Advertisement

Triple helix in the science and technology innovation centers of China from the perspective of mutual information: a comparative study between Beijing and Shanghai

  • Weimin Kang
  • Shuliang ZhaoEmail author
  • Wei Song
  • Tao Zhuang
Article
  • 19 Downloads

Abstract

In this study, we measure the systemness of the triple helix (TH) relationship of universities, industries, and governments (UIGs) of Beijing and Shanghai science and technology innovation centers from the perspectives of horizontal comparison and vertical evolution. Information entropy theory and TH indicators are used to measure the author’s institutional information based on the Web of Science core collection database from 2008 to 2017. The TH network is measured by mutual information among institutions. Research reveals that relative to governments and industries, universities are the main force of innovation. University–government bilateral cooperation represents the tightest type of network in Shanghai. By contrast, university–industry bilateral cooperation in Beijing is the tightest in latest years. The innovation system of UIG cooperation in Beijing and Shanghai has started to take shape. However, the tightness of TH relationships in both cities displayed long-term trends of weakening, and the centrifugal force of each innovation subject was greater than the centripetal force. Accordingly, we propose policy recommendations to optimize the TH innovation network of science and technology innovation centers.

Keywords

Mutual information City innovation system Triple helix indicators Collaborative innovation 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China Youth Science Fund Project (No. 71701191) and the China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (2016M602041). At the same time, we would like to express our sincere gratitude to Editor-in-Chief, Wolfgang Glänzel, and the three anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments, which has improved the quality of this research. Finally, we are very grateful to the University of Science and Technology of China for providing good research resources and environment.

References

  1. Auerswald, P. E., & Branscomb, L. M. (2003). Valleys of death and Darwinian seas: Financing the invention to innovation transition in the United States. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 28(3–4), 227–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cai, X., & Liu, X. (2012). Relationship among university, industry and government based on the perspective of SCI. Forum on Science & Technology in China, 8, 16–22.Google Scholar
  3. Chen, Y.-C. (2008). Why do multinational corporations locate their advanced R&D centres in Beijing? The Journal of Development Studies, 44(5), 622–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chen, Q., & Liu, X. (2015). The measurement of urban innovation system based on triple helix theory——Comparative study between Shanghai and Tokyo. Forum on Science & Technology in China, 9, 17–23.Google Scholar
  5. Choi, S., Yang, J. S., & Park, H. W. (2015). The triple helix and international collaboration in science. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(1), 201–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chung, C. J. (2014). An analysis of the status of the triple helix and university–industry–government relationships in Asia. Scientometrics, 99(1), 139–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cooke, P. (1992). Regional innovation systems: Competitive regulation in the new Europe. Geoforum, 23(3), 365–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cooke, P., & Memedovic, O. (2003). Strategies for regional innovation systems: Learning transfer and applications. Vienna: United Nations Industrial Development Organization.Google Scholar
  9. Cooke, P., Uranga, M. G., & Etxebarria, G. (1997). Regional innovation systems: Institutional and organisational dimensions. Research Policy, 26(4–5), 475–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Diez, J. R. (2002). Metropolitan innovation systems: A comparison between Barcelona, Stockholm, and Vienna. International Regional Science Review, 25(1), 63–85.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Etzkowitz, H. (2002). Networks of innovation: Science, technology and development in the triple helix era. International Journal of Technology Management & Sustainable Development, 1(1), 7–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Etzkowitz, H. (2003). Innovation in innovation: The triple helix of university-industry-government relations. Social Science Information, 42(3), 293–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (1995). The triple helix–university–industry–government relations: A laboratory for knowledge based economic development. Social Science Electronic Publishing, 14(1), 14–19.Google Scholar
  14. Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (1997). Universities in the global knowledge economy: A triple helix of academic–industry–government relations. London: Cassell.Google Scholar
  15. Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fagerberg, J., & Srholec, M. (2008). National innovation systems, capabilities and economic development. Research Policy, 37(9), 1417–1435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fischer, M. M., Diez, J. R., Snickars, F., & Varga, A. (2001). Metropolitan innovation systems: Theory and evidence from three Metropolitan Regions in Europe. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Freeman, C. (1987). Technology and economic performance: Lessons from Japan, edn. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
  19. Gassmann, O., & Han, Z. (2004). Motivations and barriers of foreign R&D activities in China. R&D Management, 34(4), 423–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hossain, M. D., Moon, J., Kang, H. G., Lee, S. C., & Choe, Y. C. (2012). Mapping the dynamics of knowledge base of innovations of R&D in Bangladesh: Triple helix perspective. Scientometrics, 90(1), 57–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Howlett, M., Ramesh, M., & Perl, A. (2009). Studying public policy: Policy cycles and policy subsystems (Vol. 3). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Jacobs, J. (1969). The economy of cities. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  23. Khan, G. F., Cho, S. E., & Han, W. P. (2012). A comparison of the Daegu and Edinburgh musical industries: A triple helix approach. Scientometrics, 90(1), 85–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Khan, G. F., & Han, W. P. (2011). Measuring the triple helix on the web: Longitudinal trends in the university–industry–government relationship in Korea. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(12), 2443–2455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kim, H., Huang, M., Jin, F., Bodoff, D., Moon, J., & Choe, Y. C. (2012). Triple helix in the agricultural sector of Northeast Asian countries: A comparative study between Korea and China. Scientometrics, 90(1), 101–120.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0517-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kwon, K.-S., Park, H. W., So, M., & Leydesdorff, L. (2012). Has globalization strengthened South Korea’s national research system? National and international dynamics of the triple helix of scientific co-authorship relationships in South Korea. Scientometrics, 90(1), 163–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lebeau, L.-M., Laframboise, M.-C., Larivière, V., & Gingras, Y. (2008). The effect of university–industry collaboration on the scientific impact of publications: The Canadian case, 1980–2005. Research Evaluation, 17(3), 227–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lee, Y. H., & Kim, Y. (2016). Analyzing interaction in R&D networks using the triple helix method: Evidence from industrial R&D programs in Korean government. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 110, 93–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Leydesdorff, L. (2003). The mutual information of university–industry–government relations: An indicator of the triple helix dynamics. Scientometrics, 58(2), 445–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Leydesdorff, L. (2012). The triple helix, quadruple helix,…, and an N-tuple of helices: Explanatory models for analyzing the knowledge-based economy? Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 3(1), 25–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Leydesdorff, L., Dolfsma, W., & Van der Panne, G. (2006). Measuring the knowledge base of an economy in terms of triple-helix relations among ‘technology, organization, and territory’. Research Policy, 35(2), 181–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Leydesdorff, L., & Etzkowitz, H. (1996). Emergence of a triple helix of university—industry—government relations. Science and Public Policy, 23(5), 279–286.Google Scholar
  33. Leydesdorff, L., & Etzkowitz, H. (1998). The triple helix as a model for innovation studies. Science and Public Policy, 25(3), 195–203.Google Scholar
  34. Leydesdorff, L., & Fritsch, M. (2006). Measuring the knowledge base of regional innovation systems in Germany in terms of a triple helix dynamics. Research Policy, 35(10), 1538–1553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Leydesdorff, L., Park, H. W., & Lengyel, B. (2014). A routine for measuring synergy in university–industry–government relations: Mutual information as a Triple-Helix and Quadruple-Helix indicator. Scientometrics, 99(1), 27–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Leydesdorff, L., Perevodchikov, E., & Uvarov, A. (2015). Measuring triple-helix synergy in the Russian innovation systems at regional, provincial, and national levels. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(6), 1229–1238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Leydesdorff, L., & Sun, Y. (2009). National and international dimensions of the triple helix in Japan: University–industry–government versus international coauthorship relations. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 60(4), 778–788.Google Scholar
  38. Leydesdorff, L., & Zhou, P. (2014). Measuring the knowledge-based economy of China in terms of synergy among technological, organizational, and geographic attributes of firms. Scientometrics, 98(3), 1703–1719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Li, S., & Lin, N. (2011). The changes of University–Industry Collaboration Policy Analysis in China. Science of Science & Management of S & T, 32(11), 21–26.Google Scholar
  40. Li, F., Zhang, X., & Qin, W. (2007). Review on the theory of urban innovation system. Urban Problems, 10, 29–33.Google Scholar
  41. Liu, M.-C., & Chen, S.-H. (2012). MNCs’ offshore R&D networks in host country’s regional innovation system: The case of Taiwan-based firms in China. Research Policy, 41(6), 1107–1120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lucas, R. E., Jr. (1988). On the mechanics of economic development. Journal of Monetary Economics, 22(1), 3–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lundvall, B.-Å., Johnson, B., Andersen, E. S., & Dalum, B. (2002). National systems of production, innovation and competence building. Research Policy, 31(2), 213–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Marceau, J. (2008). Innovation in the city and innovative cities. Innovation: Management, Policy and Practice, 10(2-3), 136–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. McGill, W. J. (1954). Multivariate information transmission. Psychometrika, 19(2), 97–116.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  46. Meyer, M., Grant, K., Morlacchi, P., & Weckowska, D. (2014). Triple helix indicators as an emergent area of enquiry: A bibliometric perspective. Scientometrics, 99(1), 151–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Ni, P.-F., Bai, J., & Xu, Y. (2011). The key factors and mechanism of city innovation system——Based on the SEM with the data of 436 sample cities worldwide. China Industrial Economics, 2, 16–25.Google Scholar
  48. Park, H. W., Hong, H. D., & Leydesdorff, L. (2005). A comparison of the knowledge-based innovation systems in the economies of South Korea and the Netherlands using triple helix indicators. Scientometrics, 65(1), 3–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Park, H. W., & Leydesdorff, L. (2010). Longitudinal trends in networks of university–industry–government relations in South Korea: The role of programmatic incentives. Research Policy, 39(5), 640–649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Pei-Feng, L. I., & Rui-Min, M. A. (2015). International comparative study on the institutional mechanism of collaborative innovation based on triple helix——Biology and Chemistry discipline group as a case. R & D Management, 27(4), 85–92.Google Scholar
  51. Ranga, M., & Etzkowitz, H. (2013). Triple helix systems: An analytical framework for innovation policy and practice in the knowledge society. Industry & Higher Education, 27(4), 237–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Razak, A. A., & Saad, M. (2007). The role of universities in the evolution of the triple helix culture of innovation network: The case of Malaysia. International Journal of Technology Management & Sustainable Development, 6(3), 211–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Rupika, A. U., & Singh, V. K. (2016). Measuring the university–industry–government collaboration in Indian research output. Current Science, 110(10), 1904.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Shannon, C. E. (1948). A mathematical theory of communication. Bell System Technical Journal, 27(4), 379–423.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  55. Shapiro, M. (2007). The triple helix paradigm in Korea: A test for new forms of capital. International Journal of Technology Management & Sustainable Development, 6(3), 171–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Shin, J. C., Lee, S. J., & Kim, Y. (2012). Knowledge-based innovation and collaboration: A triple-helix approach in Saudi Arabia. Scientometrics, 90(1), 311–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Swar, B., & Khan, G. F. (2013). An analysis of the information technology outsourcing domain: A social network and triple helix approach. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 64(11), 2366–2378.Google Scholar
  58. Taylor Buck, N., & While, A. (2017). Competitive urbanism and the limits to smart city innovation: The UK Future Cities initiative. Urban Studies, 54(2), 501–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Theil, H. (1972). Statistical decomposition analysis: With applications in the social and administrative sciences. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 136(3), 462.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  60. Wagner, C. S., & Leydesdorff, L. (2005). Network structure, self-organization, and the growth of international collaboration in science. Research Policy, 34(10), 1608–1618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Xu, K. (2013). University–industry–government relations based on mutual information: Comparative study between China and South Korea. Journal of Intelligence, 32(4), 187–193.Google Scholar
  62. Ye, F. Y., Yu, S. S., & Leydesdorff, L. (2013). The triple helix of university–industry–government relations at the country level and its dynamic evolution under the pressures of globalization. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(11), 2317–2325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Yimin, Z., & Zhixiong, Z. (2013). A review of measuring the triple helix using quantitative approach. Journal of Intelligence, 32(4), 85–90.Google Scholar
  64. Zhao, S., Cacciolatti, L., Lee, S. H., & Song, W. (2015). Regional collaborations and indigenous innovation capabilities in China: A multivariate method for the analysis of regional innovation systems. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 94, 202–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Weimin Kang
    • 1
    • 2
  • Shuliang Zhao
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Wei Song
    • 1
    • 2
  • Tao Zhuang
    • 3
  1. 1.School of Public AffairsUniversity of Science and Technology of ChinaHefeiChina
  2. 2.Research Center for Scientific and Technological Innovation and Regional DevelopmentUniversity of Science and Technology of ChinaHefeiChina
  3. 3.School of Economics and ManagementWeifang UniversityWeifangChina

Personalised recommendations