Skip to main content

Enabling Regional Growth in Peripheral Non-University Regions—The Impact of a Quadruple Helix Intermediate Organisation

Abstract

The concept of Smart Specialization (S3) of the European Union suggests that the heterogeneity of European regions should be the basis of innovation rather than the promotion of R&D intensive industries. This strategy entails that even peripheral regions are able to generate regionally based growth. The article discusses theoretical concepts such as Mode 3 Knowledge Production System, Quadruple Helix Innovation system and related variety, and with the aid of these concepts attempts at depicting the possibilities for peripheral non-university regions to engage in innovative development. The article argues that certain alterations in the fourth helix have the potential of opening the actors in the triple helix towards each other for the purpose of innovation development. The case study of the technology center KETEK situated in the Kokkola–Jakobstad region in Finland illustrates the manner in which an increasingly dynamic innovation environment is enabled in a peripheral region through a differentiation of both the knowledge and the political systems, and where the setting up of the intermediate organisation has been central to development.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

References

  1. Afonso, O. et al. (2010). A growth model for the Quadruple Helix innovation theory. NIPE WP 12.

  2. Arnkil, R., Järvensivu, V., et al. (2010). Exploring Quadruple Helix. Outlining user-oriented innovation models. In Työraportteja 85/2010 Working Papers. Tampere: University of Tampere, Institute for Social Research, Work Research Centre.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Asheim, Bjørn, Boschma, Ron, Cooke, Philip (2011a), Constructing regional advantage: Platform policies based on related variety and differentiated knowledge bases. Regional Studies Special Issue: Regional Innovation Systems: Theory, Empirics and Policy, Volume 45, Issue 7, 2011.

  4. Asheim, B, Moodysson, J., Tödtling, F. (2011b). Constructing regional advantage: Towards State-of-the-Art Regional Innovation System Policies in Europe?. European Planning Studies 19, No. 7, July 2011.

  5. Björk, P. (2014). The DNA of tourism service innovation: a quadruple helix approach. Journal of Knowledge Economy, 5, 181–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bjørn, A. (2009). Guest editorial: introduction to the creative class in European City Regions. Economic Geography, 85(4), 355–362. October 2009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Boschma, R., Iammarino, S. (2009). Related variety, trade linkages, and regional growth in Italy. Economic Geography, Clark University, 85(3).

  8. Campbell, D. F. J., & Güttel, W. H. (2005). Knowledge production of firms: research networks and the “Scientification” of business R&D. International Journal of Technology Management, 31(1/2), 152–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Carayannis, E. G., & Campbel, D. F. J. (2006). “Mode 3“: Meaning and Implications from a Knowledge Systems Perspective. In E. G. Carayannis & D. F. J. Campbell (Eds.), Knowledge creation, diffusion, and use in innovation networks and knowledge clusters. A Comparative Systems Approach across the United States, Europe and Asia (pp. 1–25). Westport: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  10. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Carayannis, E. G., & Campbell, D. F. J. (2012). Mode 3 knowledge production in quadruple helix innovation systems. Twenty-first-century democracy, innovation, and entrepreneurship for development. SpringerBriefs in Business, VI(63), 13. illus.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Eriksson, M., Niitamo, V.-P., & Kulkki, S. (2005). State-of-the-art in utilizing Living Labs approach to user-centric ICT innovation – a European approach. Sweden: Vinnova, Ministry of Enterprise, Energy and Communications.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Esmark, A. (2011). Systems Theory. In M. Bevir (Ed.), The SAGE Handbook of Governance. Thousand Oaks: SAGE publications.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Etzkowitz, H., & Leyesdorff, 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Florida, R. (2002). The rise of the creative class: And how it’s transforming work, leisure, community, and everyday life. Cambridge: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Frenken, K., & Verburg, T. (2007). Related variety, unrelated variety and regional economic growth. Regional Studies, 41(5), 685–697.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge. The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Goddard, J., Robertson, D., & Vallance, P. (2012). Universities, technology and innovation centres and regional development: the case of the North-East of England. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 36, 609–627.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Hansen Teis, Winther Lars (2011), Innovation, regional development and relations between high- and low-tech industries. European Urban and Regional Studies 18: 321, Sage Publishing.

  20. Hemlin, S., Allwood, C. M., & Martin, B. R. (2004). Creative Knowledge Environments. The Influences on Creativity in Research and Innovation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Isaksen, A., Karlsen, J. (2012). Can small regions construct regional advantages? The case of four Norwegian regions. European Urban and Regional Studies 20: 243, Sage Publishing.

  22. Jacobs, J. (1969). The economy of cities. New York: Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Jensen, M. B., Johnson, B., Lorenz, E., & Lundvall, B.-Å. (2007). Forms of knowledge and modes of innovation. Research Policy, 36, 680–693.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Johnson, B., Lorenz, E., & Lundvall, B.-A. (2002). Why all this fuss about codified and tacit knowledge? Industrial and Corporate Change, 11(2), 245–262.

  25. KETEK. (2008). Vuosikertomus/Årsberättelse 2007. Kokkola: Teknologiakeskus KETEK Oy.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Kline, S. J., & Rosenberg, N. (1986). An overview of innovation. In R. Landau & N. Rodenberg (Eds.), The positive sum strategy (pp. 275–304). Washington: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Kristensen, P. H. (2009). Conclusions: Developing comprehensive, enabling welfare states for offensive experimentalist business. In New modes of globalizing: experimentalism forms of economic organization and enabling welfare institutions. Helsinki: Helsinki School of Economics.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Kristensen, P. H., & Lilja, K. (2009). New modes of globalizing: Experimentalism forms of economic organization and enabling welfare institutions. Helsinki: Helsinki School of Economics.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Landabaso, M. (1997). The promotion of innovation in regional policy: proposals for a regional innovation policy. Entrepeneurship & Regional Development, 9(1), 1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Liljemark, T. (2004). Innovation Policy in Canada. Strategy and Realities. Stockholm: Swedish Institute for Growth Policy Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Luhmann, N. (1997). Die Gesellschaft der Gesellschaft. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Malmberg, A., & Maskell, P. (2006). Localized Learning Revisited. Growth and Change, 37(1), 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Marcovich, A., & Shinn, T. (2011). From the triple helix to a quadruple helix? The case of dip-pen nanolithography. Minerva, 49, 175–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Marshall, A. (1920). Principles of economics. London: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Niemi, K., & Virkkala, S. (2006). Innovative co-operation between Centria Ylivieska and the SME’s in Oulu South, Finland. In K. Niemi & S. Virkkala (Eds.), Peripheral localities and innovation policies - Learning from good practices between the Nordic countries. Oslo: Nordic Innovation Centre.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Nordberg, K. (2014). On the democracy and relevance of governance networks. Scandinavian Journal of Public Administration, 18, No 2.

  38. Parsons, T. (1951). The social system. Glencoe, Ill. : Free Press.

  39. Schienstock, G., & Hämäläinen, T. (2001). Transformation of the Finnish innovation system: A network approach, Sitra Reports series 7. Helsinki: Sitra.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Schoonmmaker, M. G., & Carayannis, E. G. (2012). Mode 3: a proposed classification scheme for the knowledge economy and society. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 3(4), 556–577.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Smart Specialization Platform (2012). Guide to Research and Innovation Strategies for Smart Specialisation (RIS 3), European Union Regional Policy.

  42. Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2007). Theories of democratic network governance. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Virkkala, S. (2013). Industrial development and competence building; learning across converging trajectories. In: Mariussen, Å., Virkkala, S. (eds.) Learning Transnational Learning, Routledge.

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kenneth Nordberg.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Nordberg, K. Enabling Regional Growth in Peripheral Non-University Regions—The Impact of a Quadruple Helix Intermediate Organisation. J Knowl Econ 6, 334–356 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-015-0241-z

Download citation

Keywords

  • Innovation system
  • Quadruple Helix
  • Regional development