Advertisement

Journal of the Knowledge Economy

, Volume 7, Issue 1, pp 23–42 | Cite as

Quadruple Helix, Innovation and the Knowledge-Based Development: Lessons from Remote, Rural and Less-Favoured Regions

  • Jari Kolehmainen
  • Joe Irvine
  • Linda Stewart
  • Zoltan Karacsonyi
  • Tünde Szabó
  • Juha AlarintaEmail author
  • Anders Norberg
Article

Abstract

This paper addresses the dynamics of knowledge-based development of remote, rural and less-favoured regions. Many of the regional strategies and policies aimed at developing innovation emanate from policymakers in centrally located urban conurbations and are assumed to be universally applicable. An example is the classical “triple helix” model and its successors for economic development based around the idea of universities, business and public sector organisations all coming together to foster innovation and economic prosperity. In many remote, rural and less-favoured localities, there may not be a university or other knowledge-intensive institution present which makes a difference from the point of view of local development agendas. In many regions, also the business community may be scattered and insufficiently developed in terms of innovation. And furthermore, this kind of region may also have a weak public sector to enhance innovativeness. In such regions, social and community groups may often play the dominant entrepreneurial role. The community may also play a significant role in remote, rural and less-favoured regions where the basic elements of “triple helix” model are present. In this respect the concept of a “quadruple helix” is highly beneficial. This is the case, because innovation processes are becoming increasingly open to different stakeholders. In this paper, four illustrative cases of knowledge-based development processes and policies in remote, rural and less-favoured regions are analysed by using a “double-coin model of knowledge-based regional development” which places the quadruple helix model at the very heart of knowledge-based regional development.

Keywords

Knowledge-based Regional development Higher education institutions Triple helix Quadruple helix Double-coin model 

References

  1. Alarinta, J. (1998). Maaseutu innovatiivisena ympäristönä. Verkosto paikallisen elinkeinopolitiikan toteuttajina. [Rural areas as innovative environment. Networks as realizers of the regional economic development]. Seinäjoki: Helsingin yliopiston Maaseudun tutkimus- ja koulutuskeskus, sarja A:4.Google Scholar
  2. Arnkil, R., Järvensivu, A., Koski, P., & Piirainen, T. (2010). Exploring quadruple helix: outlining user-oriented innovation models. Tampere: Tampereen yliopisto, Yhteiskuntatutkimuksen instituutti, Työelämän tutkimuskeskus, Työraportteja 85.Google Scholar
  3. Aro, T. & Laiho A. (2013). Kuuden suuren kaupunkiseudun demografinen kilpailukykyanalyysi. Muuttoliikkeen määrä ja rakenne suurilla kaupunkiseuduilla 2000-luvulla. [The analysis of the competitiveness of six large city regions. The Quantity and structure of the migration in large city regions after 2000] Ministry of Finance. http://www.vm.fi/vm/fi/04_julkaisut_ja_asiakirjat/03_muut_asiakirjat/Kuusi_kaupunkiseutua_raportti_ARO_final.pdf. Accessed 3 August 2015.
  4. Brabham, D. C. (2008). Crowdsourcing as a model for problem solving. An introduction and cases. The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 14(1), 75–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carayannis, E. G., & Campbell, D. F. J. (2009). “Mode 3’ and ‘quadruple Helix’: toward a 21st century fractal innovation ecosystem’. International Journal of Technology Management, 46(3/4), 201–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carayannis, E. G., & Campbell, D. (2010). Triple helix, quadruple helix and quintuple helix and how do knowledge, innovation and the environment relate to each other? A proposed framework for a transdisciplinary analysis of sustainable development and social ecology. International Journal of Social Ecology and Sustainable Development, 1(1), 41–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chesbrough, H. W. (2003a). The Era of open innovation. MIT Sloan Management Review, 44(3), 35–41.Google Scholar
  8. Chesbrough, H. W. (2003b). Open innovation: the new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  9. Diener, K., & Piller, F. D. (2010). The market for open innovation. Increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of the innovation process. Aachen: Aachen University, TIM Group.Google Scholar
  10. Doloreux, D. (2003). Regional innovation systems in the periphery: the case of the Beauce in Quebec (Canada). International Journal of Innovation Management, 7(1), 67–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Doloreux, D., & Dionne, S. (2008). Is regional innovation system possible in peripheral regions? Some evidence from La Pocatiere, Canada. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 20(3), 259–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dubina, I. N., Carayannis, E. G., & Campbell, D. F. J. (2012). Creativity economy and a crisis of the economy? Coevolution of knowledge, innovation, and creativity, and of the knowledge economy and knowledge society. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 3(1), 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Eilola, J. (2010). Usko, tieto ja tutkimus. Etelä-pohjanmaan korkeakouluyhdistys 1960 – 2010. [faith, knowledge and research. The university association of south Ostrobothnia 1960 – 2010]. Ylivieska: Etelä-Pohjanmaan korkeakouluyhdistys ry.Google Scholar
  14. Etzkowitz, H. (1998). The norms of entrepreneurial science – cognitive effects of the new university–industry linkages. Research Policy, 1(27), 823–833.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Etzkowitz, H. (2002). MIT and the rise of entrepreneurial science. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (1995). The triple helix–university–industry–government relations: a laboratory for knowledge-based economic development. EASST Review, 14(1), 14–19.Google Scholar
  17. 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, 109–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Foray, D. (2015). Smart specialisation: opportunities and challenges for regional innovation policy. Abingdon–New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  19. Gassmann, O. (2006). Opening up the innovation process: towards an agenda. R&D Management, 36(3), 223–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Goddard, J., & Vallance, P. (2013). The university and the city. Oxford: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. Gunasekara, C. (2006). Reframing the role of universities in the development of regional innovation systems. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 31(1), 101–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hossain, M., & Islam, K. M. Z. (2015). Ideation through online open innovation platform: dell IdeaStorm. Journal of Knowledge Economy. doi: 10.1007/s13132-015-0262-7.Google Scholar
  23. Huizingh, E. K. R. E. (2011). Open innovation: State of the art and future perspectives. Technovation, 31, 2–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Karlsen, J., Isaksen, A., & Spilling, O. (2011). Challenge of constructing regional advantages in peripheral areas: the case of marine biotechnology in tromsø, Norway. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 23(3–4), 235–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kickert, W. J. M., Klijn, E.-H., & Koppenjan, J. F. M. (1997). Introduction: a management perspective on policy networks. In W. J. M. Kickert, E.-H. Klijn, & J. F. M. Koppenjan (Eds.), Managing complex networks. Strategies for the public sector. London: Sage Publications Ltd.Google Scholar
  26. Knight, J. (2011). Education hubs: a Fad, a brand, an innovation? Journal of Studies in International Education, 15, 221–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kolehmainen, J., & Alarinta, J. (2009). University consortium of Seinäjoki (pp. 17–19). Finland: Bringing South Ostrobothnia to the Knowledge Economy. Regions, (273).Google Scholar
  28. Lane, J. E. (2010) International branch campuses, free zones, and quality assurance: Policy issues for Dubai and the UAE. Policy Brief No. 20, August 2010. Dubai School of Government. http://www.researchgate.net/publication/260592891. Accessed 25 June 2015.
  29. Lee, M. (2007). A comparative case study of four partnership campuses : origin, administration, academics, and student services. Thesis (Ed. D.), University of South Dakota.Google Scholar
  30. Leydesdorff, L. (2012). The triple helix, quadruple helix, …, and an N-tuple of helices: explanatory models for analyzing the knowledge-based economy? Journal of Knowledge Economy, 3, 25–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Linnamaa, R. (2004). Verkostojen toimivuus ja alueellinen kilpailukyky. HAUS Kehittämiskeskus Oy. Tampere: Cityoffset Oy.Google Scholar
  32. Marginson, S., & Rhoades, G. (2002). Beyond national states, markets, and systems of higher education: a glonacal agency heuristic. Higher Education, 43(3), 281–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. McCann, P., & Ortega-Argilés, R. (2013). Smart specialization, regional growth and applications to European Union cohesion policy. Regional Studies, 47(8), 1–12.Google Scholar
  34. Nybacka, M., Larsson, T. & Ericson, Å. (2007). Collaboration in automotive winter testing - real-time simulationsboosting innovation opportunities. In N. Leon-Rovira (Ed.), International Federation for Information Processing (IFIP), Trends in Computer Aided Innovation (pp. 211–220). Brighton, Springer.Google Scholar
  35. Open Innovation. (2013). Directorate-general for communications networks, content and technology. Luxembourg: European Commission.Google Scholar
  36. Park, H. W. (2014). Transition from the triple helix to N-tuple helices? An interview with Elias G. Carayannis and David FJ Campbell. Scientometrics, 99(1), 203–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pelkonen, A., & Nieminen, M. (2015). How beneficial is a knowledge-based development strategy for peripheral regions? A case study. European Planning Studies. doi: 10.1080/09654313.2015.1047740.Google Scholar
  38. Research and Innovation Programme (2000–2006). The Thematic Programmes of South Ostrobothnia (in Finnish). Etelä-Pohjanmaan liitto 2001.Google Scholar
  39. Sotarauta, M. (2014a). Reflections on mobilizing leadership in cities and regions. Regional Science, Regional Studies, 1(1), 28–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sotarauta, M. (2014b). Territorial knowledge leadership in policy networks: a peripheral region of South Ostrobothnia, Finland as a case in point. In R. Rutten, P. Benneworth, D. Irawati, & F. Boekema (Eds.), The social dynamics of innovation networks. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  41. Sotarauta, M., & Kosonen, K.-J. (2004). Institutional capacity and strategic adaptation in less favoured regions. A South Ostrobothnian University network as a case in point. In P. Cooke & A. Piccaluga (Eds.), Regional economies as knowledge laboratories. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  42. Sotarauta, M., Kosonen, K.-J., & Viljamaa, K. (2007). Aluekehittäminen generatiivisena johtajuutena - 2000-luvun aluekehittäjän työnkuvaa ja kompetensseja etsimässä. [Regional development as generative leadership: In search of the competences of regional development officers of the 21st century and the nature of their work]. Tampere: Tampereen yliopisto, Alueellisen kehittämisen tutkimusyksikkö, Sente-julkaisuja 23/2007.Google Scholar
  43. Suutari, T., & Rantanen, M. (Eds.). (2011). Innovaatiotoiminnan edistäminen maaseudulla: kohti paikallista elinvoimapolitiikkaa. [Promoting innovation in rural areas: towards local vitality policy]. Helsinki: Ministry of Employment and the Economy. Regional development 38/2011.Google Scholar
  44. UKÄ, Universitetskanslersämbetet (2014). Universitet och Högskolor – Årsrapport 2014. Universitetskanslersämbetet, p.30. http://www.uka.se/download/18.32335cb414589905b28acd/1421418511183/arsrapport-2014.pdf. Accessed 25 June 2015.
  45. University City / 大学城. (n.d.). Baidu web page used in translated version. http://baike.baidu.com/view/46244.htm. Accessed 25 June 2015.
  46. University Partnerships for Prosperity. (2010). Interreg IVC UNICREDS project final report. http://unicreds.eu/latest-news/item/97-university-partnerships-for-prosperity-unicreds-final-report.html. Accessed 18 December 2014.
  47. von Hippel, E. (2005). Democratizing innovation. Cambridge–London: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  48. Wiig, H. & Isaksen, A. (1998). Innovation in ultra-peripheral regions: The case of Finnmark and rural areas in Norway. The STEP Report Series, 2/1998.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jari Kolehmainen
    • 1
  • Joe Irvine
    • 2
  • Linda Stewart
    • 2
  • Zoltan Karacsonyi
    • 3
  • Tünde Szabó
    • 3
  • Juha Alarinta
    • 1
    Email author
  • Anders Norberg
    • 4
  1. 1.University Consortium of SeinäjokiSeinäjokiFinland
  2. 2.University of the Highlands and IslandsInvernessScotland
  3. 3.University of DebrecenDebrecenHungary
  4. 4.Umeå UniversityCampus SkellefteåSkellefteåSweden

Personalised recommendations