Scientometrics

, Volume 90, Issue 1, pp 289–309 | Cite as

Receiving information at Korean and Taiwanese universities, industry, and GRIs

Article

Abstract

This article examines the incentive structure underlying information transfers received by the three key players of the Triple Helix paradigm: universities, industry, and government research institutes (GRIs). For Korea and Taiwan, which are the cases under analysis here, such an empirical examination has not yet been conducted on a quantitative level. Using a unique dataset of survey responses from a maximum of 325 researchers based in Korean and Taiwanese universities, industry, and GRIs, this article shows that there are some significant differences between and within countries. Most importantly, policy interventions to promote university-industry-GRI interactions impact the degree to which specific information transfers are considered useful. In Korea, formal transfers are emphasized, while both formal and, in particular, informal transfers are emphasized in Taiwan.

Keywords

R&D collaboration Information flows Triple helix relations Information transfer East Asian developmental state Technology spillovers 

MSL Classification

91F99 62P20 62P25 62J05 62J10 

JEL Classification

O31 O32 O33 O34 O39 

References

  1. Adams, J. D., Chiang, E. P., & Starkey, K. (2001). Industry–university cooperative research centers. Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(1–2), 73–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aldrich, J. H., & Nelson, F. D. (1984). Linear probability, logit, and probit models. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  3. Amemiya, T. (1985). Advanced econometrics. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Amsden, A. (1989). Asia’s next giant: South Korea and late industrialization. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Berger, S., & Lester, K. R. (Eds.). (2005). Global Taiwan: Building competitive strengths in the new economy. New York: M.E. Sharpe.Google Scholar
  6. Bernstein, J. I., & Nadiri, M. I. (1988). Interindustry R&D spillovers, rates of return, and production in high-tech industries. American Economic Review, 78(2), 429–434.Google Scholar
  7. Branscomb, L. M., & Keller, J. H. (1998). Towards a research and innovation policy. In L. M. Branscomb & J. H. Keller (Eds.), Investing in innovation: Creating a research and innovation policy that works. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  8. Branstetter, L., & Sakakibara, M. (1997). Japanese research consortia: A microeconometric analysis of industrial policy. NBER Working Paper No. 6066. NBER, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  9. Breschi, S., & Catalini, C. (2010). Tracing the links between science and technology: An exploratory analysis of scientists’ and inventors’ networks. Research Policy, 39(1), 14–26. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2009.11.004.
  10. Breznitz, D. (2005). Development, flexibility, and R&D performance in the Taiwanese IT industry—capability creation and the effects of state-industry co-evolution. Industrial and Corporate Change, 14(1), 153–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cassiman, B., Veugelers, R., & Zuniga, P. (2008). In search of performance effects of (in)direct industry science links. Industrial and Corporate Change, 17(4), 611–646. doi:10.1093/icc/dtn023.Google Scholar
  12. Cheng, T.-J., Haggard, S., & Kang, D. (1998). Institutions and growth in Korea and Taiwan: The bureaucracy. Journal of Development Studies, 34(6), 87–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cohen, W. M., Florida, R., Randazzese, L., & Walsh, J. (1998). Industry and the academy: Uneasy partners in the cause of technological advance. In R. G. Noll (Ed.), Challenges to research universities. Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
  14. Cohen, W. M., Nelson, R. R., & Walsh, J. P. (2002). Links and impacts: The influence of public research on industrial R&D. Management Science, 48(1), 1–23.Google Scholar
  15. Dasgupta, P., & Maskin, E. (1987). The simple economics of research portfolios. The Economic Journal, 97, 581–595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. D’Aspremont, C., & Jacquemin, A. (1988). Cooperative and noncooperative R&D in duopoly with spillovers. American Economic Review, 78(5), 1133–1137.Google Scholar
  17. David, P. A., & Foray, D. (1996). Information distribution and the growth of economically valuable knowledge: A rationale for technological infrastructure policies. In M. Teubal, D. Foray, M. Justman, & E. Zuscovitch (Eds.), Technological infrastructure policy: An international perspective (pp. 87–116). New York: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  18. David, P. A., Hall, B. H., & Toole, A. A. (2000). Is public R&D a complement or substitute for private R&D? A review of the econometric evidence. Research Policy, 29(4–5), 497–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Etzkowitz, H. (2003). Innovation in innovation: The triple helix of university–industry–government relations. Social Science Information, 42(3), 293–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Etzkowitz, H. (2008). Triple helix innovation: Industry, university, and government in action. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: From national systems and “Mode 2” to a triple helix of university–industry–government relations. Research Policy, 29(2), 109–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Evans, P. B. (1998). Transferable lessons? Re-examining the institutional prerequisites of East Asian economic policies. Journal of Development Studies, 34(6), 66–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fontana, R., Guena, A., & Mireille, M. (2003). Firm size and openness: The driving forces of university–industry collaboration. A report commissioned by the OST-DTI, SPRU, University of Sussex, Brighton. http://www.sussex.ac.uk/Users/prff0/mainpages/home.html.
  24. Fritsch, M. & Schwirten, C. (1999). Enterprise-university co-operation and the role of public research institutions in regional innovation systems. Industry and Innovation, 6(1), 69–83.Google Scholar
  25. Griliches, Z. (1998). The search for R&D spillovers. In R&D and productivity: The econometric evidence. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  26. Hagedoorn, J., Link, A., & Vonortas, N. S. (2000). Research partnerships. Research Policy, 29, 567–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hall, B. H., Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2000). Universities as Research Partners, NBER Working Paper No. 7643. NBER, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  28. Hamilton, G. G., & Biggart, N. W. (1988). Market, culture, and authority: A comparative analysis of management and organization in the far east. American Journal of Sociology, 94(Supplement), S52–S94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Han, Y. (2001). What drives R&D alliances? Evidence from the biotechnology industry. Ph.D. Dissertation. Los Angeles: University of Southern California.Google Scholar
  30. Hsueh, L.-M., Hsu, C.-k., & Perkins, D. H. (Eds.). (2001). Industrialization and the state: The changing role of government in Taiwan’s economy, 1945–1998. Cambridge: Harvard Institute for International Development.Google Scholar
  31. Hu, M.-C. (2011). Evolution of knowledge creation and diffusion: The revisit of Taiwan’s Hsinchu science park. Scientometrics, 88(3), 949–977.Google Scholar
  32. Hu, M.-C., & Mathews, J. A. (2009). Estimating the innovation effects of university-industry-government linkages: The case of Taiwan. Journal of Management and Organization, 15(2), 138–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Jaffe, A. B. (1998). The importance of ‘Spillovers’ in the policy mission of the advanced technology program. Journal of Technology Transfer, 23(2), 11–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Johnson, C. (1982). MITI and the Japanese miracle: The growth of industrial policy, 1925–1975. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Joly, P. B., & Mangamatin, V. (1996). Profile of public laboratories, industrial partnerships and organisation of R&D: The dynamics of industrial relationships in a large research organisation. Research Policy, 25(6), 901–922.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kim, H., & Park, Y. (2008). The impact of R&D collaboration on innovative performance in Korea: A Bayesian network approach. Scientometrics, 75(3), 535–554. doi:10.1007/s11192-007-1857-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lécuyer, C. (1998). Academic science and technology in the service of industry: MIT creates a “Permeable” engineering school. AEA Papers and Proceedings: Clio and the Economic Organization of Science, 88(2), 28–33.Google Scholar
  38. Lee, W.-Y. (2000). the role of science and technology policy in Korea’s industrial development. In L. Kim & R. R. Nelson (Eds.), Technology learning and innovation: Experiences of newly industrializing economies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Leydesdorff, L. (2006). The knowledge-based economy and the triple helix model. In W. Dolfsma & L. Soete (Eds.), Understanding the dynamics of a knowledge economy. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  40. Manjarres-Henriquez, L., Gutierrez-Gracia, A., & Vega-Jurado, J. (2008). Coexistence of university–industry relations and academic research: Barrier to or incentive for scientific productivity. Scientometrics, 76(3), 561–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. McKelvey, R. D., & Zavoina, W. (1975). A statistical model for the analysis of ordinal level dependent variables. Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 4(1), 103–120.CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  42. Mowery, D. C., Nelson, R. R., Sampat, B. N., & Ziedonis, A. A. (2004). Ivory tower and industrial innovation: Univeristy–industry technology transfer before and after the Bayh-Dole act in the United States. Stanford: Stanford Business Books.Google Scholar
  43. Nelson, R. R., & Rosenberg, N. (1993). Technical innovation and national systems. In R. R. Nelson (Ed.), National innovation systems: A comparative analysis. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  44. OECD. (2004). OECD science, technology and industry outlook 2004. Paris and Washington, D.C.: OECD.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. OECD. (2006). Main science and technology indicators (MSTI). www.sourceoecd.org. Accessed on 24 July 2006.
  46. Park, Y. C. (1990). Development lessons from Asia: The role of government in South Korea and Taiwan. American Economic Review, 80(2), 118–121.Google Scholar
  47. Park, H. W., Hong, H. D., & Leydesdorff, L. (2005). A comparison of the knowledge-based innovation systems in the economies of South Korea and the Netherlands using triple helix indicators. Scientometrics, 65(1), 3–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rahm, D., Kirkland, J., & Bozeman, B. (1999). University–industry R&D collaboration in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Japan. New York: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  49. Rinia, E., van Leeuwen, T., Bruins, E., van Vuren, H., & van Raan, A. (2002). Measuring knowledge transfer between fields of science. Scientometrics, 54(3), 347–362. doi:10.1023/A:1016078331752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Roos, D., Field, F., & Neely, J. (1998). Industry consortia. In L. M. Branscomb & J. H. Keller (Eds.), Investing in innovation: Creating a research and innovation policy that works. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  51. Ruegg, R., & Feller, I. (2003). A toolkit for evaluating public R&D investment: Models, methods, and findings from ATP’s first decade. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Standards and Technology & U.S. Department of Commerce.Google Scholar
  52. Sakakibara, M. (1994). Cooperative research and development: Theory and evidence on Japanese practice. Doctoral Dissertation. Harvard: Harvard University.Google Scholar
  53. Scott, A., Steyn, G., Guena, A., Brusoni, S., & Steinmueller, E. (2001). The economic returns to basic research and the benefits of university–industry relationships: A literature review and update of findings. A report commissioned by the OST-DTI, SPRU, University of Sussex, Brighton. http://www.sussex.ac.uk/Users/prff0/mainpages/home.html.
  54. Shapiro, M. A. (2007). The triple helix paradigm in Korea: A test for new forms of capital. International Journal of Technology Management and Sustainable Development, 6(3), 171–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Stiglitz, J. E., & Jayadev, A. (2010). Medicine for tomorrow: Some alternative proposals to promote socially beneficial research and development in pharmaceuticals. Journal of Generic Medicines 7(3), 217–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Stiglitz, J. E., & Wallsten, S. J. (1999). Public-private technology partnerships: Promises and pitfalls. American Behavioral Scientist, 43(1), 52–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Wade, R. (1990). Governing the market: Economic theory and the role of government in East Asian industrialization. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  58. World Bank. (1993). The East Asian miracle: Economic growth and public policy. New York: World Bank, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  59. Zhang, L., Glänzel, W., & Liang, L. (2009). Tracing the role of individual journals in a cross-citation network based on different indicators. Scientometrics, 81(3), 821–838. doi:10.1007/s11192-008-2245-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Illinois Institute of TechnologyChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations