Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations provides a neo-evolutionary model of the process of innovation that is amenable to measurement. Economic exchange, intellectual organization, and geographical constraints can be considered as different dynamics that interact in a knowledge-based economy as a complex system. Differentiation spans the systems of innovation, while performative integration enables organizations to retain wealth from knowledge. Because of the systematic organization of interfaces among the subsystems under study, different perspectives can be expected in the reflection. Consequences for the heuristics, the research design, and normative implications are specified and the organization of the issue is further explained.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • ALLeN, P. M. (1994), Evolutionary complex systems: models of technology change. In: L. LeYDeSDORFF, P. V. D. BESSELAAR (Eds) (1994), Evolutionary Economics and Chaos Theory: New Directions in Technology Studies. London and New York: Pinter, pp. 1-18.

    Google Scholar 

  • ARROW, K. J. (1962), The economic implications of learning by doing. Review of Economic Studies, 29:155-173.

    Google Scholar 

  • ARTHUR, W. B. (1994), Increasing Returns and Path Dependence in the Economy. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • BERGER, P. L., T. LUCKMANN (1966), The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. Garden City: Doubleday.

    Google Scholar 

  • BRUSONI, S., A. PRENCIPE, K. PAVITT (2000), Knowledge specialization and the boundaries of the firm: Why do firms know more than they make? Administrative Science Quarterly, 46: 597-621.

    Google Scholar 

  • CALLON, M., J. LAW, A. RIP (Eds) (1986), Mapping the Dynamics of Science and Technology. London: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • CARLSSON, B., R. STANKIEWICZ (1991), On the nature, function, and composition of technological systems. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 1(2): 93-118.

    Google Scholar 

  • COWAN, R., D. FORAY (1997), The economics of codification and the diffusion of knowledge, Industrial and Corporate Change, 6: 595-622.

    Google Scholar 

  • DAVID, P. A., D. FORAY (2002), An introduction to the economy of the knowledge society. International Social Science Journal, 54(171): 9-23.

    Google Scholar 

  • DOSI, G. (1982), Technological paradigms and technological trajectories: A suggested interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change. Research Policy, 11: 147-162.

    Google Scholar 

  • EDGE, D. (1979), Quantitative measures of communication in science: A critical overview. History of Science, 17: 102-134.

    Google Scholar 

  • ETZKOWITZ, H., L. LeYDeSDORFF (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.

    Google Scholar 

  • ETZKOWITZ, H., A. WEBSTER, C. GEBHARDT, B. R. C. TERRA (2000), The future of the university and the university of the future: Evolution of ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm. Research Policy, 29(2): 313-330.

    Google Scholar 

  • FREEMAN, C. (1988), Japan, a new system of innovation. In: G. DOSI, C. FREEMAN, R. R. NELSON, G. SILVERBERG, L. SOETE (Eds), Technical Change and Economic Theory, London: Pinter, pp. 31-54.

    Google Scholar 

  • FREEMAN, C., C. PEREZ (1988), Structural crises of adjustment, business cycles and investment behaviour. In: G. DOSI, C. FREEMAN, R. R. NELSON, G. SILVERBERG, L. SOETE (Eds), Technical Change and Economic Theory, London: Pinter pp. 38-66.

    Google Scholar 

  • FRENKEN, K., L. LeYDeSDORFF (2000), Scaling trajectories in civil aircraft (1913-1970). Research Policy, 29(3): 331-348.

    Google Scholar 

  • FUJIGAKI, Y. (1998), Filling the gap between discussions on science and scientists. everyday activities: Applying the autopoiesis system theory to scientific knowledge. Social Science Information, 37(1): 5-22.

    Google Scholar 

  • GALBRAITH, J. K. (1967), The New Industrial State. Penguin: Harmondsworth.

    Google Scholar 

  • GIBBONS, M., C. LIMOGES, H. NOWOTNY, S. SCHWARTZMAN, P. SCOTT, M. TROW (1994), The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • GILBERT, G. N., M. J. MULKAY (1984), Opening Pandora's Box. A Sociological Analysis of Scientists' Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • GRANSTRAND, O., P. PATTEL, K. PAVITT (1997), Multitechnology corporations: Why they have 'distributed' rather than 'distinctive' core capabilities. California Management Review, 39: 8-25.

    Google Scholar 

  • JAFFE, A. B., M. TRAJTENBERG (2002), Patents, Citations, and Innovations: A Window on the Knowledge Economy. Cambridge, MA/London: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • KAUFFMAN, S. A. (1993), The Origins of Order: Self-Organization and Selection in Evolution. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • KLINE, S., N. ROSENBERG (1986), An overview of innovation. In: R. LANDAU, N. ROSENBERG (Eds), The Positive Sum Strategy: Harnessing Technology for Economic Growth, Washington, DC: National Academy Press, pp. 275-306.

    Google Scholar 

  • KRUGMAN, P. (1996), The Self-Organizing Economy. Malden, MA, and Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • LATOUR, B. (1987), Science in Action. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

  • LeYDeSDORFF, L. (1994), Epilogue. In: L. LeYDeSDORFF, P. V. D. BESSELAAR (Eds), Evolutionary Economics and Chaos Theory: New Directions for Technology Studies, London/New York: Pinter, pp. 180-192.

    Google Scholar 

  • LeYDeSDORFF, L. (1995), The Challenge of Scientometrics: The Development, Measurement, and Self-Organization of Scientific Communications. Leiden: DSWO Press, Leiden University.

    Google Scholar 

  • LeYDeSDORFF, L. (2001a), A Sociological Theory of Communication: The Self-Organization of the Knowledge-Based Society. Parkland, FL: Universal Publishers; at http://www.upublish.com/books/leydesdorff.htm

    Google Scholar 

  • LeYDeSDORFF, L. (2001b), Indicators of innovation in a knowledge-based economy. Cybermetrics, 5 (Issue 1), Paper 2, at http://www.cindoc.csic.es/cybermetrics/articles/v5i1p2.html

  • LeYDeSDORFF, L., P. COOKE, M. OLAZARAN (Eds) (2002), Regional innovation systems in Europe (Special Issue). Journal of Technology Transfer, 27(1): 5.145.

  • LeYDeSDORFF, L., A. SCHARNHORST (2003), Measuring the Knowledge Base: A Program of Innovation Studies. Report to "Förderinitiative Science Policy Studies" of the German Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung. Berlin: Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften; at http://sciencepolicystudies.de/Leydesdorff&Scharnhorst.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  • LUHMANN, N. (1984), Soziale Systeme. Grundriß einer allgemeinen Theorie. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • LUNDVALL, B.-Å. (1988), Innovation as an interactive process: From user-producer interaction to the national system of innovation. In: G. DOSI, C. FREEMAN, R. R. NELSON, G. SILVERBERG, L. SOETE (Eds), Technical Change and Economic Theory, London: Pinter, pp. 349-369.

    Google Scholar 

  • LUNDVALL, B.-Å. (Ed.) (1992), National Systems of Innovation. London: Pinter.

    Google Scholar 

  • MEYER, M. (2000), What is special about patent citations? Differences between scientific and patent citations. Scientometrics, 49: 93-123.

    Google Scholar 

  • MOWERY, D. C., N. ROSENBERG (1979), The influence of market demand upon innovation: A critical reveiw of some empirical studies. Research Policy, 8: 102-153.

    Google Scholar 

  • MOWERY, D. C., N. ROSENBERG (1989), Technology and the Pursuit of Economic Growth. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • MULKAY, M., J. POTTER, S. YEARLeY (1983), Why an analysis of scientific discourse is needed. In: K. D. KNORR, M. J. MULKAY (Eds), Science Observed: Perspectives on the Social Study of Science, London: Sage, pp. 171-204.

    Google Scholar 

  • NARIN, F., E. NOMA (1985), Is technology becoming science? Scientometrics, 7: 369-381.

    Google Scholar 

  • NELSON, R. R. (Ed) (1993), National Innovation Systems: A Comparative Analysis. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • NELSON, R. R., S. G. WINTER (1975), Growth theory from an evolutionary perspective: The differential productivity growth puzzle. American Economic Review, 65: 338-344.

    Google Scholar 

  • NELSON, R. R., S. G. WINTER (1977), In search of useful theory of innovation. Research Policy, 6: 35-76.

    Google Scholar 

  • NOBLe, D. (1977), America by Design. New York: Knopf.

    Google Scholar 

  • NOWOTNY, H., P. SCOTT, M. GIBBONS (2001), Re-Thinking Science: Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty. Cambridge, etc: Polity.

  • OECD (1980), Technical Change and Economic Policy. Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD/Eurostat (1997), Proposed Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Innovation Data, "Oslo Manual". Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • PAVITT, K. (1984), Sectoral patterns of technical change: Towards a theory and a taxonomy. Research Policy, 13: 343-373.

    Google Scholar 

  • ROSENBERG, N. (1976), Perspectives on Technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ROSENBERG, N. (1982), Inside the Black Box: Technology and Economics. Cambridge, etc.: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • SCHUMPETER, J. (1943), Socialism, Capitalism and Democracy. London: Allen & Unwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • SCHUMPETER, J. ([1939], 1964), Business Cycles: A Theoretical, Historical and Statistical Analysis of Capitalist Process. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • SIMON, H. A. (1973), Does scientific discovery have a logic? Philosophy of Science, 40: 471-480.

    Google Scholar 

  • WHITLeY, R. D. (1984), The Intellectual and Social Organization of the Sciences. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • WOUTERS, P. (1999), The Citation Culture. Amsterdam: Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, University of Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR), Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Loet Leydesdorff

  2. Steunpunt O&O Statistieken, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven (, Belgium

    Martin Meyer

Authors
  1. Loet Leydesdorff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Martin Meyer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Loet Leydesdorff.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Leydesdorff, L., Meyer, M. The Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations. Scientometrics 58, 191–203 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026276308287

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026276308287

Keywords

Search

Navigation