This article aims to look into the Triple Helix system as a basis for promoting social capital formation, innovation and exchange of best practice. It argues that the process of industrial innovation will be limited where there is little or no scope for institutional development, networking and social capital development. The article also seeks to evaluate the performance of policy in Thailand, in terms of influencing the major actors of the Triple Helix to work together and contribute towards the development of the culture of networking, collaboration and sharing of best industrial practices using the case of a traditional but potentially creative industry—the Thai dessert industry.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Acs, Z.J. and D.B. Audretsch (1988), ‘ Innovation in Large and Small Firms: An Empirical Analysis ’, The American Economic Review,78 (4), pp. 678–90 .
2.
Arnold, E. , M. Bell , J. Bessant and P. Brimble (2000), Enhancing Policy and Institutional Support for Industrial Technology Development in Thailand: The Overall Policy Framework and The Development of the Industrial Innovation System. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank .
3.
Berger, M. (2005), Upgrading the System of Innovation in Late-Industrialising Countries: The Role of Transnational Corporations in Thailand's Manufacturing Sector. Kiel: Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel .
4.
Chaminade, C. and J. Vang (2006), ‘Upgrading in Asian Clusters: Rethinking the Importance of Interactive-Learning’, Globalis: Innovation Systems for Competitiveness and Shared Prosperity in Developing Countries, 4–7 October, Kerala, India .
5.
Charoeananong, N. and S. Leelarkarrune (2006), ‘ Enhancing SMEs Capability through ITAP-way Technology Development: A Case Study of the Thai Confectionery Manu-facturing Company ’, The International Conference of ISO 9000 & TQM’, 10–12 April, Hong Kong.
6.
Cohen, W. and S. Klepper (1996), ‘ A Perrise of size and R&D ’, The Economic Journal, 106 (437), pp. 925–51 .
7.
Cooke, P. and D. Wills (1999), ‘ Small Firm, Social Capital and the Enhancement of Business Performance Through Innovation Programmes ’, Small Business Economics, 13 (3), pp. 219–34 .
8.
Edquist, C. (1997), Systems of Innovation: Technologies, Institutions, and Organizations. London: Pinter .
9.
Etzkowitz, H. (2002), ‘ Networks of Innovation: Science, Technology and Development in the Triple Helix Era ’, International Journal of Technology Management and Sustainable Development, 1 (1), pp. 7–20 .
10.
Etzkowitz, H. and L. Leydesdorff (2000), ‘ The Dynamics of Innovation: From National Systems and “Mode 2” to a Triple Helix of University–Industry–Government Relations ’, Research Policy, 29 (2), pp. 109–23 .
11.
Fountain, J.E. (1997), ‘Social Capital: A Key Enabler of Innovation in Science and Technology’, in I. M. Branscomb and J. Keller (eds), Investing in Innovation: Toward A Concensus Strategy for Federal Technology Policy. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press .
12.
Freeman, C. (1987), Technology and Economic Performance: Lessons from Japan. London: Pinter .
13.
Fukuyama, F. (2000), Social Capital and Civil Society. Washington, D.C.: IMF Institute .
14.
Grootaert, C. (1998), Social Capital: The Missing Link?Washington, D.C.: The World Bank .
15.
Intarakumnerd, P. (2006), ‘Thailand's National Innovation System in Transition’, in B.A. Lundvall , P. Intarakumnerd and J. Vang (eds), Asia's Innovation System in Transition. UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited .
16.
Intarakumnerd, P. , P. Cairatana and T. Tangchitpiboon (2002), ‘ National Innovation System in Less Successful Developing Countries: The Case of Thailand ’, Research Policy,31 (8), pp. 1445–57 .
17.
ITAP (2006), Progress Report of Industrial Technology Assistant Program: Food and Agriculture. Pratumthani, Thailand: National Science and Technology Development Agency .
18.
Keller, W.W. and R.J. Samuels (2001), ‘ Innovation and Crisis in Asia ’, MIT Japan Program, Working Paper 02.03 .
19.
Lundvall, B.A. (1992), National Innovation Systems: Towards a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning. London: Pinter .
20.
Malairaja, C. (2003), ‘ Learning from Silicon Valley and Implications for Technological Leapfrogging ’, International Journal of Technology Management and Sustainable Development, 2 (2), pp. 73–95 .
21.
Mani, S. (2001), ‘ Role of Government in Promoting Innovation: An International Comparative Study ’, Proceedings of the Conference on Future Innovation Studies, Eindhoven University of Technology, the Netherlands, 20–23 September.
22.
Metcalfe, S. (1995), ‘The Economic Foundation of Technology Policy: Equilibrium and Evolutionary Perspectives’, in P. Stoneman (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation and Technological Change. Oxford: Blackwell .
23.
Mytelka, L.K. (2000), ‘ Local Systems of Innovation in a Globalized World Economy ’, Industry and Innovation, 7 (1), 15–32 .
24.
Nelson, R.R. (1993), National Innovation Systems: A Comparative Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press .
25.
NSTDA (2004), The National Science and Technology Strategic Plan (2004–2013). Thailand: National Science and Technology Development Agency (NSTDA) .
26.
NSTDA (2006), ‘Private Sector Support Programs’, Technology Management Center, National Science and Technology Development Agency, Thailand .
27.
OECD (1997), National Innovation Systems. Paris: OECD .
28.
OSMEP (2006), The White Paper on Small and Medium Enterprises of Thailand in 2005 and Trends in 2006. Bangkok: The Office of Small and Medium Enterprises Promotion .
29.
Pavitt, K. , M. Robson and J. Townsend (1987), ‘ The Size Distribution of Innovating Firms in The UK: 1945–1983 ’, The Journal of Industrial Economics, 35 (3), pp. 297–316 .
30.
Porter, M.E. (1990), The Competitive Advantage of Nations. New York: Free Press .
31.
Powell, W.W. and S. Grodal (2005), ‘Networks of Innovators’, in J. Fagerberg , D.C. Mowery and R.R. Nelson (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press .
32.
Promwong, K. and D. Rajadanuraks (2005), ‘S&T Policy and System towards Knowledge-Based Society: An Experience of a Developing Economy in the APEC Region’, International Workshop on Supporting Systems for the Formulation of S ,T & I Public Policies, 26–29 April, Sau Paolo, Brazil .
33.
Promwong, K. and N. Yokakul (2006), ‘Development of “Triple Helix” System in a Weak Academic–Industry–Link Environment: The Case Study of the Industrial Technology Assistance Program in Thailand’, Triple Helix Paradigm for Development: Strategies for Co-operation and Exchange of Good Practice. 17–19 September, Bristol Business School, The University of Bristol, UK
34.
Putnam, R.D. (1993), ‘The Prosperous Community: Social Capital and Public Life’, The American Prospect, 4 March, pp. 35–42.
35.
Rothwell, R. (1992), ‘ Successful Industrial Innovation: Critical Factors for the 1990';s ’, R&D Management, 22 (3), pp. 221–39 .
36.
Saxenian, A. (1994), Regional Advantage: Culture and Competition in Silicon Valley and Route 128. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press .
37.
Saxenian, A. (1999), ‘Silicon Valley's New Immigrant Entrepreneurs’, Report to the Public Policy Institute of California , June.
38.
Schumpeter, J. (1934), The Theory of Economic Development. Cambridge, MA: Havard University Press .
39.
Sevilla, R.C. and K. Soonthornthada (2000), ‘SME Policy in Thailand: Vision and Challenges’, Nakhorn Pathom, Institute for Population and Social Research, Mahidol University .
40.
Sripaipan, C. , S. Vanichseni and Y. Mukdapitak (1999), Technological Innovation Policy of Thailand. Bangkok: National Science and Technology Development (NSTDA) (Thai version) .
41.
Symeonidis, G. (1996), Innovation, Firm Size and Market Structure: Schumpeterian Hypothesis and Some New Themes. Paris: OECD .
42.
Temsiripoj, W. (2003), ‘Academic–Industry Links in Thailand and the UK: A Comparative Analysis’, PREST, Manchester, University of Manchester .
