During the transformation process from a command economy, the extraordinary statist university–industry–government (UIG) linkages model was replaced by an extreme version of laissez-faire relationships. A more modern interaction-based UIG model could be implemented only by changing the whole national innovation system of catching-up economies. The national innovation systems of countries with a command economy past share common problems that prevent them from developing the UIG linkages. The still-dominating linear innovation model should be replaced with the interactive and learning-based approach as these countries need to improve their levels of innovation diffusion management and networking. In addition, a symbiotic approach to the balance of high-tech and low-tech industries is needed. Managerial and organizational competence should be improved and treated at the same level of importance as technological competence.
ArocenaR.SutzJ. (2003), ‘Knowledge, innovation and learning: Systems and policies in the North and in the South’, in CassiolatoJ.LastresH.MacielM., eds, Systems of Innovation and Development, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
2.
BreschiS.MalerbaF. (1997), ‘Sectoral innovation systems: Technological regimes, Schumpeterian dynamics, and spatial boundaries’, in EdquistC., ed, Systems of Innovation: Technologies, Institutions and Organizations, Pinter, London.
3.
CarlssonB. (2003), ‘Internationalization of innovation systems: A survey of the literature', paper presented to the conference in honour of Keith Pavitt, ‘What do we know about innovation?’, Brighton, 13–15 November.
4.
CarlssonB.StankiewiczR. (1991), ‘On the nature, function, and composition of technological systems’, Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Vol 1, pp 93–118.
5.
CarlssonB., ed (1995), Technological Systems and Economic Performance: The Case of Factory Automation, Kluwer Academic, Boston, MA.
6.
CookeP. (1992), ‘Regional innovation systems – competitive regulation in the new Europe’, Geoforum, Vol 23, pp 365–382.
7.
DykerD.A., ed (2006), Closing the East–West Productivity Gap: Foreign Direct Investment, Competitiveness and Public Policy, Imperial College Press, London.
8.
EdquistC. (2001), ‘Innovation policy – a systemic approach’, in ArchibugiD.LundvallB.-Å., eds, The Globalizing Learning Economy, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
9.
Estonian Statistical Office, CIS 3 Database (1998–2000).
10.
Estonian Statistical Office, CIS 4 Database (2002–2004).
EtzkowitzH. (2003), ‘Innovation in innovation: The Triple Helix of university–industry–government relations’, Social Science Information, Vol 3, No 42, pp 293–337.
13.
EtzkowitzH.LeydesdorffL. (1998), ‘Introduction’ to ‘The endless transition: A “Triple Helix” of university–industry–government relations’, Minerva, Vol 36, pp 203–208.
14.
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.
FreemanC. (1982), ‘Technological infrastructure and international competitiveness’, draft paper submitted to the OECD (as cited in Carlsson, 2003).
17.
FreemanC. (2006) ‘“Catching up” and innovation systems: Implications for Eastern Europe’, in PiechK.RadosevićS., eds, The Knowledge-Based Economy in Central and Eastern Europe Countries and Industries in a Process of Change, Palgrave Macmillan, London.
18.
GibbonsM. (2000), ‘Mode 2 society and the emergence of context sensitive science’, Science and Public Policy, Vol 27, pp 159–163.
19.
GibbonsM.LimogesC.NowotnyH.SchwartzmanS.ScottP.TrowM. (1994), The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies, Sage, London.
20.
HansonP.PavittK. (1987), The Comparative Economics of Research Development and Innovation in East and West: A Survey, Harwood Academic, Chur.
21.
HögseliusP. (2005), The Dynamics of Innovation in Eastern Europe: Lessons from Estonia, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
22.
HoullierF.NovotnyJ.RistoP.RosénK.Scarascia-MugnozzaG.von TeuffelK. (2005), ‘Future forest research strategy for a knowledge based forest cluster – an asset for a sustainable Europe: A vision paper of European national forest research institutes’, EFI Discussion Paper 11, European Forest Institute, Joensuu.
23.
HowardJ. (2005), ‘The emerging business of knowledge transfer: From diffusion to engagement in the delivery of economic outcomes from publicly funded research', paper presented at the Triple Helix 5 Conference, ‘The capitalization of knowledge’, Turin, 18–21 May 2005.
24.
JohnsonB.EdquistC.LundvallB.-Å. (2003), ‘Economic development and the national system of innovation approach’, paper presented to the First Globelics Conference, Rio de Janeiro, 2–6 November.
25.
KalvetT.KattelR.KüünarpuuR.VaarikD.RahuK. (2005), Innovatsioon ja Eesti arvamusliidrid. Eeluuring riikliku innovatsiooniteadlikkuse programmi sihtrühmade relevantsete vajaduste leidmiseks, Poliitikauuringute keskus PRAXIS, Hill & Knowlton Eesti AS, Tallinn.
26.
KazakovaN. (2001), ‘Innovation, universities and changing environment in modern Russia', paper presented at the conference on ‘The future of innovation studies’, Eindhoven, 20–23 September.
27.
LambertR. (2003), Lambert Review of Business–University Collaboration, Final Report, HM Treasury, London.
28.
LeydesdorffL.EtzkowitzH. (1996), ‘Emergence of a Triple Helix of university–industry–government relations’, Science and Public Policy, Vol 23, pp 279–286.
29.
LeydesdorffL.EtzkowitzH. (1998), ‘The Triple Helix as a model for innovation studies’, Science and Public Policy, Vol 25, pp 195–203.
30.
LundvallB.-ÅJohnsonB.AndersenE.-S.DalumB. (2002), ‘National systems of production, innovation and competence building’, Research Policy, Vol 31, pp 213–231.
31.
LundvallB.-Å. (1985), Product Innovation and User–Producer Interaction, Aalborg University Press, Aalborg.
32.
LundvallB.-Å., ed (1992), National Systems of Innovation: Towards a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning, Pinter, London.
33.
MetcalfeJ.S. (1998), Evolutionary Economics and Creative Destruction, Routledge, London.
34.
MetsT. (2006), ‘Creating a knowledge transfer environment. The case of Estonian biotechnology’, Management Research News, Vol 29, pp 754–768.
35.
MuuliV. (2005), ‘Biotehnoloogia sektori ülevaade Eestis 2004–2005’, Tartu (manuscript).
36.
NelsonR (1993), National Innovation Systems: A Comparative Analysis, Oxford University Press, New York.
37.
NiosiJ. (2002), ‘National systems of innovations are “x-efficient” (and x-effective): Why some are slow learners’, Research Policy, Vol 31, pp 291–302.
NowotnyH.ScottP.GibbonsM. (2001), Re-Thinking Science: Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty, Polity Press, Cambridge.
40.
OECD (1999), National Innovation Systems, OECD, Paris.
41.
OECD (2002), Dynamising National Innovation Systems, OECD, Paris.
42.
PutnamR.D. (1993), Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
43.
RadosevićS. (2002), ‘Innovation capacities of Estonia within the enlarged EU', material for seminar on ‘Innovation in Estonian enterprises in 1998–2000’, Tallinn, 5 December, www.mkm.ee/dokumendid/Slavo%20Radosevic.pdf.
44.
RadosevićS. (2003), ‘Patterns of preservation, restructuring, and survival: Science and technology policy in Russia in the post-Soviet era’, Research Policy, Vol 32, pp 1105–1124.
45.
RadosevićS. (2006), ‘Domestic innovation capacity – can CEE governments correct FDI-driven trends through R&D policy?’, in DykerD.A., ed, Closing the East–West Productivity Gap: Foreign Direct Investment, Competitiveness and Public Policy, Imperial College Press, London.
46.
RadosevićS.ReidA. (2006), ‘Innovation policy for a knowledge-based economy in Central and Eastern Europe: Driver of growth or new layer of bureaucracy?’, in PiechK.RadosevićS., eds, The Knowledge-Based Economy in Central and Eastern Europe Countries and Industries in a Process of Change, Palgrave Macmillan, London.
47.
SharifN. (2006), ‘Emergence and development of the national innovation systems concept’, Research Policy, Vol 35, pp 745–766.
48.
ThomasS. (2003), ‘Intellectual property in biotechnology firms’, in BlackburnR.A., ed, Intellectual Property and Innovation Management in Small Firms, Routledge, London and New York, pp 69–84.
49.
UkrainskiK.VarblaneU. (2006), ‘Sources of innovation in the Estonian forest and wood cluster’, in HannulaH.RadosevićS.von TunzelmannG.N., eds, Estonia, the New EU Economy: Building a Baltic Miracle?, Ashgate, Aldershot, pp 143–168.
50.
VarblaneU.DykerDTammD.TunzelmannN. (2007), ‘Can the national innovation systems of the new EU member states be improved?’, Post Communist Economies, Vol 19, pp 399–416.
51.
VarblaneU.VahterP. (2006), ‘An analysis of the convergence process in the transition countries’, in HannulaH.RadosevićS.von TunzelmannG.N., eds, Estonia, the New EU Economy: Building a Baltic Miracle?, Ashgate, Aldershot.
52.
ViitamoE. (2001), Cluster Analysis and the Forest Sector –Where Are We Now?, Interim Report IR-01-016, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg.
53.
ViitamoE. (2003), ‘Knowledge-intensive services and competitiveness of the forest cluster – case of Finland’, ETLA Discussion Paper, Research Institute of the Finnish Economy, Helsinki.
54.
von TunzelmannN. (2004), ‘Network alignment in the catching-up economies of Europe’, in McGowanF.RadosevićS.von TunzelmannN., eds, The Emerging Industrial Structure of the Wider Europe, Routledge, London, pp 23–37.
55.
WatkinsA.AgapitovaN. (2004), ‘Creating a 21st century national innovation system for a 21st century Latvian economy’, World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 3457, World Bank, Washington, DC.
