Governance of Innovation and Intermediation in Triple Helix Interactions

Todeva, Emanuela (2013): Governance of Innovation and Intermediation in Triple Helix Interactions. Published in: INDUSTRY & HIGHER EDUCATION , Vol. 27, No. 4 (2013): pp. 263-278.

Abstract

Research on sustainability and innovation-driven economic growth has exposed a lack of sufficient knowledge in the governance literature about the appropriate extent of government involvement. This paper focuses on the governance of innovation and the intermediary role of the state. The author synthesizes the literature on governance and regulation and introduces the concept of intermediation in the innovation process. The paper employs the Triple Helix model, which describes interactions and intermediation between government, industry and universities, and extends it by looking at the role played by intermediaries, including public and private institutions, government bodies and independent organizations. A new theoretical framework for the analysis of intermediation and the governance of innovation is developed and applied to four case studies of intermediaries in the health technology cluster in the Greater South East region of the UK. The empirical findings demonstrate the heuristics of the intermediation concept and the application of the intermediation framework.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: intermediation; governance of innovation; Triple Helix interactions
• Subjects: B - History of Economic Thought, Methodology, and Heterodox Approaches > B5 - Current Heterodox Approaches > B52 - Institutional ; Evolutionary; H - Public Economics > H1 - Structure and Scope of Government > H11 - Structure, Scope, and Performance of Government; H - Public Economics > H1 - Structure and Scope of Government > H19 - Other; L - Industrial Organization > L5 - Regulation and Industrial Policy; O - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth > O3 - Innovation ; Research and Development ; Technological Change ; Intellectual Property Rights > O31 - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives; O - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth > O3 - Innovation ; Research and Development ; Technological Change ; Intellectual Property Rights > O32 - Management of Technological Innovation and R&D; O - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth > O3 - Innovation ; Research and Development ; Technological Change ; Intellectual Property Rights > O33 - Technological Change: Choices and Consequences ; Diffusion Processes; O - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth > O3 - Innovation ; Research and Development ; Technological Change ; Intellectual Property Rights > O38 - Government Policy; P - Economic Systems > P5 - Comparative Economic Systems > P51 - Comparative Analysis of Economic Systems

References

Agrawal, A. (2001), ‘University-to-industry knowledge transfer: literature review and unanswered questions’, International Journal of Management Review, Vol 3, No 4, pp 285–302.

Agrawal, A., and Henderson, R. (2002), ‘Putting patents in context: exploring knowledge transfer from MIT’, Management Science, Vol 48, No 1, pp 44–60.

Antonelli, C. (1999), The Microeconomics of Technological Systems, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Argote, L., and Ingram, P. (2000), ‘Knowledge transfer: a basis for competitive advantage in firms’, Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, Vol 82, No 1, pp 150–169.

Bendor, J. (1990), ‘Formal models of bureaucracy: a review’, in Lynn, N., and Wildavsky, A., eds, Public Administration: The State of the Discipline, Chatham House, Chatham, NJ, pp 373–417.

Borsch, O. (1994), ‘The process of relational contracting: developing trust-based strategic alliances among small business enterprises’, Advances in Strategic Management, Vol 10, pp 113–136.

Bramwell, A., and Wolfe, D. (2008), ‘Universities and regional economic development: the entrepreneurial University of Waterloo’, Research Policy, Vol 37, pp 1175–1187.

Cannon, T. (1994), Corporate Responsibility: A Textbook on Business Ethics, Governance, Environment – Roles and Responsibilities, Pitman, London.

Cohen, W., Nelson, R., and Walsh, J. (2002), ‘Links and impacts: the influence of public research on industrial R&D’, Management Science, Vol 48, No 1, pp 1–23.

Cowan, R., and Foray, D. (1997), The Economics of Codification and Diffusion of Knowledge, MERIT, Maastricht.

Dodgson, M., and Bessant, J. (1996), Effective Innovation Policy: A New Approach, Thomson, London.

Etzkowitz, H., and Leydesdorff, L. (1995), ‘The Triple Helix, university–industry–government relations: a laboratory for knowledge-based economic development’, EASST Review, Vol 14, pp 14–19.

Fior, S. (2010), ‘The role of intermediaries in knowledge and technology transfer (KTT) activities between universities and industries in the UK healthcare sector’, MSc Dissertation, Università Degli Studi di Padova, Facoltà di Ingegneria,Padua.

Fligstein, N., and Freeland, R. (1995), ‘Theoretical and comparative perspectives on corporate organization’, Annual Review of Sociology, Vol 21, pp 21–44.

Frenken, K. (2000), ‘A complexity approach to innovation networks: the case of the aircraft industry (1909–1997)’, Research Policy, Vol 29, No 2, pp 257–272.

Galeotti, A., and Moraga-Gonzalez, J. (2009), ‘Platform intermediation in a market for differentiated products’, European Economic Review, Vol 53, pp 417–428.

Gehrig, T. (1993), ‘Intermediation in search markets’, Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, Vol 2, No 1, pp 97–120.

Gu, Bin. (2003), ‘The dual effects of third-party information on market competition’, University of Texas at Austin Working Paper, University of Texas, Austin, TX.

Gubeli, H., and Doloreux, D. (2005), ‘An empirical study of university spin-off development’, European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol 8, No 3, pp 269–282.

Haugland, S. (1999), ‘Factors influencing the duration of international buyer–seller relationships’, Journal of Business Research, Vol 46, pp 273–280.

Hellman, T. (2005), ‘The role of patents for bridging the science-to-market gap’, National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper, No 11460, NBER, Cambridge, MA.

Hellman, T., Puri, M. (2002), ‘Venture capital and the professionalization of start-up firms: empirical evidence’, The Journal of Finance, Vol 57, No 1, pp 169–197.

Justman, M., and Teubal, M. (1996), ‘Technological infrastructure policy (TIP): creating capabilities and building markets’, in Teubal, M., Foray, D., Justman, M., and Zuscovitch, E., eds, Technological Infrastructure Policy: An International Perspective, Kluwer, Dordrecht.

Kolfsten M., Dylan, J., and Carina, S. (1999), ‘Growing the Linkoping Technopole – a longitudinal study of Triple Helix development in Sweden’, Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol 24, pp 125–138.

Lee, J., and Liu, Q. (2008), ‘The dynamics of bargaining postures: the role of a third party’, Penn Institute of Economic Research Working Paper, 09–001, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.

Levacic, R. (1991), ‘Markets: an introduction’, in Thompson, G.,Frances, J., Levacic, R., and Mitchell, J., eds, Markets,Hierarchies and Networks: The Coordination of Social Life,Sage, London.

Levy, R., Roux, P., and Wolff, S. (2009), ‘An analysis of science–industry collaborative patterns in a large European university’, Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol 34, pp 1–23.

Leydesdorff, L. (2001), A Sociological Theory of Communication:The Self-Organization of the Knowledge-Based Society,Universal Publishers, Parkland, FL.

Leydesdorff, L. (2006), The Knowledge-Based Economy and the Triple Helix Model, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.

Leydesdorff, L., and Etzkowitz, H. (1998), ‘The Triple Helix as a model for innovation studies’, Science and Public Policy, Vol 25, No 3, pp 195–203.

Lissenburgh, S., and Harding, R. (2000), Knowledge Links: Innovation in University/Business Partnerships, Institute for Public Policy Research, London.

Malerba, F., Nelson, R., Orsenigo, L., and Winter, S. (1999), ‘‘‘History-friendly’’ models of industry evolution: the computer industry’, Industrial and Corporate Change, Vol 8, No 1,pp 3–35.

Manzini, P., and Mariotti, M. (2002), ‘Arbitration and mediation: an economic perspective’, Institute of Labour Studies Discussion Paper No 528, IZA, http://www.iza.org/publications/dps/.

Meyer-Krahmer, F., and Schmoch, U. (1998), ‘Science-based technologies: university–industry interactions in four fields’,Research Policy, Vol 27, pp 835–851.

Mirowski, P., and Van Horn, R. (2005), ‘The contract research organization and the commercialization of scientific research’, Social Studies of Science, Vol 35, p 503.

Monjon, S., and Waelbroeck, P. (2003), ‘Assessing spill-overs from universities to firms: evidence from French firm-level data’, International Journal of Industrial Organization, Vol 21,pp 1255–1270.

Narin, F., Hamilton, K., and Olivastro, D. (1997), ‘The increasing linkage between US technology and public science’, Research Policy, Vol 26, pp 317–330.

Neudorf, L. (2009), ‘Judicial independence: the judge as a third party to the dispute’, PhD Thesis, Faculty of Law, Institute of Comparative Law, McGill University, Montreal.

Parkinson, J. (1994), Corporate Power and Responsibility, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Pearce, L. (2003), ‘Disaster management, community planning and public participation: how to achieve sustainable hazard mitigation’, Natural Hazards, Vol 28, pp 211–228.

Robinson, D., Rip, A., and Mangematin, V. (2007), ‘Technological agglomeration and the emergence of clusters and networks in nanotechnology’, Research Policy, Vol 36, No 6, pp 871–879.

Roessner, J. (1993), ‘What companies want from the Federal labs’, Issues in Science and Technology, Vol 10, No 1, pp 37–42.

Rubinstein, A., and Wolinsky, A. (1987), ‘Middlemen’, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol 102, No 3, pp 581–593.

Russell, G., and Waste, R. (1998), ‘The limits of reinventing government’, American Review of Public Administration, Vol 28, No 4, pp 325–346.

Schartinger, D., Rammer, C., Fischer, M., and Frohlich, J. (2002), ‘Knowledge interactions between universities and industry in Austria: sectoral patterns and determinants’, Research Policy, Vol 31, pp 303–328.

Shane, S. (2002), ‘Selling university technology: patterns from MIT’, Management Science, Vol 48, No 1, pp 122–137.

Siegel, D.S., Waldman, D., Atwater, L., and Link, A. (2003), Commercial knowledge transfer from universities to firms: improving the effectiveness of university-industry collaboration’, Journal of High Technology Management Research, Vol 14, pp 111–133.

Thompson, G., Frances, J., Levacic, R., and Mitchell, J., eds (1991), Markets, Hierarchies and Networks: The Co-ordination of Social Life, (Introduction), Sage, London.

Todeva, E. (1998), ‘The transformation of the socialist governance system’, South Bank European Papers, 6/1998, South Bank University, London.

Todeva, E. (2005), ‘Governance, control and co-ordination in network context: the cases of Japanese Keiretsu and Sogo Shosha’, Journal of International Management, Vol 11, pp 87–109.

Todeva, E. (2008), Health Technology Cluster in the Greater South East, report by SEHTA and the University of Surrey, Guildford.

Todeva, E. (2010), ‘Theoretical tensions between regulation, governance and strategic behaviour in a federated world order’, International Journal of Social Economics, Vol 37, No 10, pp 784–801.

Ohta, T., Lee, K., and Kakehi, K. (2008), ‘Role of formal boundary spanning structure and changing pattern of university–industry collaborative research in University of Tokyo’, PICMET 2008 Proceedings, Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology, Portland State University, Portland, OR.

Wilson, W. (1987), ‘The study of administration’, Political Science Quarterly, Vol 2, pp 197–222.

Yusuf, S. (2008), ‘Intermediating knowledge exchange between universities and businesses’, Research Policy, Vol 37, pp 1167–1174.

Zucker, L., Darby, M., and Armstrong, J. (2002), 'Commercializing knowledge: university science, knowledge capture and firm performance in biotechnology’, Management Science, Vol 48, No 1, pp 138–153.