In many countries, universities are emerging as the focal point for the formulation and delivery of policies on innovation, cluster development, human capital formation and development, entrepreneurship, and governance. The author provides a critique of arguments as to why universities have come to be seen as crucial stakeholders in the innovation process, and, in particular, should be territorial actors. It is argued that ascribing a central role in contemporary innovation systems to universities needs to be done with caution, and cannot be understood in isolation from political pressure.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AngelD P, 1991, “High-technology agglomeration and the labor market: The case of Silicon Valley”Environment and Planning A231501–1516.
2.
AnselinLVargaAAcsZ J, 1997, “Local geographic spillovers between university research and high technology innovation”Journal of Urban Economics42422–448.
3.
AnselinLVargaAAcsZ, 2000, “Geographic spillovers and university research: A spatial econometric approach”Growth and Change31501–515.
4.
AntonelliCQuereM, 2002, “The governance of interactive learning within innovation systems”Urban Studies391051–1063.
5.
ArchibugiDIammarinoS, 2002, “The globalisation of technological innovation: Definition and evidence”Review of International Political Economy998–122.
6.
AudretschD, 1998, “Agglomeration and the location of innovative activity”Oxford Review of Economic Policy14345–366.
7.
AudretschD BFeldmanM P, 1996, “R&D spillovers and the geography of innovation and production”American Economic Review86630–640.
8.
AudretschDStephanP E, 1996, “Company – scientists locational links: The case of biotechnology”American Economic Review86641–652.
9.
BeiseMStahlH, 1999, “Public research and industrial innovations in Germany”Research Policy28397–422.
BeltBHentleyJCharlesDJonesIAudasR, 2000, “North East Graduate Labour Markets 1999–2000”, Centre for Urban and Regional Development Studies, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, Newcastle upon Tyne.
12.
BlackDHendersonV, 1999, “A theory of urban growth”Journal of Political Economy107252–284.
13.
BMI, SSTI, 2001State Government Initiatives in BiotechnologyBattelle Memorial Institute and the State Science and Technology Institute, http://www.bio.org.
14.
BrehenyMMcQuaidR, (Eds), 1987The Development of High Technology Industries (Croom Helm, London).
15.
BreschiSLissoniF, 2001, “Knowledge spillovers and local innovation systems: A critical survey”Industrial and Corporate Change10975–1005.
16.
BreschiSMalerbaF, 1997, “Sectoral innovation systems: Technological regimes, Schumpeterian dynamics and spatial boundaries”, in Systems of Innovation: Technologies, Institutions and Organisations Ed. EdquistC, (Pinter, London) pp 130–156.
17.
BrusoniSGeunaA, forthcoming, “The key characteristics of sectoral knowledge bases: An international comparison”, in Technical Choice, Innovation and Knowledge: Essays in Honour of Paul A David Eds AntonelliCForayDHallBSteinmullerW E, (Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, Glos).
18.
BunnellT GCoeN M, 2001, “Spaces and scales of innovation”Progress in Human Geography25569–589.
19.
CEC, 2004, “Innovation in Europe, Iceland and Norway: Overview of the third Community Innovation Survey”, Commission of the European Community, Luxembourg, http://www.cordis.lu/innovation-smes/src/cis.htm.
20.
CharlesD R, 2003, “Universities and territorial development: Reshaping the regional role of UK universities”Local Economy1817–20.
21.
CharlesDBenneworthP, 2001, “Are we realizing our potential? Joining up science and technology policy in the English regions”Regional Studies3573–79.
22.
CharlesDConwayC, 2001Higher Education – Business Interaction Survey RR01/68 Centre for Urban and Regional Development Studies, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, Newcastle upon Tyne, http://www.hefce.ac.uk.
23.
CharlesDHowellsJ, 1992Technology Transfer in Europe: Public and Private Networks (Belhaven Press, London).
24.
ChattertonPGoddardJ B, 2001The Response of Universities to Regional Needs (OECD, Paris).
25.
CohenW MLevinthalD A, 1990, “Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation”Administrative Science Quarterly35128–152.
26.
CohenW MNelsonR RWalshJ P, 2002, “Links and impacts: The influence of public research on industrial R&D”Management Science481–23.
Di GregorioDShaneS, 2003, “Why do some universities generate more start-ups than others?”Research Policy32209–227.
33.
DosiG, 1988, “The nature of the innovation process”, in Technical Change and Economic Theory Eds DosiGFreemanCNelsonRSilverbergGSoeteL, (Pinter, London) pp 221–238.
34.
DTI, 1993Realising Our Potential: A Strategy for Science, Technology and EngineeringDepartment of Trade and Industry, London.
35.
EtzkowitzH, 2003, “Research groups as ‘quasi-firms’: The invention of the entrepreneurial university”Research Policy32109–121.
36.
EtzkowitzHLeydesdorffL, 1997, “Introduction: Universities in the global knowledge economy”, in Universities and the Global Knowledge Economy: A Triple Helix of University – Industry – Government Relations Eds EtzkowitzHLeydesorffL, (Pinter, London) pp 1–8.
37.
EtzkowitzHWebsterAGebhardtCTerraB R Cantisano, 2000, “The future of the university and the university of the future: Evolution of ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm”Research Policy29313–330.
38.
FeldmanM P, 1999, “The new economics of innovation, spillovers and agglomeration: A review of empirical studies”The Economics of Innovation and New Technology85–25.
39.
FloridaR, 2002The Rise of the Creative Class (Basic Books, New York).
40.
FrenzMOughtonC, 2005, “Innovation in the UK regions and devolved administrations: A review of the literature”, final report for the Department of Trade and Industry and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, London.
41.
FrenzMMichieJOughtonC, 2005, “Innovation and cooperation: The role of absorptive capacity”, working paper series, Birkbeck, University of London, London.
42.
GibbonsMLimogesCNowotnyHSchwartmanSScottPTrowM, 1994The Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies (Sage, London).
43.
GlassonJ, 2003, “The widening local and regional development impacts of the modern universities—a tale of two cities (and North – South perspectives)”1821–37.
44.
GoddardJ, 2004Keynote address to the OECD Conference on Innovation and Regional Policy, Florence, Italy, 25–26 November; copy available from the author, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, Newcastle upon Tyne.
45.
GoldsteinH ARenaultC S, 2004“Contributions of universities to regional economic development: A quasi-experimental approach”Regional Studies38733–746.
46.
GrayMMartinRTylerP, forthcoming, “The East of England”, in The Rise of the English Regions Eds HardillIBakerMRobertsP, (Routledge, London).
47.
GrilichesZ, 1979, “Issues in assessing the contribution of R&D to productivity growth”Bell Journal of Economics1092–116.
48.
GrilichesZ, 1992“The search for R&D spillovers”Scandinavian Journal of Economics94S29–S47.
49.
GrossmanGHelpmanE, 1991Innovation and Growth in the Global Economy (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA).
50.
HallPBrehenyMMcQuaidRHartD, 1987Western Sunrise (Allen and Unwin, Hemel Hempstead, Herts).
51.
HanssonFHustedKVestergaardJ, 2005, “Second generation science parks: From structural holes jockeys to social capital catalysts of the knowledge society”Technovation251039–1049.
52.
HM Treasury, 2003Lambert Review of Business – University CollaborationHM Treasury, London.
53.
JacobMLundqvistMHellsmarkH, 2003, “Entrepreneurial transformations in the Swedish university system: The case of Chalmers University of Technology”Research Policy321555–1568.
54.
JaffeA B, 1989, “Real effects of academic research”The American Economic Review88957–970.
55.
JaffeA BTrajtenburghMHendersonR, 1993, “Geographical localisation of knowledge spillovers as evidenced by patent citations”Quarterly Journal of Economics108577–598.
56.
KenneyM, 1986Biotechnology: The University – Industry Complex (Yale University Press, New Haven, CT).
57.
KrugmanP, 1991Geography and Trade (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA).
58.
SmithH Lawton, 2000Technology Transfer and Industrial Change in Europe (Macmillan, Basingstoke, Hants).
59.
SmithH Lawton, 2003, “Maximising the benefits from a concentration of universities”, paper presented at SEEDS Conference, the Barbican 11 July; copy available from the author.
60.
SmithH Lawton, 2005, “The biotechnology industry in Oxfordshire: Enterprise and innovation”European Planning Studies12985–1002.
61.
LeeC BWalshokM, 2003, “Total links matter: The direct and indirect effects of research universities on regional economies”, prepared for University of California's Industry – University Cooperative Research Program) http://globalconnect.ucsd.edu/resources.htm.
62.
LiebeskindJ POliverA LZuckerL GBrewerM, 1996, “Social networks, learning and flexibility: Sourcing scientific knowledge in new biotech firms”Organization Science7428–443.
63.
LundvallB-A, 1988, “Innovation as an interactive process—from user – producer interaction to national system of innovation”, in Technical Change and Economic Theory Eds DosiGFreemanCNelsonRSilverbergGSoeteL, (Pinter, London) pp 349–369.
64.
MaleckiE, 1997Technology and Economic Development: The Dynamics of Local, Regional and National Competitiveness2nd edition (Longman, Harlow, Essex).
65.
MansfieldELeeJ-Y, 1996, “The modern university: Contributor to industrial innovation and recipient of industrial R&D support”Research Policy251047–1058.
66.
MarkusenAHallPGlasmeierA, 1986High-tech America: The What, How, Where and Why of the Sunrise Industries (Allen and Unwin, Winchester, MA).
67.
MartinRSunleyP, 2003, “Deconstructing clusters: Chaotic concept or policy panacea?”Journal of Economic Geography35–35.
68.
MasseyDQuintasPWieldD, 1992High-tech Fantasies: Science Parks in Society, Science and Space (Routledge, London).
69.
Meyer-KrahmerFSchmochU, 1998, “Science-based technologies: University – industry interactions in four fields”Research Policy27835–851.
70.
MoweryD CZiedonisA A, 2002, “Academic patent quality and quantity before and after the Bayh – Dole Act in the United States”Research Policy31399–418.
71.
NelsonR, 1988, “Institutions supporting technical change in the US”, in Technical Change and Economic Theory Eds DosiGFreemanCNelsonRSilverbergGSoeteL, (Pinter, London) pp 312–329.
72.
NelsonRRosenbergN, 1993, “Technical innovations and national systems”, in National Innovation Systems: A Comparative Analysis Ed. NelsonR, (Oxford University Press, Oxford) pp 3–27.
73.
NorthD C, 1990Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge).
OECD, 1999The Response of Higher Education Institutions to Regional Needs (OECD, Paris).
76.
OinasPMaleckiE J, 2002, “The evolution of technologies in time and space: From national and regional to spatial innovation systems”International Science Review25102–131.
77.
OughtonCLandabasoMMorganK, 2002, “The regional innovation paradox: Innovation policy and industrial policy”Journal of Technology Transfer2797–110.
PavittK, 1984, “Sectoral patterns of technical change: Towards a taxonomy and a theory”Research Policy13343–373.
80.
PavittK, 1998, “The social shaping of the national science base”Research Policy27793–805.
81.
PorterM, 1998, “Clusters and the new economics of competitiveness”Harvard Business Review771–10.
82.
PutnamR D, 2000Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community (Simon and Schuster, New York).
83.
RickneA, 2000New Technology Based Firms and Industrial Dynamics: Evidence from the Technological Systems in Sweden, Ohio and MassachusettsDepartment of Industrial Dynamics, Chalmers University of Technology, Goteborg.
84.
RomerP, 1986“Increasing returns and long run growth”Journal of Political Economy941002–1037.
85.
RosenfeldS, 1998, “Technical colleges, technology deployment and regional development”, paper presented at OECD conference on Building Competitive Regional Economies: Up-grading Knowledge and Diffusing Technology to Local Firms, Modena, 28–29 May, http://www.cherry.gatech.edu/sim/speakers/rosenfeld.htm.
86.
RuttenR P J HBoekemaF W MKuijpersE, 2003, “HEIs, regions and the knowledge-based economy”, in Economic Geography of Higher Education Eds RuttenR P J HBoekemaF W MKuijpersE, (Routledge, London) pp 244–252.
87.
SaxenianA, 1983, “The genesis of Silicon Valley”Built Environment97–17.
88.
SaxenianA, 1994Regional Advantage (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA).
89.
SchwerinJ, 2004, “The evolution of the Clyde region's shipbuilding innovation system in the second half of the nineteenth century”Journal of Economic Geography483–101.
90.
ScottA, 1988New Industrial Spaces (Pion, London).
91.
ScottA, 2006“Creative cities: Conceptual issues and policy questions”Journal of Urban Affairs281–17.
92.
QuinceSegal, 1985The Cambridge Phenomenon: The Growth of High Technology Industry in a University Town (Segal Quince and Partners, Cambridge).
SiegelD SWaldmanDLinkA, 2003, “Assessing the impact of organisational practices on the relative productivity of university technology transfer offices: An exploratory study”Research Policy3227–48.
95.
SimmieJSennettJWoodPHartD, 2002, “Innovation in Europe: A tale of networks, knowledge and trade in five cities”Regional Studies3647–64.
96.
SteedG P FDe GenovaD, 1983, “Ottawa's technology-oriented complex”Canadian Geographer27263–278.
97.
ThankiR, 1999, “How do we know the value of regional development to higher education?”Regional Studies3384–89.
98.
VeugelersRCassimanB, 2003, “R&D cooperation between firms and universities: Some empirical evidence from Belgian manufacturing”, DP 395, Center for Economic Policy Research, http://www.ecpr.org.
99.
ZuckerLDarbyM RBrewerM B, 1998, “Intellectual human capital and the birth of US biotechnology enterprises”American Economic Review88290–306.
