This paper examines the role of universities in delivering regional/local policy and the extent to which they help formulate that policy. It explores the incentives for universities to act. Two examples are the availability of government funding designed to foster university–industry interaction and the existence of specific local agenda that are of mutual interest to both universities and local policy makers. The paper also highlights the converse – policy might follow from the observed actions of the impact of universities' excellence (for example, the formation of university spin-offs). The authors consider how both translate into active involvement in local policy making using the case of the Oxfordshire high-tech economy. Oxfordshire is an important high-tech economy dominated by one of the world's leading research universities.
BenneworthP.SandersonA. (2009), ‘Building institutional capacity for HEI regional engagement in a sparse innovation environment: A case study of Knowledge House’, Higher Education Management and Policy, Vol 21, No 1, pp 131–148.
3.
BennerC. (2003), ‘Learning communities in a learning region: The soft infrastructure of cross-firm learning networks in Silicon Valley’, Environment and Planning A, Vol 35, pp 1809–1830.
EtzkowitzH. (2008) The Triple Helix: University–Industry–Government In Action, Routledge, London.
10.
EtkzowitzH.KlofstenM. (2005), ‘The innovating region: Toward a theory of knowledge-based regional development’, R&D Management, Vol 35, No 3, pp 243–255.
11.
EtzkowitzH.LeydesdorffL. (1995), ‘The Triple Helix – university–industry–government relations: A laboratory for knowledge-based economic development’, EASST Review, Vol 14, pp 14–19.
ForayD.GoenegaX. (2013), The Goals of Smart Specialisation, S3 Policy Brief Series No 01/2013, http://ftp.jrc.es/EURdoc/JRC82213.pdf (accessed August 28 2013).
15.
FreemanC. (1988), ‘Japan: A new national system of innovation’, in DosiG.FreemanC.NelsonR.SilverbergG.SoeteL., eds, Technical Change and Economic Theory, Pinter, London, pp 330–348.
16.
FreemanC.PerezC. (1988), ‘Structural crises of adjustment, business cycles and investment behaviour’, in DosiG.FreemanC.NelsonR.SilverbergG.SoeteL., eds, Technical Change and Economic Theory, Pinter, London, pp 38–66.
17.
GlassonJ. (2003) ‘The widening local and regional development impacts of modern universities – a tale of two cities (and North–South perspectives)’, Local Economy, Vol 18, No 1, pp 21–37.
GoldsteinH.A. (2009), ‘What we know and what we don't know about the regional economic impacts of universities’, in VargaA., ed, Universities, Knowledge Transfer and Regional DevelopmentEdward Elgar, Cheltenham, Chapter 2, pp 11–35.
20.
GrimaldiR.KenneyM.SiegelD.WrightM. (2011), ‘30 years after Bayh-Dole: Reassessing academic entrepreneurship’, Research Policy, Vol 40, pp 1045–1057.
HilpertU. (1992), Archipelago Europe – Islands of Innovation, Synthesis Report, Prospective Dossier No 1: Science, Technology and Social and Economic Cohesion in the Community, Commission of the European Communities, Brussels.
HugginsR. (2010), ‘Forms of network resource: Knowledge access and the role of inter-firm networks’, International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol 12, No 3, pp 335–352.
SmithLawton H. (1990), ‘The location and development of advanced technology industry in Oxfordshire’, unpublished DPhil thesis, University of Oxford School of Geography, Oxford.
27.
SmithLawton H. (2003), ‘Local innovation assemblages and institutional capacity in local high-tech economic development: The case of Oxfordshire’, Urban Studies, Vol 40, No 7, pp 1353–1369.
28.
SmithLawton H.Bagchi-SenS. (2010), ‘Triple Helix and regional development: A perspective from Oxfordshire in the UK’, Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, Vol 22, pp 805–818.
29.
SmithLawton H.Bagchi-SenS. (2011), ‘The research university, entrepreneurship and regional development: Research propositions and current evidence’, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, Vol 24, pp 383–404.
30.
SmithLawton H.Bagchi-SenS. (2012), ‘The research university, entrepreneurship and regional development: Research propositions and current evidence’, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, Vol 24, No 5–6, pp 383–404.
31.
SmithLawton H.GlassonJ. (2010), ‘Milton Park: Developing a successful high-tech business park’, Part 1 in Local Knowledge, Case Studies of Four Innovative Places, NESTA, London.
32.
SmithLawton H.GlassonJ.RomeoS.WatersR.ChadwickA. (2013), ‘Entrepreneurial regions: Evidence from Oxfordshire and Cambridgeshire’, Social Science Information, Vol 52, No 4, pp 653–673.
33.
LazzeroniM.PiccalugaA. (2003), ‘Towards the entrepreneurial university’, Local Economy, Vol 18, No 1, pp 38–48.
34.
LeydesdorffL.StrandØ. (2013), ‘The Swedish system of innovation: Regional synergies in a knowledge-based economy’, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Vol 64, No 9, pp 1890–1902.
PerryB. (2007), ‘The multi-level governance of science policy in England’, Regional Studies, Vol 41, No 8, pp 1051–1068.
37.
PerryB.MayT. (2007), ‘Governance, science policy and regions: An introduction’, Regional Studies, Vol 41, No 8, pp 1039–1050.
38.
SQW (2012), The Cambridge Phenomenon Revisited, SQW, Cambridge.
39.
TripplM.SinozicT.SmithLawton H. (2012), ‘The “third mission” of universities and the region: Comparing the UK, Sweden and Austria’, paper presented at the 15th Uddevalla Symposium on Entrepreneurship and Innovation Networks, 14–16 June 2012, Faro.
40.
University of Oxford/Science Oxford (2013), The Oxfordshire Innovation Engine: Realising the Growth Potential, SQW, Cambridge.
41.
WatersR.SmithLawton H. (2002), ‘RDAs and local economic development: Scale and competitiveness in Oxfordshire and Cambridgeshire’, European Planning Studies, Vol 10, No 5, pp 633–649.
42.
WatersR.SmithLawton H. (2012) ‘High technology local economies: Geographical mobility of the highly skilled’, in HilpertU.SmithLawton H., eds, Networking Regionalised Innovative Labour Markets, Routledge, London, Chapter 5, pp 96–116.
