Triple Helix of University-Industry-Government Relations

  • Loet Leydesdorff
Living reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-6616-1_452-2

Synonyms

Introduction

Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff (2000) further elaborated the Triple Helix of University-Industry-Government Relations (cf. Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff 1995; Lowe 1982) into a model for studying knowledge-based economies. A series of workshops, conferences, and special issues of journals have been developed under this title since 1996. In various countries, the Triple Helix concept has also been used as an operational strategy for regional development and to further the knowledge-based economy, for example, in Sweden (Jacob 2006) and Ethiopia (Saad et al. 2008). In Brazil, the Triple Helix became a “movement” for generating incubators in the university context (Almeida 2005).

Normatively, a call for collaborations across institutional divides, and the awareness that the roles of partners in such collaborations are no longer fixed in a knowledge-based economy provides a...

Keywords

Triple Helix Creative Destruction Regional Innovation System Academic Entrepreneur Triple Helix Model 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Almeida M. The evolution of the incubator movement in Brazil. Int J Technol Glob. 2005;1(2):258–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aoki M. Towards a comparative institutional analysis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2001.Google Scholar
  3. Beccatini G. The development of tuscany: industrial districts. In: Beccatini G, dei Bellandi M, Ottati G, Sforzi F, editors. From industrial districts to local development: an itinerary of research. Cheltenham/Northhampton: Edward Elgar; 2003. p. 11–28.Google Scholar
  4. Braczyk H-J, Cooke P, Heidenreich M, editors. Regional innovation systems. London/Bristol: University College London Press; 1998.Google Scholar
  5. Bunders JFG, Broerse JEW, Zweekhorst MBM. The triple helix enriched with the user perspective: a view from Bangladesh. J Technol Transf. 1999;24(2):235–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carlsson B. Internationalization of innovation systems: a survey of the literature. Res Policy. 2006;35(1):56–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Clark BR. Creating entrepreneurial universities: organization pathways of transformation. Guildford: Pergamon; 1998.Google Scholar
  8. Cohen WM, Levinthal DA. Innovation and learning: the two faces of R & D. Econ J. 1989;99(397):569–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cooke P, Leydesdorff L. Regional development in the knowledge-based economy: the construction of advantages. J Technology Trans. 2006;31(1):5–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dolfsma W, Leydesdorff L. Lock-in & break-out from technological trajectories: modeling and policy implications. Technol Forecast Soc Chang. 2009;76(7):932–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dosi G. Technological paradigms and technological trajectories: a suggested interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change. Res Policy. 1982;11(3):147–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Etzkowitz H. Academic-industry relations: a sociological paradigm for economic development. In: Leydesdorff L, van den Besselaar P, editors. Evolutionary economics and chaos theory: new directions in technology studies. London: Pinter; 1994. p. 139–51.Google Scholar
  13. Etzkowitz H. MIT and the rise of entrepreneurial science. London: Routledge; 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Etzkowitz H, Leydesdorff L. The triple helix – university-industry-government relations: a laboratory for knowledge-based economic development. EASST Rev. 1995;14:14–9.Google Scholar
  15. Etzkowitz H, Leydesdorff L. Universities and the global knowledge economy: a triple helix of university-industry-government relations. London: Pinter; 1997.Google Scholar
  16. Etzkowitz H, Leydesdorff L. The endless transition: a “triple helix” of university-industry-government relations, introduction to a theme issue. Minerva. 1998;36:203–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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. 2000;29(2):109–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Etzkowitz H, Webster A, Gebhardt C, Terra BRC. The future of the university and the university of the future: evolution of ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm. Res Policy. 2000;29(2):313–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fire A, Xu SQ, Montgomery MK, Kostas SA, Driver SE, Mello CC. Potent and specific genetic interference by double-stranded RNA in Caenorhabditis elegans. Nature. 1998;391(6669):806–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Foray D. The economics of knowledge. Cambridge/London: MIT Press; 2004.Google Scholar
  21. Freeman C. Technology, policy, and economic performance: lessons from Japan. London: Pinter; 1987.Google Scholar
  22. Freeman C, Perez C. Structural crises of adjustment, business cycles and investment behaviour. In: Dosi G, Freeman C, Nelson R, Silverberg G, Soete L, editors. Technical change and economic theory. London: Pinter; 1988. p. 38–66.Google Scholar
  23. Freeman C, Soete L. The economics of industrial innovation. London: Pinter; 1997.Google Scholar
  24. Gay B. Innovative network in transition: from the fittest to the richest. 2010. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1649967. Accessed 20 Aug 2012.
  25. Gibbons M, Limoges C, Nowotny H, Schwartzman S, Scott P, Trow M. The new production of knowledge: the dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage; 1994.Google Scholar
  26. Godin B, Gingras Y. The place of universities in the system of knowledge production. Res Policy. 2000;29(2):273–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hall PA, Soskice DW, editors. Varieties of capitalism: the institutional foundations of comparative advantage. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2001.Google Scholar
  28. Jacob M. Utilization of social science knowledge in science policy: systems of innovation, triple helix and VINNOVA. Soc Sci Inf. 2006;45(3):431–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Krippendorff K. Information of interactions in complex systems. Int J Gen Sys. 2009;38(6):669–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kwon KS, Park HW, So M, Leydesdorff L. Has globalization strengthened South Korea’s national research system? National and international dynamics of the triple helix of scientific co-authorship relationships in South Korea. Scientometrics. 2012;90(1):163–75. doi:10.1007/s11192-11011-10512-11199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Latour B. Science in action. Milton Keynes: Open University Press; 1987.Google Scholar
  32. Lengyel B, Leydesdorff L. Regional innovation systems in Hungary: the failing synergy at the national level. Reg Stud. 2011;45(5):677–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Leydesdorff L. The challenge of scientometrics: the development, measurement, and self-organization of scientific communications. Leiden: DSWO Press, Leiden University. 1995. http://www.universal-publishers.com/book.php?method=ISBN%26book=1581126816. Accessed 20 Aug 2012.
  34. Leydesdorff L. The knowledge-based economy: modeled, measured, simulated. Boca Raton: Universal Publishers; 2006.Google Scholar
  35. Leydesdorff L. The knowledge-based economy and the triple helix model. Ann Rev Information Sci Technol. 2010;44:367–417.Google Scholar
  36. Leydesdorff L. “Meaning” as a sociological concept: a review of the modeling, mapping, and simulation of the communication of knowledge and meaning. Soc Sci Inf. 2011;50(3–4):1–23.Google Scholar
  37. Leydesdorff L, Bornmann L. Mapping (USPTO) patent data using overlays to Google maps. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol. 2012;63(7):1442–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Leydesdorff L, Fritsch M. Measuring the knowledge base of regional innovation systems in Germany in terms of a triple helix dynamics. Res Policy. 2006;35(10):1538–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Leydesdorff L, Ivanova IA. Mutual redundancies in inter-human communication systems: steps towards a calculus of processing meaning. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol. 2014;65(2):386–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Leydesdorff L, Meyer M. The decline of university patenting and the end of the Bayh-Dole effect. Scientometrics. 2010;83(2):355–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Leydesdorff L, Rafols I. How do emerging technologies conquer the world? An exploration of patterns of diffusion and network formation. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol. 2011;62(5):846–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Leydesdorff L, Strand Ø. The Swedish system of innovation: regional synergies in a knowledge-based economy. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol. 2013;64(9):1890–902. doi:10.1002/asi.22895.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Leydesdorff L, Sun Y. National and international dimensions of the triple helix in Japan: university-industry-government versus international co-authorship relations. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol. 2009;60(4):778–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Leydesdorff L, Zhou P. Measuring the knowledge-based economy of China in terms of synergy among technological, organizational, and geographic attributes of firms. Scientometrics. 2014;98(3):1703–19. doi:10.1007/s11192-013-1179-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Leydesdorff L, Park HW, Lengyel B. A routine for measuring synergy in university-industry-government relations: mutual information as a triple-helix and quadruple-helix indicator. Scientometrics. 2014;99(1):27–35. doi:10.1007/s11192-013-1079-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Leydesdorff L, Perevodchikov E, Uvarov A. Measuring triple-helix synergy in the Russian innovation systems at regional, provincial, and national levels. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol. 2015;66(6):1229–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Leydesdorff L, Petersen A, Ivanova I. The self-organization of meaning and the reflexive communication of information. Soc Sci Inf. 2017;56(1):4–27.Google Scholar
  48. Lowe CU. The triple helix – NIH, industry, and the academic world. Yale J Biol Med. 1982;55(3–4):239–46.Google Scholar
  49. Luhmann N. Social systems. Stanford: Stanford University Press; 1995.Google Scholar
  50. Lundin P. Is silence still golden? Mapping the RNAi patent landscape. Nat Biotechnol. 2011;29(6):493–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Lundvall B-Å. Innovation as an interactive process: from user-producer interaction to the national system of innovation. In: Dosi G, Freeman C, Nelson R, Silverberg G, Soete L, editors. Technical change and economic theory. London: Pinter; 1988. p. 349–69.Google Scholar
  52. Malerba F, Nelson R, Orsenigo L, Winter S. ‘History-friendly’ models of industry evolution: the computer industry. Ind Corp Chang. 1999;8(1):3–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Mirowski P, Sent EM. The commercialization of science, and the response of STS. In: Hackett EJ, Amsterdamska O, Lynch M, Wajcman J, editors. Handbook of science, technology and society studies. Cambridge/London: MIT Press; 2007. p. 635–89.Google Scholar
  54. MIT Technology Licensing Office. Licensing for RNAi Patents. 2006. http://web.mit.edu/tlo/www/industry/RNAi_patents_tech.html. Retrieved 19 Oct 2011.
  55. Nelson RR, editor. National innovation systems: a comparative analysis. New York: Oxford University Press; 1993.Google Scholar
  56. Nelson RR, Winter SG. In search of useful theory of innovation. Res Policy. 1977;6:35–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Nelson RR, Winter SG. An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press; 1982.Google Scholar
  58. Noble D. America by design. New York: Knopf; 1977.Google Scholar
  59. Nowotny H, Scott P, Gibbons M. Re-thinking science: knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Cambridge, UK: Polity; 2001.Google Scholar
  60. dei Ottati G. Local governance and industrial districts’ competitive advantage. In: Beccatini G, Bellandi M, dei Ottati G, Sforzi F, editors. From industrial districts to local development: an itinerary of research. Cheltenham/Northhampton: Edward Elgar; 2003. p. 184–209.Google Scholar
  61. Park HW, Leydesdorff L. Longitudinal trends in networks of university-industry-government relations in South Korea: the role of programmatic incentives. Res Policy. 2010;39(5):640–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Rothwell R, Zegveld W. Industrial innovation and public policy. London: Pinter; 1981.Google Scholar
  63. Saad M, Zawdie G, Malairaja C. The triple helix strategy for universities in developing countries: the experiences in Malaysia and Algeria. Sci Public Policy. 2008;35(6):431–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Sábato J. El pensamiento latinoamericano en la problemática ciencia-technología-desarrollo-dependencia. Paidós: Buenos Aires; 1975.Google Scholar
  65. Schumpeter J. Business cycles: a theoretical, historical and statistical analysis of capitalist process. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1939/1964.Google Scholar
  66. Shinn T. The triple helix and new production of knowledge: prepackaged thinking on science and technology. Soc Stud Sci. 2002;32(4):599–614.Google Scholar
  67. Soete L, ter Weel B. Schumpeter and the knowledge-based economy: on technology and competition policy. Research Memoranda 004. MERIT, Maastricht Economic Research Institute on Innovation and Technology; 1999.Google Scholar
  68. Strand O, Leydesdorff L. Where is synergy in the Norwegian innovation system indicated? Triple helix relations among technology, organization, and geography. Technol Forecast Soc Chang. 2013;80(3):471–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Sung JJ, Hopkins MM. Towards a method for evaluating technological expectations: revealing uncertainty in gene silencing technology discourse. Tech Anal Strat Manag. 2006;18(3):345–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Vernon R. The product cycle hypothesis in a new international environment. Oxf Bull Econ Stat. 1979;41(4):255–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Viale R, Campodall'Orto S. An evolutionary triple helix to strengthen academy-industry relations: suggestions from European regions. Sci Public Policy. 2002;29(3):154–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Viale R, Pozzali A. Complex adaptive systems and the evolutionary triple helix. Crit Sociol. 2010;36(4):575–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Whitley RD. The intellectual and social organization of the sciences. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1984.Google Scholar
  74. Windrum P. Simulation models of technological innovation: a review. Am Behav Sci. 1999;42(10):1531–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media LLC 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of AmsterdamAmsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR)AmsterdamThe Netherlands

Section editors and affiliations

  • David F. J. Campbell
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty for Interdisciplinary StudiesAlpen-Adria-University KlagenfurtViennaAustria