The purpose of this paper is, first, to highlight the role of the relationships between universities, institutions and firms in different regional development processes working towards a knowledge economy, and, second, to draw some implications for local policy makers. Adopting the regional innovation system (RIS) approach, the authors analyse selected regions – Cambridge (UK), Baden-Württemberg (Germany), Göteborg, (Sweden), Singapore, Milwaukee (USA) and Pittsburgh (USA) – which in the last two decades have undergone a process of economic and industrial renewal. From their analysis of the regional transformation process, they classify three different regional development paths defined respectively as ‘RIS-into’, ‘RIS-from’ and ‘RIS-through’ processes. Some common features emerge. In the process of regional development cooperation among universities, institutions and firms is essential. In particular, local universities play a crucial role in providing highly-educated people, research and spin-off activities. Thus universities are able to foster knowledge spillovers and interact constructively with firms. These interactions are nurtured and promoted by local policy makers.
AsheimB.CoenenL. (2005), ‘Knowledge bases and regional innovation systems: Comparing Nordic clusters’, Research Policy, Vol 34, pp 1173–1190.
2.
AsheimB.CoenenL. (2006), ‘The role of regional innovation systems in a globalizing economy: Comparing knowledge bases and institutional frameworks of Nordic clusters’, in VertovaG., ed, The Changing Economic Geography of Globalization, Routledge, London.
3.
AsheimB.GertlerM. (2005), ‘Understanding regional innovation systems’, in FagerbergJ.MoweryD.NelsonR., The Oxford Handbook of Innovation, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
4.
AsheimB.IsaksenA.NauwelaersC.TötdlingF. (2003), Regional Innovation Policy for Small–Medium Enterprises, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK and Lyme, NH.
5.
AudretschD.B. (1995), Innovation and Industry Evolution, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
6.
AudretschD.B.LehmannE.E.WarningS. (2004), ‘University spillovers: Does the kind of knowledge matter?’, Industry and Innovation, Vol 11, pp 193–205.
7.
AudretschD.B.LehmannE.E. (2005), ‘Does the knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship hold for regions?’, Research Policy, Vol 34, pp 1191–1202.
8.
AudretschD.B.LehmannE.E. (2006), ‘Entrepreneurial access and absorption of knowledge spillovers: Strategic board and managerial composition for competitive advantage’, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol 44, pp 155–166.
9.
AustinJ.E. (2000a), ‘Business leadership coalitions’, Business and Society Review, Vol 105, pp 305–322.
10.
AustinJ.E. (2000b), ‘Social Enterprise Series No 15: Private–Public Partnerships’, Working Paper No 00–072, Harvard Business School, Cambridge, MA.
11.
AustinJ.E.McCaffreyA. (2002), ‘Business leadership coalitions and public–private partnerships in american cities: A business perspective on regime theory’, Journal of Urban Affairs, Vol 24, pp 35–54.
12.
Cambridgeshire County Council Research Group (1998), The High-Tech Community in Cambridgeshire, Cambridgeshire County Council, Cambridge.
13.
CookeP. (1997), ‘Regions in a global market: The experience of Wales and Baden-Württemberg’, Review of International Political Economy, Vol 4, pp 349–381.
14.
CookeP. (2002), ‘Regional innovation systems: General findings and some new evidence from biotechnology clusters’, Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol 27, pp 133–145.
15.
CookeP.BoekholtP.TödlingF. (1998), Regional Innovation Systems: Designing for the future, Final Report to DG12 of the REGIS TSER project, Centre for Advanced Studies in the Social Sciences, University of Wales, Cardiff.
16.
CookeP.HeidenreichM.BraczykH.-J., eds (2004), Regional Innovation Systems, second edition, Routledge, London.
17.
DeitrickS. (1999), ‘The post industrial revitalization of Pittsburgh: Myths and evidence’, Community Development Journal, Vol 34, pp 4–12.
18.
DruilheC.GarnseyE. (2000), ‘Emergence and growth of high-tech activity in Cambridge and Grenoble’, Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, Vol 12, pp 163–177.
19.
DosiG. (1988), ‘Sources, procedures and microeconomic effects of innovation’, Journal of Economic Literature, Vol 26, pp 1120–1171.
20.
EtzkowitzH.LeydesdorffL. (1997), Universities in the Global Economy: A Triple Helix of University–Industry–Government Relations, Cassell, London.
21.
EtzkowitzH.LeydesdorffL. (2000), ‘The Dynamics of innovation: From national systems and ‘Mode 2’ to a Triple Helix of university–industry–government relations’, Research Policy, Vol 29, pp 109–123.
22.
Eurostat (2001), Regional Statisical Yearbook, European Communities, Paris.
23.
FloridaR. (2002), The Rise of the Creative Class, Basic Books, New York.
24.
FreemanC. (1987), Technology and Economic Performance: Lessons from Japan, Pinter, London.
25.
HansenS.B.BanC.HugginsL. (2003), ‘Explaining the ‘Brain Drain’ from older industrial cities: The Pittsburgh region’, Economic Development Quarterly, Vol 17, pp 132–147.
26.
HeindenreichM. (2004), ‘The dilemmas of regional innovation systems’, in CookeP.HeidenreichM.BraczykH.J., eds, Regional Innovation Systems, second edition, Routledge, London.
27.
HeidenreichM.KraussG. (2004), ‘The Baden-Württemberg production and innovation regime: Past sucess and new challenges’, in CookeP.HeidenreichM.BraczykH.J., eds, Regional Innovation Systems, second edition, Routledge, London.
28.
HerrigelG. (1989), ‘Industrial order and the politics of industrial change: Mechanical engineering’, in KatzensteinP., ed, Industry and Politics in West Germany, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY, pp 185–220.
29.
HerrigelG. (1996), ‘Crisis in German decentralized production’, European Urban and Regional Studies, Vol 3, pp 33–52.
30.
HolménM. (2002), ‘Regional industrial renewal: The growth of “antenna technology” in West Sweden’, Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, Vol 14, pp 87–106.
31.
HugginsR. (2004), World Knowledge Competitiveness Index 2004, Robert Huggins Associates, Pontypridd.
32.
HuiW.T. (1997), ‘Regionalization, economic restructuring and labour migration in Singapore’, International Migration Review, Vol 35, pp 109–130.
33.
JezierskiL. (1996), ‘Pittsburgh: Partnerships in a regional city’, in SavitchH.V.VogelR.K., eds, Regional Politics: America in a Post-City Age, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp 159–181.
34.
KeebleD.LawsonC.MooreB. (1999), ‘Collective learning process, networking and “institutional thickness” in the Cambridge Region’, Regional Studies, Vol 33, pp 319–332.
35.
LaestadiusS. (1998), ‘Technology level, knowledge formation and industrial competence in paper manufacturing’, in EliassonG., eds, Micro Foundations of Economic Growth, University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbour, MI, pp 212–226.
36.
LeeT.Y. (1992), ‘Economic restructuring policies in the 1980s’, in LowL.HengT.M., eds, Public Policies in Singapore: Changes in the 1980s and Future Signposts, Times Academic Press, Singapore.
37.
Lindholm-DahlstrandÅ. (1998), The Development of Technology-Based SMEs in the Göteborg Region, Collective Learning and RTD in Regionally-Clustered High Technology Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises, Regional Report prepared by the TSER European Network on Networks, ESRC Centre for Business Research, University of Cambridge.
38.
Lindholm-DahlstrandÅ. (1999), ‘Technology-based SMEs in the Göteborg region: Their origin and interaction with universities and large firms’, Regional Studies, Vol 33, pp 379–389.
39.
Lindholm-DahlstrandÅ.JacobssonS. (2003), ‘Universities and technology-based entrepreneurship in the Gothenburg region’, Local Economy, Vol 18, pp 80–90.
40.
LundvallB. (1992), National Systems of Innovation: Towards a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning, Pinter, London.
41.
MetzgerJ.T. (1998), ‘Remaking the growth coalition: The Pittsburgh partnership for neighborhood development’, Economic Development Quarterly, Vol 12, pp 12–29.
42.
NelsonR. (1993), National Innovation Systems: A Comparative Analysis, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
43.
NormannR. (2001), Reframing Business: When the Map Changes the Landscape, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.
44.
OECD (1996), The Knowledge-Based Economy, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris.
45.
OrfieldM. (1998), Milwaukee Metropolitics: A Regional Agenda for Community and Stability, Report to the Center on Wisconsin Strategy, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI.
46.
OrfieldM. (2002), American Metropolitics: The New Suburban Reality, Brookings Institution Press, Washington, DC.
47.
O'SheaR.P.AllenT.J.ChevalierA.RocheF. (2005), ‘Entrepreneurial orientation, technology transfer and spin-off performance of US universities’, Research Policy, Vol 34, pp 994–1009.
48.
PavittK. (1984), ‘Sectoral patterns of technical change: Towards a taxonomy and a theory’, Research Policy, Vol 13, pp 343–73.
49.
PereiraA.A. (2004), ‘State entrepreneurship and regional development: Singapore's industrial parks in Batam and Suzhou’, Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, Vol 16, pp 129–144.
50.
PowersJ. (2003), ‘Commercializing academic research: Resource effects on performance of university technology transfer’, Journal of Higher Education, Vol 74, pp 26–50.
51.
RosenbergD. (2002), Cloning Silicon Valley: The Next Generation High-Tech Hotspots, Reuters, London.
52.
SbragiaA. (1989), ‘The Pittsburgh model of economic development: Partnership, responsiveness, and indifference, in SquiresG.D., ed, Unequal Partnerships: The Political Economy of Urban Redevelopment in Postwar America, Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, NJ.
53.
SegalQuinceWicksteed (1985), The Cambridge Phenomenon: The Growth of High Technology Industry in a University Town, Segal, Quince, Wicksteed, Cambridge.
54.
SegalQuinceWicksteed (2000), The Cambridge Phenomenon Revisited, Segal, Quince, Wicksteed, Cambridge.
55.
ShaneS. (2004), Academic Entrepreneurship: University Spin-off and Wealth Creation, Edward Elgar, Northampton, MA.
56.
ShortJ.R.KimY.-H. (1998), ‘Urban crises/urban representations: Selling the city in difficult times’, in HallT.HubbardP., The Entrapreneurial City: Geographies of Politics, Regime and Representation, Wiley, Chichester.
57.
StewmanS.TarrJ.A. (1982), ‘Four decades of public–private partnerships in Pittsburgh’, in FoslerR.S.BergerR.A., ed, Public–Private Partnership in American Cities, Lexington Books, Lexington, MA.
58.
TödtlingF.KaufmannA. (2001), ‘The role of the region for innovation activities of SMEs’, European Urban and Regional Studies, Vol 8, pp 203–215.
59.
VargaA. (2000), ‘Local academic knowledge transfers and the concentration of economic activity’, Journal of Regional Science, Vol 40, pp 289–309.
60.
WangC.K.WangK.LuQ. (2002), ‘Do venture capitalists add value? A comparative study between Singapore and US’, Applied Financial Economics, Vol 12, pp 581–588.
61.
WoodD.E.OrfieldM.RogersJ. (2000), Milwaukee Metro-Patterns: Sprawl and Social Separation in Metro Milwaukee, Report prepared by the Center on Wisconsin Strategy (COWS) and the Metropolitan Area Research Corporation, COWS, Madison, WI.
62.
YunH.-A. (1998), ‘Innovative milieu and cooperation networks: State initiatives and partnership for restructuring in Singapore’, in BraczykH.J.CookeP.HeidenreichM., eds, Regional Innovation Systems, UCL Press, London.
63.
YunH.-A. (2004), ‘Innovative milieu and co-operation networks: State initiatives and partnership for restructuring in Singapore’, in CookeP.HeidenreichM.BraczykH.-J. eds, Regional Innovation Systems, second edition, Routledge, London.
