Implementing the Triple Helix model in a non-Western context: an institutional logics perspective

Abstract

While there is a common belief among policymakers and academics around the world that Triple Helix relationships between university, industry and government provide optimal conditions for innovation, it should be noted that the Triple Helix concept has been developed from the experience of advanced economies in the West. There is a lack of theoretical considerations and empirical evidence on whether the Triple Helix model is applicable in non-Western contexts. Following the understanding that the evolution of an ideal Triple Helix model is facilitated by certain institutional logics in Western societies, this paper takes China as an example to examine how the institutional logics in China are different from those of the West and how the institutional logics in China would promote or impede the development of the Triple Helix model in China in light of an extensive review of the relevant literature and policy documents. The study suggests that to optimise the Chinese innovation policies, China needs on the one hand to adjust some elements of its institutional environment to facilitate the interactions between key innovation actors and on the other hand to be innovative in developing its own Triple Helix modes given the unique Chinese institutional environment which will persist in the foreseeable future.

Inter-organizational scientific collaborations and policy effects: an ego-network evolutionary perspective of the Chinese Academy of Sciences

“…Prior to adopting the reform and opening-up policy in 1978, the design of the Chinese S&T system was strongly influenced by that of the former Soviet Union (Cai 2014;Liu and White 2001;Motohashi and Yun 2007). The Chinese government established a complex research institute system in 1949, and CAS was the most important one (Cai 2014).…”

“…The Chinese government established a complex research institute system in 1949, and CAS was the most important one (Cai 2014). Since then, China's research resources were concentrated mainly at public research institutions such as CAS (Sun and Cao 2015).…”

“…Since then, China's research resources were concentrated mainly at public research institutions such as CAS (Sun and Cao 2015). Notably, Chinese universities made minimal contributions to knowledge creation during this period because they have been regarded historically as human resource trainers instead of research institutions (Cai 2014;Zhang et al 2013;Zhou 2014). This was in sharp contrast to their counterparts in Western countries, where universities have always been an important source of new knowledge (Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff 2000;Mindruta 2013;Rosenberg and Nelson 1994).…”

“…Three reasons may account for the network feature of CAS-University collaborations during this period. First, with the promotion of reform and opening-up since 1978, CAS highly valued international cooperation with foreign universities and actively participated in international science projects, whereas the main role of domestic universities was to provide trained personnel instead of engaging in knowledge creation during this period (Cai 2014;Zhang et al 2013;Zhou (Liu and Zhi 2010). Those talented scholars frequently assumed the crucial role of ''bridge'' in international cooperation networks.…”

“…This characteristic can be attributed to the differences in the roles and functions of CAS, universities, and enterprises in the national innovation system of China at the time. CAS was established to generate knowledge, the universities were set up to train qualified personnel, and the enterprises were social machines that primarily produced goods and services (see Cai 2014;Zhang et al 2013;Zhou 2014). The demand for interactions among CAS, universities and enterprises was not urgent during the first period from 1978 to 1991.…”