The triple helix of university–industry–government relations has been accepted as a significant determiner of innovation. For the economic progress of the industrialised nations, the cooperation between academia and industry is terribly crucial. For the purpose of profit maximisation by means of such cooperation, achieving a healthy and productive cooperation is of vital importance. Science and technology (S&T) cooperation platform is an original cooperative mode in East China, which is similar to the technology transfer office. This article researches the cooperation relation and makes a thorough inquiry of the influence of cooperation on high-tech firms. Based on an investigation of 552 high-tech firms and 56 universities, we found that the high-tech firms can improve economic situation via the cooperation with universities on the platform. Moreover, principal discoveries demonstrate that the economic performance of high-tech firms is positively related with the co-operation projects. Furthermore, with a view to making policies and raising probable improvements to cooperative efficiency between academia and industry, this study also finds that high-tech firms selecting distinct cooperation models on the platform will bring different effects on the economic performance of firms.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlmeidaM. (2005). The evolution of the incubator movement in Brazil. International Journal of Technology and Globalisation, 1(2), 258–277.
2.
AokiM. (2001). Toward a comparative institutional analysis. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.
3.
BennerM., & SandströmU. (2000). Institutionalizing the triple helix: Research funding and norms in the academic system. Research Policy, 29(2), 291–301.
4.
BergmanE. M., & FeserE. J. (1999). Industrial and regional clusters: Concepts and comparative applications. Morgantown, West Virginia: University of West Virginia.
5.
ChenF., WuC., YangW., & ZhangW. (2013). S&T collaboration platform for higher education institutions and industry: A case study of Wenzhou, China. Engineering Economics, 24(5), 424–436.
6.
EtkowitzH. (2001). The second academic revolution and the rise of entrepreneurial science. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, 20(2), 18–29.
7.
EtkowitzH. (2002). MIT and the rise of entrepreneurial science: London: Routledge.
8.
EtkowitzH., & LeydesdorffL. (1995). Universities and the global knowledge economy: a triple helix of university-industry-government relations. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.
9.
EtkowitzH., & LeydesdorffL. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: From national systems and “mode 2” to a triple helix of university-industry-government relations. Research policy, 29(2), 109–123.
10.
GuanJ. (2002). Comparison study of industrial innovation between China and some European countries. Production and Inventory Management Journal, 43(3/4), 30–46.
11.
GuanJ. C., YamR. C. M., & MokC. K. (2005). Collaboration between industry and research institutes/universities on industrial innovation in Beijing, China. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 17(3), 339–353.
12.
HagedoornJ., LinkA. N., & VonortasN. S. (2000). Research partnerships. Research Policy, 29(4), 567–586.
13.
HuM. C., & MathewsJ. A. (2008). China’s national innovative capacity. Research Policy, 37(9), 1465–1479.
14.
HugginsR., & JohnstonA. (2009). The economic and innovation contribution of universities: A regional perspective. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 27(6), 1088–1106.
15.
HugginsR., JohnstonA., & SteffensonR. (2008). Universities, knowledge networks and regional policy. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 1(2), 321–340.
16.
HuizinghE. K. R. E. (2011). Open innovation: State of the art and future perspectives. Technovation, 31(1), 2–9.
17.
JacobM. (2006). Utilization of social science knowledge in science policy: Systems of innovation, triple helix and VINNOVA. Social Science Information, 45(3), 431–462.
18.
JianT., SachsJ. D., & WarnerA. M. (1996). Trends in regional inequality in China. China economic review, 7(1), 1–21.
19.
Jones EvansD., KlofstenM., AnderssonE., & PandyaD. (1999). Creating a bridge between university and industry in small European countries: The role of the Industrial Liaison Office. R&D Management, 29(1), 47–56.
20.
LengyelB., & LeydesdorffL. (2011). Regional innovation systems in Hungary: The failing synergy at the national level. Regional Studies, 45(5), 677–693.
21.
LeydesdorffL., & EtkowitzH. (1995). The triple helix-university-industry-government relations: A laboratory for knowledge based economic development. EASST Review, 14(1), 14–19.
22.
LeydesdorffL., & MeyerM. (2010). The decline of university patenting and the end of the Bayh-Dole effect. Scientometrics, 83(2), 355–362.
23.
MirowskiP., & SentE. M. (2008). The commercialization of science and the response of STS. In HackettE., AmesterdamskiO., LynchM. & WajcmanJ. (Eds), The handbook of science and technology studies (pp. 635–690). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
24.
NelsonR. R. (1982). An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
25.
NelsonR. R. (2005). The roles of research at universities and public labs in economic catch-up. Technological Change and Economic Catch-Up. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK. 19–32.
26.
NelsonR. R., & WinterS. G. (1977). In search of useful theory of innovation. Research policy, 6(1), 36–76.
27.
PavittK. (2001). Public policies to support basic research: What can the rest of the world learn from US theory and practice? (And what they should not learn). Industrial and corporate change, 10(3), 761–779.
28.
PittawayL., RobertsonM., MunirK., Denyer, D., & NeelyA. (2004). Networking and innovation: A systematic review of the evidence. International Journal of Management Reviews, 5(3/4), 137–168.
29.
SaadM., ZawdieG., & MalairajaC. (2008). The triple helix strategy for universities in developing countries: The experiences in Malaysia and Algeria. Science and Public policy, 35(6), 431–443.
30.
SchumpeterJ. A., & FelsR. (1939). Business cycles (Vol. 1). New York: Mc Graw-Hill.
31.
ShinnT. (2002). The triple helix and new production of knowledge prepackaged thinking on science and technology. Social studies of science, 32(4), 599–614.
32.
StrandØ., & LeydesdorffL. (2013). Where is synergy indicated in the Norwegian innovation system? Triple-Helix relations among technology, organization, and geography. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 80(3), 471–484.
33.
WuW. (2010). Managing and incentivizing research commercialization in Chinese Universities. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 35(2), 203–224.
