The triple helix: an evolutionary model of innovations

By Loet Leydesdorff. 2000

461 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Management of Technology and Innovation, Strategy and Management

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/35a0046a6c2823098c75615d734f88675dbcb3ac

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Economics and Econometrics

In Management of Technology and Innovation

In Strategy and Management

Citations in the corpus

Theorizing the Triple Helix model: Past, present, and future (2020, background): “While traditional evolutionary economics mainly deal with two sub-dynamics in the form of co-revolution, the triple helix configuration includes three sub-dynamics, including market, innovation, and control (Leydesdorff 2000, 2012; Leydesdorff & Meyer 2006).”
The Regional Innovation Paradox: Innovation Policy and Industrial Policy (2002, background): “Section 2 provides empirical evidence on the regional innovation paradox, places this paradox within the theoretical framework of the innovation systems literature and the triple helix model of innovation (Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff, 1997, 2000; Leydesdorff, 2000 ) and discusses the policy implicati”
Cooperation with public research institutions and success in innovation: Evidence from France and Germany (2013, methodology): “Extending this approach, the Triple Helix literature highlighted the importance of science–industry–government relations (Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff, 1998, 2000; Leydesdorff, 2000).”
Buzz, Archipelago Economies and the Future of Intermediate and Peripheral Areas in a Spiky World (2013, background): “, 1992), linked to the geographical proximity between different socioeconomic agents and organisations, including firms, government and research centres in cities, which facilitate the development of triple helix sort of connections, thus guaranteeing a high level of innovation (Leydesdorff, 2000) .”
Triple Helix Systems: An Analytical Framework for Innovation Policy and Practice in the Knowledge Society (2013, background): “The institutional spheres are also seen as selection environments, and the institutional communications between them act as selection mechanisms, which may generate new innovation environments and thus ensure the ‘regeneration’ of the system (Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff, 2000; Leydesdorff, 2000).”
Innovation and networks in rural areas. An analysis from European innovative projects (2014, background): “The role of local actors has been analysed in several works, which also explain the relationship between innovation processes and the dissemination of knowledge as the innovative ‘milieu’ (Camagni, 1991, 2003; Crevoisier, 2004), systems of innovation at the national and regional scales (Cooke, 1998;”
Co-evolution of technology and society: The transition in water supply and personal hygiene in the Netherlands (1850-1930)—a case study in multi-level perspective (2005, background): “† Co-evolution between technology, industry structure and policy institutions [6–10].”
Co-evolutionary and multi-level dynamics in transitions: The transformation of aviation systems and the shift from propeller to turbojet (1930–1970) (2006, background): “‘Uncertainties in the relations between the helices open windows of potential innovation (and conflict) in (sub)systems that otherwise have to be reproduced’ (Leydesdorff, 2000, p. 244).”
Regional collaborations and indigenous innovation capabilities in China: A multivariate method for the analysis of regional innovation systems (2015, background): “The collaborative modes of innovation can be ‘private with private’ or ‘private with public’ and these involve interactions among customers, suppliers, regulators and knowledge providers [34].”