Triple helix model of innovation
The framework was first theorized by Henry Etzkowitz and Loet Leydesdorff in the 1990s, with the publication of "The Triple Helix, University-Industry-Government Relations: A laboratory for Knowledge-Based Economic Development".
[4] Interactions between universities, industries and governments have given rise to new intermediary institutions, such as technology transfer offices and science parks, and Etzkowitz and Ledersdorff theorized the relationship between the three sectors and explained the emergence of these new hybrid organizations.
[5] The triple helix innovation framework has been widely adopted and as applied by policy makers has participated in the transformation of each sector.
[6][7][8] The triple helix model of innovation, as theorized by Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff, is based on the interactions between the three following elements and their associated 'initial role':[9] universities engaging in basic research, industries producing commercial goods and governments that are regulating markets.
In a linear model of innovation, universities are supposed to provide the research which industry will build upon to produce commercial goods.
[2] However, other scholars have pointed out that consulting activities of faculty members could also have drawbacks, like a reduced focus on educating the students, and potential conflict of interests relating to the use of university resources for the benefit of industry.
[11] Another type of interaction, for example, is the creation of co-op programs like the MIT-General Electric course[12] which aims at integrating an industry approach into the students' curricula.
[13] The changing circumstances can push the government to create closer ties with academia, for example in wartime, and/or through funding of strategic disciplines, like physics.
[6] For example, as pointed out by Bhaven Sampat, in the 1960s, the government created a regulation to prevent patenting by or licensing to industry of university research funded by the National Institutes of Health.
Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff initially argued that the strength of the interactions between governments, industry and university depends on which component is the driving force in the framework.
However, the distinction between the two models is not always clear cut, as the government can choose to adopt a strong or a weak stance depending on the context and the industry.
[17] As a result, he argues that university, industry and government are more equal,[5] and that no particular element is necessarily the driving force of the triple helix model of innovation.
The triple helix model of innovation also blurred the boundaries of the traditional basic roles of university, industry and government.
[29] Etzkowitz argues that after the end of the Soviet Era, triple helix inspired policies were implemented in Eastern Europe to promote their growth.
For example, the model takes for granted that knowledge intensive activities are linked to economic growth, that intellectual property rights will be protected, and that the state has a democratic and market oriented culture.
[31][32] Therefore, according to critics, the triple helix model is not a relevant policy making tool for developing countries where at least one of these conditions is missing.
