Triple Helix in the periphery: The case of Multipolis in Northern Finland

Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society

Volumn 1, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 285-301

  Jauhiainena, Jussi S ^a,b   Suorsaa, Katri ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OULU   (Finland)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TARTU   (Estonia)

Author keywords

Innovation policy; Multipolis; Network; Northern finland; Periphery; Regional policy

Indexed keywords

EID: 77951010677     PISSN: 17521378     EISSN: 17521386     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/cjres/rsn009     Document Type: Article

References (59)

1. Ala-Rämi, K. (2007) Communication and distance in collaboration between high-technology enterprises inNorthern Finland. European Planning Studies, 15: 1047-1062.
2. Asheim, B. and Coenen, L. (2006) Contextualising regional innovation systems in a globalising learning economy: on knowledge bases and institutional frameworks. Journal of Technology Transfer, 31: 163-173.
3. Bathelt, H., Malmberg, A. and Maskell, P. (2004) Clusters and knowledge: local buzz, global pipelines and the process of knowledge creation. Progress in Human Geography, 28.
4. Benneworth, D. and Dawley, S. (2005) Managing the third strand innovation process? Developing innovation support services in regionally engaged universities. Knowledge, Technology, & Policy, 18.
5. Burt, R. (1992) Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
6. Burt, R. (2004) Structural holes and good ideas. American Journal of Society, 110.
7. Camagni, R. (1991) Innovation Networks: Spatial Perspectives. London: Belhaven Press.
8. Centre of Expertise Programme. (2007) Centre of Expertise Programme Homepage. Available online at: http:// www.oske.net/in-english/ [Accessed 19 November 2007].
9. Clark, G. and Tracey, P. (2004) . Global Competitiveness and Innovation. An Agent-Centered Perspective. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
10. Cooke, P. (2004) Introduction. Regional innovation systems-an evolutionary approach. In: Cooke P, Heidenrich M, Braczyk H (eds). Regional Innovation Systems. The Role of Governance in a Globalised World, pp. 1-18. London: Routledge.
11. Cooke, P. and De Laurentis, C. (2002) The Index of Knowledge Economies in The European Union: Performance Rankings of Cities and Regions. Cardiff: Centre for Advanced Studies, University of Wales, Regional Industrial Research Report 41.
12. Cooke, P. and Leydesdorff, L. (2006) Regional development in the knowledge-based economy: the construction of advantage. Journal of Technology Transfer, 31.
13. Cooke, P. and Morgan, K. (1993) The network paradigm: new departures in corporate and regional development. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 11: 543-564.
14. Cooke, P., Boekholt, P. and Tödtling, F. (2000) The Governance of Innovation in Europe-Regional Perspectives and Global Competitiveness. London: Pinter.
15. Copus, A. (2001) From core-periphery to polycentric development: concepts of spatial and aspatial peripherality. European Planning Studies, 9: 539-552.
16. Corona, L., Doutriaux, J. and Mian, S. A. (2006) Building Knowledge Regions in North America. Emerging Technology Innovation Poles. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
17. Doloreux, D. (2003) Regional innovation systems in the periphery: the case of Beauce in Quebec (Canada). International Journal of Innovation Management, 7: 67-94.
18. Etzkowitz, H. (2006) The visible hand: an assisted linear model of science and innovation policy. Science and Public Policy, 33.
19. Gibson, D. and Stiles, C. (2000) Technopoleis, technology transfer, and globally networked entrepreneurship. In: Conceicao P, Gibson D, Heitor M, Shariq S (eds). Science, Technology and Innovation Policy. Opportunities and Challenges for the Knowledge Economy. London: Quorum Books.
20. Grabher, G. (2006) Trading routes, bypasses, and risky intersections: mapping the travels of 'networks' between economic sociology and economic geography. Progress in Human Geography, 30.
21. Granovetter, M. (1973) The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78: 1360-1380.
22. Jauhiainen, J. (2006) Multipolis-high-technology network in northern Finland. European Planning Studies, 14: 1407-1428.
23. Jauhiainen, J. (2008) Regional and innovation policies in Finland-towards convergence and/or mismatch? Regional Studies, 42.
24. Jensen, C. and Tragardh, B. (2004) Narrating the Triple Helix concept in 'weak' regions: lessons from Sweden. International Journal of Technology Management, 27.
25. Kangasharju, A. (2002) Regional Development and Regional Policy in Finland. Québec: Institute National de la Recherche Scientifique, Université du Québec.
26. Komninos, N. (2002) Intelligent Cities. London: Spon Press.
27. Lambooy, J. (2005) Innovation and knowledge: theory and regional policy. European Planning Studies, 13.
28. Lambooy, J. (2007) The transmission of knowledge, emerging networks, and the role of universities: an evolutionary approach. European Planning Studies, 12.
29. Leydesdorff, L. and Etzkowitz, H. (1998) The triple Helix as a model for innovation studies. Science & Public Policy, 25.
30. Leydesdorff, L. and Meyer, M. (2004) The Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations. Scientometrics, 58: 191-203.
31. Lundvall B. (ed). (1992). National Systems of Innovation: Towards a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning. London: Pinter.
32. Männistö, J. (2002) Voluntaristinen alueellinen innovaatioja ̈rjestelmä: tapaustutkimus Oulun alueen ICT-klusterista. Rovaniemi: Lapin yliopisto.
33. Miettinen, R. (2002) National Innovation System. Scientific Concept or Political Rhetoric. Helsinki: Edita.
34. Ministry of Education. (2005) Education Statistics. Available online at: http://www.minedu.fi [Accessed 30 June 2005].
35. Moreno, R., Paci, R. and Usai, S. (2005) Spatial spillovers and innovation activity in European regions. Environment and Planning A, 37.
36. Morgan, K. (1997) The learning region. Institutions, innovation and regional renewal. Regional Studies, 31.
37. Multipolis. (2004) Multipolis-projekti 1.8.2002- 31.10.2004. Unpublished report in Finnish, Oulu.
38. Multipolis. (2006) Multipolis. Available online at: http:// www.multipolis.com/index.php?179 [Accessed 19 April 2006].
39. Multipolis. (2007) Multipolispolisverkosto. Laajaraportti 1.11.2004-30.6.2007. Available online at: http:// www.multipolis.net/file.php? 1230 [Accessed 20 November 2007].
40. Oakey, R. and Cooper, S. (1989) High-technology industry, agglomeration and the potential for peripherally sited small firms. Regional Studies, 23: 347-360.
41. OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development). (2005) Territorial Reviews: Finland. OECD. Paris.
42. Oinas, P. (2005) Finland-a success story. European Planning Studies, 13.
43. O'Shea, R., Chugh, H. and Allen, T.Determinants and consequences of university spinoff activity: a conceptual framework. Journal of Technology Transfer, 28 (in press).
44. Oughton, C., Landbaso, M. and Morgan, K. (2002) The regional innovation paradox: innovation policy and industrial policy. Journal of Technology Transfer, 27.
45. Porter, M. (1990) The Competitive Advantage of Nations. New York: Free Press.
46. Powell, W. and Grodal, S. (2005) Networks of innovators. In: Fagerberg J, Mowery D, Nelson & Nelson R (eds). The Oxford Handbook of Innovation, pp. 56-85. New York: Oxford University Press.
47. Smallbone, D., North, D. and Wickers, I. (2000) The role and characteristics of SMEs. In: Isaksen A, Asheim B, Nauwelaers C, North D, Tödtling F (eds). SME Policy and the Regional Dimension of Innovation (SMEPOL, Final Report). Oslo: SMEPOL.
48. Statistics Finland. (2007) Statfin. Available online at: http://statfin.stat.fi/StatWeb/start.asp?LA=fi&;lp=home [Accessed 20 September 2007].
49. Statistics Ouluseutu. (2006) Statistics About the Oulu Functional Urban Region. Available online at: http://tilastokeskus/tup/seutunet/ouluseutu- hightech.html [Accessed 10 March 2006].
50. Suorsa, K. (2007) Regionality, innovation policy and peripheral regions in Finland, Sweden and Norway. Fennia, 185.
51. Tödtling, F. and Kaufmann, A. (2001) The role of the region for innovation activities of SMEs. European Urban and Regional Studies, 8.
52. Tödtling, F. and Trippl, M. (2005) One size fits all? Towards a differentiated regional innovation policy approach. Research Policy, 34: 1203-1219.
53. Tura, T. and Harmaakorpi, V. (2005) Social capital in building regional innovative capability. Regional Studies, 39.
54. University of Oulu. (2005) Oulun yliopisto-pohjoinen tiedonvä ylä. Available online at: http://www.oulu.fi/yliopisto [Accessed 13 October 2005].
55. Vartiainen, P. (1998) Suomalaisen aluepolitiikan kehitysvaiheita, Sisäasiainministeriö, Alueiden kehittämisen osaston julkaisuja 6/1998, Helsinki, 1998.
56. Virkkala, S. (2007) Innovation and networking in peripheral areas-a case study of emergence and change in rural manufacturing. European Planning Studies, 15.
57. Wilkinson, I. and Young, L. (2002) On cooperating firms, relations and networks. Journal of Business Research, 55: 123-132.
58. Willoughby, K. and Galvin, P. (2005) Inter-organizational collaboration, knowledge intensity, and the sources of innovation in the bioscience-technology industries. Knowledge, Technology, & Policy, 18.
59. World Economic Forum. (2005) Global Competitiveness Report 2004-2005. World Economic Forum. New York.