This paper addresses governments' efforts to link knowledge production and a knowledge-based production system. It suggests that the ‘Triple Helix’ image of university—industry—government relations neglects important aspects of players' activity, the systematic schizophrenia in much public policy and the critical variations over time and technologies in inter-relations between the knowledge-producing system and the structures and functioning of the surrounding political economy. The paper suggests that analysis of a nation's industrial ‘complexes' will provide valuable information and permit better adapted approaches.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
See, for instance, Industry and Higher Education, Vol 9, No 6, 1995 and Vol 10, No 1, 1996.
2.
EtzkovitzH.‘Academic-industry relations: a sociological paradigm for economic development’, in LeydesdesdorffL.Van den BesselaarP., eds, Evolutionary Economics and Chaos Theory: New Directions in Technology Studies, Pinter, London, 1994, pp 139–151.
3.
There are now many studies which show the importance of considering innovation as part of a national system in which all elements are linked. These systems are not designed explicitly but the elements interact in ways which favour certain outcomes. Policies for innovation must thus take account of other features of the national innovation system concerned. See, for example, the following works for the main lines of the argument: LundvallB-A, ed, National Systems of Innovation, Pinter, London, 1992; NelsonR., ed, National Systems of Innovation, Oxford University Press, London and New York, 1993; WhitleyR., ed, European Business Systems, Sage, London, 1992; ZysmanJ., Governments, Markets and Growth; Financial Systems and the Politics of Industrial Change, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY, 1983.
4.
Australian Science and Technology at a Glance, Department of Industry, Science and Technology, Canberra, 1996. The figures concern performance of R&D; governments fund more than half because of course they fund most of the higher education sector.
5.
GeunaA.‘European universities: relationships among age, dimension and science research quality’, draft paper presented to the conference ‘The Triple Helix: University—Industry-Government Relations', University of Amsterdam, pp. 3–6 January 1996.
6.
GibbonsM.LimogesC.NowotnyH.SchartzmanS.ScottP.TrowM., The New Production of Knowledge, Sage, London, 1994.
7.
MarceauJ.Steering from a Distance: International Trends in the Organisation and Governance of Higher Education, National Board of Employment, Education and Training, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra, 1993.
8.
PatelP.PavittK., ‘Large firms in the production of the world's technology: an important case of the non-globalisation of knowledge’, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol 22, No 11991, pp 91–102.
9.
PorterM.The Competitive Advantage of Nations, Macmillan and the Free Press, New York, 1990; PykeF.BecattiniG.SengenbergerW., eds, Industrial Districts and Inter-firm Cooperation in Italy, International Institute for Labour Studies, Geneva, 1990.
10.
Centre for Research Policy and Sultech, Crossing Innovation Boundaries: the Formation and Maintenance of Research Links between Industries and Universities in Australia, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra, 1993.
11.
Interview, Industrial Liaison Office, MIT, April 1995.
12.
FaulknerW.SenkerJ., ‘Making sense of diversity: public-private sector research linkages in three technologies’, Research Policy, Vol 23, 1994, pp 673–695.
13.
GlatzH.van TulderR.‘Ways out of the international restructuring race’, project proposal, University of Amsterdam/Institute Studies Vienna, 1989. For a more extended discussion, see RuigrokW.van TulderR., The Logic of International Restructuring, Routledge, London, 1995, especially chapters 4 and 5.
14.
Ibid.
15.
KrugmanP.‘The current case for industry policy’, in SalvatoreD., ed, Protectionism and World Welfare, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1993, pp 160–179, chapter 7.
16.
HicksD.IsardP.MartinB., ‘A morphology of Japanese and European research networks’, Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex, January 1995.
17.
See Ref 6, Gibbons, 1994.
18.
See MarginsonS., Education and Public Policy in Australia, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1993.
19.
See for example, von HippelE., The Sources of Innovation, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1988; and ShawB.‘User—supplier links and innovation’, in DodgsonM.RothwellM., eds, The Handbook of Industrial Innovation, Edward Elgar, Aldershot, 1994, pp 275–284.
