Enabling Regional Growth in Peripheral Non-university Regions: The Impact of a Quadruple Helix Intermediate Organisation

  • Kenneth Nordberg
Part of the Palgrave Studies in Democracy, Innovation, and Entrepreneurship for Growth book series (DIG)


This study discusses theoretical concepts such as Mode 3, Quadruple Helix and related variety in order to depict the opportunities for peripheral non-university regions to engage in innovative development. It is argued that certain alterations in the fourth helix have the potential of opening the actors in the Triple Helix towards each other for the purpose of innovation development. The case of the technology centre KETEK in Finland illustrates the manner in which an increasingly dynamic innovation environment is enabled through a differentiation of both the knowledge and the political systems, and where the setting up of the intermediate organisation has been central to this development. Suggestions of the democratic potential of an intermediate organisation and a participative and inclusive innovation system are put forward.


Innovation modes Mode 3 Knowledge Production System Quadruple Helix Innovation System Related variety 


  1. Afonso, O., Monteiro, S., Thompson, M. (2010). A growth model for the quadruple helix innovation theory. NIPE WP 12.Google Scholar
  2. Arnkil, R., Järvensivu, V., Koski, P., Piirainen, T., (2010). Exploring quadruple helix. Outlining user-oriented innovation models. Työraportteja 85/2010 Working Papers. Tampere: University of Tampere, Institute for Social Research, Work Research Centre.Google Scholar
  3. Asheim, B. (2009, October). Guest editorial: Introduction to the creative class in European city regions. Economic Geography, 85(4), 355–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Asheim, B., Boschma, R., & Cooke, P. (2011a). Constructing regional advantage: Platform policies based on related variety and differentiated knowledge bases. Regional Studies Special Issue: Regional Innovation Systems: Theory, Empirics and Policy, 45(7), 893–904.Google Scholar
  5. Asheim, B., Moodysson, J., & Tödtling, F. (2011b, July). Constructing regional advantage: Towards state-of-the-art regional innovation system policies in Europe? European Planning Studies, 19(7), 1133–1139.Google Scholar
  6. Björk, P. (2014). The DNA of tourism service innovation: A quadruple helix approach. Journal of Knowledge Economy, 5, 181–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Boschma, R., & Iammarino, S. (2009). Related variety, trade linkages, and regional growth in Italy. Economic Geography, 85(3), 289–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Campbell, D. F. J., & Güttel, W. H. (2005). Knowledge production of firms: Research networks and the “scientification” of business R&D. International Journal of Technology Management, 31(1/2), 152–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carayannis, E. G., & Campbell, D. F. J. (2006). “Mode 3”: Meaning and implications from a knowledge systems perspective. In E. G. Carayannis & D. F. J. Campbell (Eds.), Knowledge creation, diffusion, and use in innovation networks and knowledge clusters. A comparative systems approach across the United States, Europe and Asia (pp. 1–25). Westport: Praeger.Google Scholar
  10. Carayannis, E. G., & Campbell, D. F. J. (2009). “Mode 3” and “Quadruple Helix”: Toward a 21st century fractal innovation ecosystem. International Journal of Technology Management, 46(3/4), 201–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Carayannis, E. G., D. F. J. Campbell (2012). Mode 3 knowledge production in quadruple helix innovation systems. Twenty-first-century democracy, innovation, and entrepreneurship for development (SpringerBriefs in Business 2012, VI, 63 p. 13 illus). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  12. Eriksson, M., Niitamo, V.-P., & Kulkki, S. (2005). State-of-the-art in utilizing living labs approach to user-centric ICT innovation – A European approach. Stockholm: Vinnova, Ministry of Enterprise, Energy and Communications.Google Scholar
  13. Esmark, A. (2011). Systems theory. In B. Mark (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of governance. Thousand Oaks: SAGE publications.Google Scholar
  14. Etzkowitz, H., & Leyesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: From National Systems and “Mode 2” to a Triple Helix of university–industry–government relations. Research Policy, 29, 109–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Florida, R. (2002). The rise of the creative class: And how it’s transforming work, leisure, community, and everyday life. Cambridge, MA: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  16. Frenken, K., & Verburg, T. (2007). Related variety, unrelated variety and regional economic growth. Regional Studies, 41(5), 685–697.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Goddard, J., Robertson, D., & Vallance, P. (2012). Universities, technology and innovation centres and regional development: The case of the North-East of England. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 36, 609–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge. The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  19. Hansen, T., & Winther, L. (2011). Innovation, regional development and relations between high- and low-tech industries. European Urban and Regional Studies, 18, 321–339 (Sage Publishing).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hemlin, S., Allwood, C. M., & Martin, B. R. (2004). Creative knowledge environments. The influences on creativity in research and innovation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  21. Isaksen, A., & Karlsen, J. (2012). Can small regions construct regional advantages? The case of four Norwegian regions. European Urban and Regional Studies, 20, 243 (Sage Publishing).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jacobs, J. (1969). The economy of cities. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  23. Jensen, M. B., Johnson, B., Lorenz, E., & Lundvall, B.-Å. (2007). Forms of knowledge and modes of innovation. Research Policy, 36, 680–693.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Johnson, B., Lorenz, E., & Lundvall, B. A. (2002). Why all this fuss about codified and tacit knowledge? Industrial and Corporate Change, 11(2), 245–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kline, S. J., & Rosenberg, N. (1986). An overview of innovation. In R. Landau & N. Rodenberg (Eds.), The positive sum strategy (pp. 275–304). Washington: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  26. Kristensen, P. H. (2009). Conclusions: Developing comprehensive, enabling welfare states for offensive experimentalist business. In New modes of globalizing: Experimentalism forms of economic organization and enabling welfare institutions. Helsinki: Helsinki School of Economics.Google Scholar
  27. Kristensen, P. H., & Lilja, K. (2009). New modes of globalizing: Experimentalism forms of economic organization and enabling welfare institutions. Helsinki: Helsinki School of Economics.Google Scholar
  28. Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  29. Landabaso, M. (1997). The promotion of innovation in regional policy: Proposals for a regional innovation policy. Entrepeneurship & Regional Development, 9(1), 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Liljemark, T. (2004). Innovation policy in Canada. Strategy and realities. Stockholm: Swedish Institute for Growth Policy Studies.Google Scholar
  31. Luhmann, N. (1997). Die Gesellschaft der Gesellschaft. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  32. Marcovich, A., & Shinn, T. (2011). From the Triple Helix to a Quadruple Helix? The case of dip-pen nanolithography. Minerva, 49, 175–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Marshall, A. (1920). Principles of economics. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  34. Niemi, K., & Virkkala, S. (2006). Innovative co-operation between Centria Ylivieska and the SME’s in Oulu South, Finland. In K. Niemi & S. Virkkala (Eds.), Peripheral localities and innovation policies – Learning from good practices between the Nordic countries. Oslo: Nordic Innovation Centre.Google Scholar
  35. Nordberg, K. (2014). On the democracy and relevance of governance networks. Scandinavian Journal of Public Administration, 18(2), 23–48.Google Scholar
  36. Parsons, T. (1951). The social system. Glencoe: Free Press.Google Scholar
  37. Schienstock, G., & Hämäläinen, T. (2001). Transformation of the finnish innovation system: A network approach (Sitra Reports series, Vol. 7). Helsinki: Sitra.Google Scholar
  38. Schoonmaker, M. G., & Carayannis, E. G. (2012). Mode 3: A proposed classification scheme for the knowledge economy and society. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 3(4), 556–577.Google Scholar
  39. Smart Specialisation Platform. (2012). Guide to research and innovation strategies for smart specialisation (RIS 3). European Union Regional Policy.Google Scholar
  40. Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2007). Theories of democratic network governance. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Virkkala, S. (2013). Industrial development and competence building: Learning across converging trajectories. In Å. Mariussen & S. Virkkala (Eds.), Learning transnational learning. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kenneth Nordberg
    • 1
  1. 1.Åbo Akademi UniversityVasaFinland

Personalised recommendations