Knowledge

 

Triple Helix: a comparison between the Netherlands and the Region of Valencia

Enterprises, Universities and Governments

        Innovation has become a European policy mantra for jobs creation, strongly anchored in the European 2020 Strategy towards a smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. This strategy promotes the development of an economic model based on knowledge and innovation, which would eventually bring growth and jobs to European regions. The interplay between knowledge generation agencies, market forces and the state development steering has been an in vogue mechanism promoted by the EU to unleash creativity, ideas and innovation, conceptualised under the label of “triple helix” (Caniëls et al., 2011; Dzisah et al., 2008). This analytical and normative tool is defined as the cooperation between enterprises, universities and government geared towards commercialisation of knowledge: universities create knowledge that firms utilise, through stable exchange partnerships that governments facilitate and reinforce (Etzkowitz et al., 2000). Smooth knowledge transfer has to be built on transparency and trust among the different actors (Tödtlin et al., 2011), proximity and informal relations becoming important factors for the success of a triple helix network (Huggins et al., 2008). Therefore, spatial distribution of knowledge transfer matters, and this explains, besides other reasons, why most triple helix networks are organised around clusters.

Triple Helix model

This article compares how the triple helix model has been applied in the Netherlands and the Spanish Region of Valencia, a country and a region (comunidad autónoma) with similar competence attributions in innovation policy, but very different traditions on the field of spatial development of economic and social activities. The analysis tries to explain how historical paths have shaped different patterns of triple helix, and what lessons can these territories draw nowadays from each other.

Local context embedding the emergence of stable cooperation between enterprises, universities and governments in the two territories have some similarities and important differences. Under the endogenous growth paradigm, the Dutch national government promoted the development of 12 universities-firms clusters since the 1990s in order to achieve a more knowledge-based economy. In the 2010s, the new national strategy strongly influenced by the EU 2020 agenda fostered the creation of university-firms networks within nine well-embedded sectors showing high innovative potential. In turn, knowledge transfer between universities and firms was illegal in Spain until 1983. Ever since, besides some pioneering universities offering commercial services to firms generally linked to training, the central and new regional governments also promoted the development of clusters, although they usually grouped only firms from the same sector (self-propulsion, toys, furniture, textile, ceramic, etc.). The current regional strategy pinpoints the need of fostering university-firms relationships, which still remain very weak (García-Aracil et al. 2008).

Philips + Dutch Universities partnership for medical imaging *

Regarding the European 2020 strategy, the triple helix tool for innovation has been promoted by the governmental strategies of the two territories. However, the soft character of European regulation facilitated the emergence of different triple helix patterns heavily influenced by the different local traditions of firms-university-government cooperation and knowledge transfer. In the Netherlands, the concept of triple helix is consolidated in policy-making, and examples of smooth and intense collaboration generating creativity and innovation, such as the Brainport Eindhoven cluster of high-tech, can be found together with softer cooperation is other industries. The Dutch triple helix pattern stresses networking of actors across the territory, instead of taking advantage of spatial concentration of knowledge transfer. Leadership on the development of cooperation is exerted by the three components of the helix. The central government establishes a strategic approach to be facilitated by regional and local authorities, often taking the initiative but from a hands-off approach. Universities remain the main knowledge creators and SMEs the main users, but in the most successful examples, both actors take over the role of each other: universities commercialise their knowledge acting as entrepreneurs, and firms become knowledge creators.

Ceramic Triple Helix products in Region of Valencia

On the other hand, the triple helix is a new concept in Valencian policy-making. Stable cooperation pattern in the Region of Valencia has been generally based on research institutes developed by firms-government partnerships. Universities have remained alien to cooperation in many industries, although some successful examples exist, such as the ceramic cluster around Castelló de la Plana. Historical advantageous spatial concentration of economic sectors continues to define new cooperation patterns among an enlarged set of actors. The creation of firms-government research institutes was primarily led by the central and regional authorities, whereas for the existing triple helix clusters, the leadership came from committed academics, while the government facilitated this breaking form of cooperation. However, SMEs have kept a low leader profile in establishing cooperation geared towards knowledge transfer, due to low managerial skills and a relatively high misgiving from firms towards universities. These patterns are slowly shifting; enterprises increasingly utilise university knowledge, especially the large ones, although traditional training continues to represent the main activity, and not so much joint R&D projects. In turn, universities are increasing their bridges towards entrepreneurialism and knowledge commercialisation, supported by regional authorities.

Comparing the two patterns of triple helix developed in the Netherlands and the Spanish Region of Valencia, some lessons can be drawn for improving the models towards smoother and more intense knowledge transfer, in order to enhance creativity and innovation. The Netherlands could consider the value of spatially concentrated distribution of actors in the Region of Valencia, which may facilitate informal relations in building trust and easing transfer processes. In turn, the Region of Valencia could contemplate the Dutch efficient knowledge utilisation examples, based on mutual confidence between enterprises and universities, higher managerial skills in SMEs, intense joint R&D projects between firms and universities beyond traditional training. Although the role of government cannot be easily exchanged between such different contexts, in broad terms, Valencian authorities could adopt a more resolute coordination role and leadership in the establishment of knowledge transfer networks between firms and universities.

Based on Sánchez Brox, M. and Holstein, F. (2012) "The triple helix approach in innovation and competitive policies: a comparison between the models of the Netherlands and the Region of Valencia, Spain"

Caniëls, M.C.J. and van den Bosch, H. (2011) “The role of Higher Education Institutions in building regional innovation systems”. Papers in Regional Science 90 (2) 271-286

Dzisah, J. and Etzkowitz, H. (2008) “Triple helix circulation: the heart of innovation and development”. International Journal of Technology Management and Sustainable Development 7 (2) 101-115.

Etzkowitz, H. and 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) 109–23.

 García-Aracil, A. and Fernández de Lucio, I. (2008) “Industry-University Interactions in a Peripheral European Region: An Empirical Study of Valencian Firms”. Regional Studies, 42 (2) 215-227.

Huggins, R., A. Johnston and R. Steffenson (2008) “Universities, knowledge networks and regional policy” Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society 1; 321-340

 Tödtling, F., P. Prud’Homme van Reine and S. Dörhöfer (2011) “Open Innovation and Regional Culture-Findings from Different Industrial and Regional Settings” European Planning Studies 19 (11) 1885-190 

* http://www.tue.nl