This article focuses on the sense and nonsense of comparing higher education-industry relationships across countries. It discusses the conditions under which international benchmarking leads to potentially deleterious policy conclusions and underlines the importance of context specificity. It argues for more attention to the dynamics of local learning, taken here to mean the absorptive capacities of a range of economic actors. It concludes by showing how research into the conditions of local learning can shed light on how regions or countries might make it easier for economic actors ‘to learn how to learn’ or, in other words, to bridge the gap between lessons from elsewhere and their own absorptive capacities.
AgrawalAjay (2001), ‘University-to-industry knowledge transfer: Literature review and unanswered questions’, International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol 3, No 4, pp 285–302.
2.
AmsdenAliceH. (1989), Asia's Next Giant: South Korea and Late Industrialization, Oxford University Press, New York.
3.
ArocenaRodrigoSutzJudith (2000), ‘Looking at national systems of innovation from the South’, Industry and Innovation, Vol 7, No 1, pp 55–75.
4.
AudretschD.B.FeldmanM.P. (1996), ‘R&D spillovers and the geography of innovation and production’, American Economic Review, Vol 86, No 3, pp 630–640.
5.
BarréRémi (2001), ‘Sense and nonsense of S&T productivity indicators’, Science and Public Policy, Vol 28, No 4, pp 259–266.
6.
BestMichaelH.ForrantRobert (2000), ‘Regional industrial modernization programmes: Two cases from Massachusetts’, European Planning Studies, Vol 8, No 2, pp 211–223.
7.
BozemanBarry (2000), ‘Technology transfer and public policy: A review of research and theory, Research Policy, Vol 29, pp 627–655.
8.
CaloghirouYannisTsakanikasAggelosVonortasNicholasS. (2001), ‘University-industry cooperation in the context of the European framework programmes’, Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol 26, No 1–2 pp 153–161.
9.
CarayannisEliasG.AlexanderJeffrey (1999), ‘Secrets of success and failure in commercializing US government R&D laboratory technologies: A structured case study approach’, International Journal of Technology Management, Vol 18, Nos 3/4, pp 246–269.
10.
CarayannisEliasG.AlexanderJeffreyIoannidisAnthony (2000), ‘Leveraging knowledge, learning, and innovation in forming strategic government-industry (GIU) R&D partnerships in the US, Germany and France’, Technovation, Vol 20, pp 477–488.
11.
CarlssonBoJacobssonStaffanHolménMagnusRickneAnnika (2002), ‘Innovation systems: Analytical and methodological issues’, Research Policy, Vol 31, pp 233–245.
12.
ChangP.-L.HsuW.-S. (2002), ‘Improving the innovative capabilities of Taiwan's manufacturing industries with university-industry research partnerships’, International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, Vol 19, pp 775–787.
13.
CockburnI.HendersonR. (1998), ‘Absorptive capacity, coauthoring behaviour, and the organization of research in drug discovery’, Journal of Industrial Economics, Vol 46, No 2, pp 157–182.
14.
CohenWesleyM.LevinthalDanielA. (1989), ‘Innovation and learning: The two faces of R&D’, Economic Journal, Vol 99 (September), pp 569–596.
15.
CohenWesleyM.LevinthalDanielA. (1990), ‘Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation’, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol 35, No 1, pp 128–152.
16.
CorreaCarlos (1995), ‘Innovation and technology transfer in Latin America: A review of recent trends and policies’, International Journal of Technology Management, Vol 10, Nos 7/8, pp 815–845.
17.
DST (2004), South African National Survey of Research and Experimental Development (R&D) (2001/02 Fiscal Year), Department of Science and Technology, Pretoria.
18.
FurmanJeffreyL.PorterMichaelE.SternScott (2002), ‘The determinants of national innovative capacity’, Research Policy, Vol 31, pp 899–933.
19.
HagenRoulla (2002), ‘Globalization, university transformation and economic regeneration: A UK case study of public/private sector partnership’, International Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol 15, No 3, pp 204–218.
20.
KastrinosNikos (2001), ‘Contribution of socio-economic research to the benchmarking of RTD policies in Europe’, Science and Public Policy, Vol 28, No 4, pp 238–246.
21.
KraakAndre (2004), An Overview of South African Human Resources Development, HSRC, Cape Town.
22.
LallSanyayaPietrobelliCarlo (2002), Failing to Compete: Technology Development and Technology Systems in Africa, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
23.
LeeYongS. (1996) ‘“Technology transfer” and the research university: A search for the boundaries of university-industry collaboration’, Research Policy, Vol 25, pp 843–863.
24.
LeeYongS. (2000), ‘The sustainability of university-industry research collaboration: An empirical assessment’, Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol 25, pp 111–133.
25.
LorentzenJochenBarnesJustin (2004), ‘Learning, upgrading, and innovation in the South African automotive industry’, European Journal of Development Research, Vol 16, No 3, pp 463–495.
26.
LundvallBengt-ÅkeJohnsonBjörnAndersenEseben SlothDalumBent (2002), ‘National systems of production, innovation and competence building’, Research PolicyVol 31, pp 213–231.
27.
MansfieldEdwin (1998), ‘Academic research and industrial innovation: An update of empirical findings’, Research Policy, Vol 26, pp 773–776.
28.
YunosMohdGhazaliMohd (2002), ‘Building an innovation-based economy: The Malaysian technology business incubator experience’, Journal of Change Management, Vol 3, No 2, pp 177–188.
29.
NACI and Department of Arts, Culture, Science and Technology (DACST) (2002), South African Science and Technology: Key Facts and Figures 2002, National Advisory Council on Innovation, Pretoria.
30.
NarulaRajneeshDunningJohnH. (2000), ‘Industrial development, globalization and multinational enterprises: New realities for developing countries’, Oxford Development Studies, Vol 28, No 2, pp 141–167.
31.
NelsonRichardR., ed (1993), National Innovation Systems, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
32.
NelsonRichardR.RosenbergNathan (1993), ‘Technical innovation and national systems’, in NelsonRichardR., ed (1993), National Innovation Systems, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
33.
OECD (2002), Benchmarking Industry-Science Relationships, Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris.
34.
OECD (2003), STI Scoreboard: Creation and Diffusion of Knowledge, Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris.
35.
OECD (2004a), Science and Innovation Policy, Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris.
36.
OECD (2004b), Science and Technology Statistical Compendium, Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris.
37.
OerlemansL.A.G.PretoriusM.W.BuysA.J.RooksG. (2003), Industrial Innovation in South Africa 1998–2000, Department of Arts, Culture, Science and Technology, Pretoria.
38.
PassosCarlosA.S.TerraCantisanoReginaBrancaFurtadoAndréT.VedovelloConceiçãoPlonskiAryGuilherme (2004), ‘Improving university-industry partnerships – the Brazilian experience through the scientific and technological support program (PADCT III)’, International Journal of Technology Management, Vol 27, No 5, pp 475–487.
39.
PatelParimalPavittKeith (1994), ‘National innovation systems: Why they are important, and how they might be measured and compared’, Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Vol 3, pp 77–95.
40.
PhillipsFred (1998), ‘University-industry partnerships in management research’, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol 57, pp 257–260.
41.
PoltWolfgangRammerChristianGasslerHelmutAndreasSchibanyHartingerDoris (2001), ‘Benchmarking industry-science relations: The role of framework conditions’, Science and Public Policy, Vol 28, No 4, pp 247–258.
42.
Poyago-ThoetokyJoannaBeathJohnSiegelDonaldS. (2002), ‘Universities and fundamental research: Reflections on the growth of university-industry partnerships’, Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Vol 18, No 1, pp 10–21.
43.
RadosevicSlavo (1999), ‘The Eastern European latecomer firm and technology transfer: From “muddling through” to “cCatching up”’, in BugliarelloG.PakN.K.AlferovZ.I.MooreJ.H., eds, East–West Technology Transfer, Kluwer, Dordrecht.
44.
SmithKeith (2001), ‘Comparing economic performance in the presence of diversity’, Science and Public Policy, Vol 28, No 4, pp 267–76.
45.
ThursbyJ.G.ThursbyM.C. (2000), Who Is Selling the Ivory Tower? Sources of Growth in University Licensing, Working Paper No 7718, NBER, Cambridge.
46.
ViottiEdoardo (2002), ‘National learning systems: A new approach on technological change in late industrializing economies and evidence from the cases of Brazil and South Korea’, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol 69, pp 653–680.
47.
WadeRobert (1990), Governing the Market: Economic Theory and the Role of Government in East Asian Industrialization, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
48.
ZahraShakerA.GeorgeGerard (2002), ‘Absorptive capacity: A review, reconceptualization, and extension’, Academy of Management Review, Vol 27, No 2, pp 185–203.
