The triple helix model for regional development and innovation: context of Nordic countries

Marina Z.  Solesvik

doi:10.23762/FSO_VOL5NO4_17_1

Published : 2017-12-14

Vol. 5 No. 4 (2017)

The triple helix model for regional development and innovation: context of Nordic countries

Marina Z. Solesvik

DOI: https://doi.org/10.23762/FSO_VOL5NO4_17_1

Abstract

Nordic countries and their capital regions are among the leaders in Europe in terms of innovation development. This paper summarizes the experience of regional innovation in the capitals of Nordic countries (i.e., Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and Finland). Two research questions were explored in this study: What is the difference in innovation policy of Oslo region and innovation policies in capital regions of three other Nordic capitals? Does the regional innovation policy influence on the innovation effectiveness? I have applied benchmarking analysis to explore and compare the innovation policies in the capitals of Nordic countries and to explore the pros and cons of regional innovation policies and cooperation links among key players contributing to innovation development. The findins of this research show that the Triple Helix model implemented in the Scandinavian capitals is an effective model of innovation leading the regions to innovation champions. Notably, the Triple Helix model was implemented early in Stockholm, Helsinki and Copenhagen. This allowed these regions to become “Innovation leaders” and “Innovation leaders +” according to the European Regional Scoreboard. The Triple Helix model was implemented later in Oslo. The adoption of the Triple Helix in this region allowed Oslo to improve its innovation status and become recently an “Innovation leader”.

Keywords:

Triple Helix model, regional innovation policy, benchmarking analysis, Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden

Details

References

Statistics

Authors

Download files

PDF

Citation rules

Solesvik, M. Z. . (2017). The triple helix model for regional development and innovation: context of Nordic countries. Forum Scientiae Oeconomia, 5(4), 5–21. https://doi.org/10.23762/FSO_VOL5NO4_17_1

Altmetric indicators

Cited by / Share

References

Ahmed, P.K., Rafiq, M. (1998), Integrated benchmarking: A holistic examination of select techniques for benchmarking analysis, Benchmarking for Quality Management & Technology, 5(3): 225-242.

Arnkil, R., Järvensivu, A., Koski, P., Piirainen, T. (2010), Exploring Quadruple Helix outlining user-oriented innovation models. Working paper, Tampere: University of Tampere.

Asheim, B.T., Grillitsch, M., Trippl, M. (2016), Regional innovation systems: Pastpresent-future, in: R.Shearmu, Ch. Carrincazeaux, D. Doloreux (Eds.), Handbook on the geographies of innovation (pp. 45-62), Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Autio, E., Yli-Renko, H. (1998), New, technology-based firms in small open economies – An analysis based on the Finnish experience, Research Policy, 26 (9): 973-987.

Balzat, M., Hanusch, H. (2004), Recent trends in the research on national innovation systems, Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 14(2): 197-210.

Baptista, R. (2000), Do innovations diffuse faster within geographical clusters? International Journal of Industrial Organization, 18 (3): 515-535.

Billington, M.G. (2012), Intermediaries - the Norwegian model, ISPIM Conference Proceedings, The International Society for Professional Innovation Management (ISPIM).

Borch, O.J., Solesvik, M. (2016), Partner selection versus partner attraction in R&D strategic alliances: The case of the Norwegian shipping industry, International Journal of Technology Marketing, 11(4): 421-439.

Braadland T.E. (2000), Oslo-regionen som nasjonal nyskapinsnode, Oslo: STEP Group.

Brandt, M. (2001), Nordic clusters and cluster policies, in: Å. Mariussen (Ed.), Cluster policies – cluster development? Stockholm: Nordregio Report 2001: 109-131.

Cervantes, M., Pilat, D., Wilson, K. (2010), The OECD innovation strategy: Findings and implications, paper presented in Stockholm, 11 February 2010.

Cornett, A.P. (2009), Aims and strategies in regional innovation and growth policy: A Danish perspective, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 21(4): 399-420.

Cornett, A.P. (2002), The regional system of innovation and regional development, paper prepared for European Regional Science Association 42th European Congress, Dortmund, Germany, 27-30 August 2002, CD-rom proceedings.

Culminatum (2005), Innovation strategy: Helsinki metropolitan area, Helsinki: Helsinki Region Centre of Expertise, Culminatum Ltd.

Danell, R., Persson, O. (2003), Regional R&D activities and interactions in the Swedish Triple Helix, Scientometrics, 58(2): 203-218.

Diez, J.R. (2000), The importance of public research institutes in innovative networks-Empirical results from the Metropolitan innovation systems Barcelona, Stockholm and Vienna, European Planning Studies, 8 (4): 451-463.

Etzkowitz, H. (2003), Innovation in innovation: The Triple helix of university-industry-government relations, Social Science Information, 42 (3): 293-337.

Etzkowitz, H. (2008), The Triple Helix: University-industry-government innovation in action, New York/ London: Routledge.

European Union (2009), Regional European Scoreboard, European Union, Belgium.

European Union (2012), Regional European Scoreboard, European Union, Belgium. European Union (2017), Regional European Scoreboard, European Union,
Belgium.

Friedmann, J. (1972), A general theory of polarized development, in: N.M. Hansen (Ed.), Growth centres in regional economic development (pp. 82-107), New York: Free Press.

Fritsch, M., Stephan, A. (2005), Regionalization of innovation policy – Introduction to the special issue, Research Policy, 34 (8): 1123-1127.

Gulbrandsen, M., Godoe, H. (2008), ”We really don’t want to move, but...”: identity and strategy in the internationalisation of industrial R&D, The Journal of Technology Transfer, 33 (4): 379-392.

Gulbrandsen, M., Solesvik, M. (2015), Comparing university-industry linkages in two industrial clusters in Norway, Academy of Management Proceedings.

Huggins, R. (2010), Regional competitive intelligence: Benchmarking and policymaking, Regional Studies, 44(5): 639- -658.

Isaksen, A., Karlsen, J. (2010), Different modes of innovation and the challenge of connecting universities and industry: Case studies of two regional industries in Norway, European Planning Studies, 18(12): 1993-2008.

Kaufmann, A., Tödtling, F. (2000), Systems of innovation in traditional industrial regions: The case of Styria in a comparative perspective, Regional Studies, 34(1): 29-53.

Kaukonen, E., Nieminen, M. (1999), Modeling the triple helix from a small country perspective: The case of Finland, The Journal of Technology Transfer, 24(2): 173-183.

Lilles, A., Rõigas, K. (2017), How higher education institutions contribute to the growth in regions of Europe? Studies in Higher Education, 42(1): 65-78.

Lindqvist, M., Olsen, L.S., Baltzopoulos, A. (2012), Strategies for interaction and the role of higher education institutions in regional development in the Nordic Countries, Nordregio.

Lundvall, B., Borras, S. (1997), The globalizing learning economy: Implications for innovation policy, Commission of the European Communities, Luxembourg.

Lööf, H., Heshmati, A., Asplund, R., Nåås, S.O. (2001), Innovation and performance in manufacturing industries: A comparison of the Nordic countries (No. 457), SSE/EFI working paper series in economics and finance.

Löppönen, P. (Ed.). (2010). The State and Quality of Scientific Research in Finland 2009. Academy of Finland.

Luque-Martínez, T., Muñoz-Leiva, F. (2005), City benchmarking: A methodological proposal referring specifically to Granada, Cities, 22(6): 411-423.

Markkula, M., Kune, H. (2015), Making smart regions smarter: Smart specialization and the role of universities in regional innovation ecosystems, Technology Innovation Management Review, 5(10): 7-15.

Ministry of the Interior and Health (2004), Regionalpolitisk redegjørelse 2004.

Nelson, R. (1993), National innovation systems, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

OECD (2017a), Gross Domestic Product (GDP) (indicator), available at: https://data. oecd.org/gdp/gross-domestic-productgdp.htm (accessed 24 June 2017).

OECD (2017b), Gross Domestic spending on R&D (indicator), (accessed 27 June 2017).

Official Statistics of Finland (2015), Research and Development [e-publication]. Helsinki: Statistics Finland, available at: http://www.stat.fi/til/tkke/2015/tkke_ 2015_2016-10-27_tie_001_en.html (accessed 18 May 2017).

Ohno, T. (1988), Toyota production system: Beyond large-scale production. Portland: CRC Press.

Pekkarinen, S., Harmaakorpi, V. (2006), Building regional innovation networks: The definition of an age business core process in a regional innovation system,
Regional Studies, 40(4): 401-413.

Ronde, P., Hussler, C. (2005), Innovation in regions: What does really matter? Research Policy 34(8): 1150-1172.

Schøtt, T. (2007), Entrepreneurship in the regions in Denmark – Studied via Global Entrepreneurship Monitor, Kolding: University of Southern Denmark, CESFO Centre for Small Business Studies.

Schumpeter, J.A. (1934), The theory of economic development, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Solesvik, M. (2016), Entrepreneurship, human capital, and regional development: Labour networks, knowledge flows, and industry growth, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 22(4): 584-586.

Solesvik, M. (2017), Effectuation, causation and firm-level radical innovation in entrepreneurial firms, paper presented at the 4th GSOM Emerging Markets Conference, St. Petersburg, 5-7 October 2017.

Solesvik, M., Gulbrandsen, M. (2014), Interaction for innovation: Comparing Norwegian regions, Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovation, 10 (3): 7-28.

Sotarauta, M. (2011), Innovation policy in Finland: Trapped by the past or symptoms of policy learning? Tampere: University of Tampere.

Sörvik, J., Midtkandal, I. (2016), Continuous priority setting in the Norwegian VRI programme, Governing Smart Specialisation, London, New York: Routledge, pp. 156-170.

Sroka, W., Gajdzik, B. (2015), Managerial challenges for networks and beyond, in: W. Sroka, Š.Hittmár (Eds.), Management of network organizations. Theoretical problems and the dilemmas in practice (pp. 121-134), Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer Verlag.

Sroka, W., Hittmár, Š. (Eds.) (2015), Management of network organizations: Theoretical problems and the dilemmas in practice, Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer Verlag.

Strand, Ø., Ivanova, I., Leydesdorff, L. (2017), Decomposing the Triple-Helix synergy into the regional innovation systems of Norway: Firm data and patent networks, Quality & Quantity, 51(3): 963-988.

Swedish Government (2007), A national strategy for regional competitiveness, entrepreneurship and employment 2007 2013, available at: http://www.government.se/information-material/2007/02/ a-national-strategy-for-regional-competitiveness-entrepreneurship-and-employment-2007-2013/

Tödtling, F., Trippl, M. (2005), One size fits all? Towards a differentiated policy approach with respect to regional innovation systems, Regional Policy, 34(8): 1203-1219.

World Bank (2017), Research and Development expenditure (% of GDP), available at: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/GB.XPD.RSDV.GD.ZS (accessed 28 May 2017).

World Economic Forum (2014), Europe’s top 10 most competitive economies, available at: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2014/06/europes-top-ten-competitiveeconomies/ (accessed 8 June 2017).

Marina Z. Solesvik

maryna.z.solesvik@nord.no

Affiliation:

Nord University Business School, Norway Norway

Bio Statement (e.g., department and rank)

Marina Z. Solesvik is Professor and Chair of Maritime Innovation and Management at Nord University in Bodø, Norway. Previously, she was a Professor of Innovation and Management at the Stord/Haugesund University College in Norway. She is a board member at several Norwegian firms and organizations, among others National Riksteatret in Oslo. Marina holds a PhD in Management from the Graduate Business School at the Nord University and a PhD in Entrepreneurship from the Institute of Agrarian Economy in kiev, Ukraine. Her research interests include regional innovation, open innovation, maritime business, entrepreneurial intentions, female entrepreneurship, strategic alliances, and Arctic research.