T.: Cooperation with public research institutioins and success in innovation: evidence from France and Germany. Res. Policy 42, 149–166 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Rodríguez-Pose, A.: Do institutions matter in regional development. Reg. Stud. 47(7), 1034–1047 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Shelton, R.D., Leydesdorff, L.: Publish or patent: bibliometric evidence for empirical trade-offs in national funding strategies. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 63(3), 498–511 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Simmie, J.: Innovation and urban regions as national and international nodes for the transfer and sharing of knowledge. Reg. Stud. 37(6&7), 607–620 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Stek, P.E., van Geenhuizen, M.S.: Measuring the dynamics of an innovation system using patent data: a case study of South Korea, 2001–2010. Qual. Quant. 49, 1325–1343 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Storper, M.: The Regional World: Territoriel Development in a Global Economy. Guilford Press, New York (1997)Google Scholar
  51. Strand, Ø., Leydesdorff, L.: Where is synergy indicated in the Norwegian innovation system? Triple-Helix relations among technology, organization and geography. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 80, 471–484 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Strand, Ø.: Industrial rights as quality indicators of the regional innovation systems in Norway. In: Amdam, J., Helgesen, Ø., Sæther, K.W. (eds.) Det mangfaldige kvalitetsomgrepet, Fjordantologien 2013, pp. 335–356. Forlag1, Ålesund (2014)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Øivind Strand
    • 1
  • Inga Ivanova
    • 2
    • 3
  • Loet Leydesdorff
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of International BusinessNorwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) ÅlesundÅlesundNorway
  2. 2.Institute for Statistical Studies and Economics of KnowledgeNational Research University Higher School of Economics (NRU HSE)MoscowRussian Federation
  3. 3.School of Business and Public AdministrationFar Eastern Federal UniversityVladivostokRussian Federation
  4. 4.Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR)University of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations