Triple helix model of innovation

Triple helix model of innovation

The triple helix model of innovation is a set of interactions between academia, industry and governments, to foster economic and social development in a knowledge-based society. This 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”. Interactions between universities, industries and governments have given rise to new intermediary institutions, such as technology transfer offices, science parks and the ‘entrepreneurial university’. It has also participated in the transformation of the traditional role of each institution.

Three components of the model

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’: universities for basing research and education, industry for the production of commercial goods and government for market regulation. As interactions increase within this framework, each component evolves to adopt some characteristics of the other institution, which then gives rise to hybrid institutions. The following part details some of the bilateral interactions between university, industry and government. 

University-industry interactions

Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff argue that the initial role of universities is to provide education to individuals and basic research. Therefore, interactions between university and industry revolve initially around those two elements. In a linear model of innovation, universities are supposed to provide the research on which industry will build upon to produce commercial goods.  The other interactions take place through the involvement of industry managers and university faculty in both sectors. According to Etzkowitz, the transfer of people between university and industry constitutes a very important transfer of knowledge. This can be a permanent move in one direction or the other, or in other cases, entire careers spent between the two spheres. He gives the example of Carl Djerassi, a research director for a pharmaceutical company who joined Stanford University, while continuing his industrial activity. 

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. Additional transfer of knowledge between university and industry happens through informal communication, conferences or industrial interest in university publications. Another type of interaction, for example, is the creation of co-op programs like the MIT-General Electric course which aims at integrating an industry approach to the student's curricula. 

University-government interactions

The strength of the interactions between the government and universities depends on the government’s general relationship to and policy towards higher education. Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff's model uses a spectrum to define the extent of these interactions. One the one hand, when higher education is largely public, which they associate with continental western Europe, the government has a higher influence on universities and the research they conduct through almost exclusive funding. On the other hand of the spectrum, typically associated with the United States, universities have a higher degree of independence from government influence although they also receive funding. However, the two ends of this spectrum are used as ideal-types that are not necessarily reflective of the reality. 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. For example, in the United States, the Department of Defense has extensively funded physics research during World War II and the Cold War. Another example of state involvement in higher education is the establishment of new universities, as through the Morrill Land-Grant Acts of 1862 encouraging the creation of land-grant colleges.

Government-industry interactions

The relationship between the government and industry depends on the government’s attitude towards the market. In liberal economies the role of the government will be limited to preventing market failures. On the other hand, where the government is more involved in the economy, the government’s role is the regulation of the industry. These are also two ends of a spectrum, leaving room for substantial variation, based on circumstances and disciplines. 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. One key role of the government in its interaction with industry is the establishment of intellectual property law and its enforcement, which is supposed to work as an incentive system for innovation and commercialization of new products.

Strength of interaction

Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff initially argued that the strength of the interactions between government depends on which component is the driving force in the framework. In a statist model, a strong state is driving interactions between the three components in a top-down implementation. It creates stronger ties and a more integrated model. In a laissez-faire model, in which the industry and market forces are the leading forces, the ties are weaker and each institution tends to remain very independent. 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. Later, Etzkowitz emphasizes that the shift towards a knowledge-based society has given a bigger role to universities. Indeed, as innovation is increasingly based on scientific knowledge, the role of universities as creators of knowledge is more valued. As a result, he argued that university, industry and government are more equal, and that no particular element is necessarily the driving force of the triple helix model of innovation. Leydesdorff maintained that the relationship between the three components remained asymmetrical. 

Evolution and hybridization

The triple helix model of innovation also blurred the boundaries of the traditional basic role of university, industry and government. According to Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff, this marks the second step in the triple helix of innovation framework. For example, increasingly take part in commercial activity through patenting and licensing, moving beyond the production of basic research. The next step is the emergence of intermediaries between the three elements as well as the hybridization of the three entities. Nevertheless, each entity retains a strong primacy in its original field of expertise: the university remains the main source of knowledge production, industry is the primary vehicle of commercialization and the government retains its regulatory role.

Technology transfer offices have been established by universities with the aim of increasing the transformation of university basic or applied research with a commercial value, or technology in  early stages of development, into commercial goods. TTO are supposed to create some revenues for the university, thus enhancing its role as an economic actor. However, the average profitability of TTOs remains very low. For example, the revenues earned through licensing by TTOs in American universities are, on average, ten times larger than for European TTOs according to the Innovation Policy Platform. Science parks have also emerged as the result of the collaboration of industries and universities with the government. They can stem from the initiative of an industrial region to modernize itself with the impulse of a university. On the other hand, they can be the result of a university initiative to attract industry, as was the case with the development of the Silicon Valley around Stanford University. 

The 'entrepreneurial university' is another hybrid element which Etzkowitz defines around the following elements : the capitalization of knowledge, strong ties with industry and governments, high degree of independence, and permanent evolution of the relationships between universities, industry and government.  Etzkowitz recognizes MIT as a great example of an 'entrepreneurial university’.

Quadruple helix model

The quadruple helix model adds a fourth component to the framework of interactions between university, industry and government: civil society. The aim is to bridge the gaps between innovation and civil society. Indeed, this framework claims that under the triple helix model, the emerging technologies do not always match the demands and needs of society, thus limiting their potential impact. This framework emphasizes a societal responsibility of universities, in addition to their role of educating and conduction research. This is the approach that the European Union has intended to take for the development of a competitive knowledge-based society.

Triple helix and policy making

The triple helix model can be used as a lens through which evolving relationships between university, industry and government can be analyzed. But according to Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff, it can also be a policy making tool. For example, Etzkowitz argues that after the end of the Soviet Era, triple helix inspired policy were implemented in Eastern Europe to promote their growth. In Sweden, the triple helix policy aimed at trying together innovation initiatives at different scales to increase their overall efficiency.  They emphasize the relevance of implementing the triple helix model for developing countries and regions. 

Criticism of the model

The triple helix model as a policy-making tool for economic growth and regional development has been criticized by many scholars. One main criticism is that Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff’s framework was developed within Western developed countries, which means that it is based on a particular set of infrastructures and under circumstances that do not exactly match that of developing regions. Therefore, as it is, the triple helix model is not a relevant policy making tool for developing countries. For instance, it is based on the assumption that knowledge intensive activities is linked to economic growth, that intellectual property rights will be protected, and that the state has a democratic and market oriented culture. Further scholarly criticism of the model focuses on the conditions that enable the implementation of a triple helix innovation policy. It argues that Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff’s model is too vague and take for granted those necessary preconditions within their model.