Triple helix and regional development: A perspective from Oxfordshire in the UK

Technology Analysis and Strategic Management

Volumn 22, Issue 7, 2010, Pages 805-818

  Smith, Helen Lawton ^a   Bagchi Sen, Sharmistha ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY AT BUFFALO   (United States)

Author keywords

Biotechnology; Regional development; Triple helix; UK

Indexed keywords

ACADEMIC RESEARCH; BIOTECHNOLOGY; REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT; UNIVERSITY SECTOR;

ENGLAND; OXFORDSHIRE; UNITED KINGDOM;

EID: 77957072860     PISSN: 09537325     EISSN: 14653990     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09537325.2010.511143     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Brännback, M., A. Carsrud, N. Kreuger Jr, and J. Elving. 2008. Challenging the triple helix model of regional innovation systems: A venture centric model. International Journal of Technoentrepreneurship 1: 257-77.
2. Cooke, P. 1998. Introduction: Origins of the concept. In Regional innovation systems, ed. H.-J. Braczyk, P. Cooke and M. Heidenreich, chap. 1, 2-27, London: UCL Press.
3. Cooke, P. 2002. Knowledge economies. London: Routledge.
4. Cortright, J., and H. Mayer. 2002. Signs of life: The growth of biotechnology centers in the US. The Brookings Institution, Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy, Washington, DC.
5. DeBresson, C., and A. Arnesse. 1991. Networks of innovators: A review and introduction to the issue. Research Policy 20: 363-79.
6. Etzkowitz, H. 2008. The Triple Helix model: University-industry-government innovation in action. London: Routledge.
7. Etzkowitz, H., and L. Leydesdorff. 1997. Universities and the global knowledge economy. London: Pinter.
8. Feldman, M.P., and P. Desrochers. 2003. Research universities and local economic development: Lessons from the history of Johns Hopkins University. Industry and Innovation 10: 5-24.
9. HM Government, House of Commons Trade and Industry Select Committee. 2003. UK biotechnology industry. http:// www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmselect/cmtrdind/87/87.pdf (accessed 5 December 2009).
10. Gertler, M., and Y. Levitte. 2005. Local nodes in global networks: The geography of knowledge flows in biotechnology innovation. Industry and Innovation 12: 487-507.
11. Giesecke, S. 2000. The contrasting roles of government in the development of the biotechnology industry in the US and Germany. Research Policy 29: 205-23.
12. Gittleman, M. 2006. National institutions, public-private knowledge flows, and innovation performance: A comparative study of the biotechnology industry in the US and France Research Policy 35: 1052-1068.
13. Goldstein, H.A. 2009. What we know and what we don't know about the regional economic impacts of universities. In Universities, knowledge transfer and regional development, ed. A. Varga, chap. 2, 11-35. Chelteham: Edward Elgar.
14. Lawton Smith, H. 2005. The biotechnology industry in Oxford shire: Enterprise and innovation. European Planning Studies 12: 985-1002.
15. Lawton Smith, H., and S. Bagchi-Sen. 2006. University-industry interactions: The case of the UK biotech industry. Industry and Innovation 13: 371-92.
16. Lawton Smith, H., and K.W. Ho. 2006. Measuring the performance of Oxfordshire's spin-off companies. Research Policy 35: 1554-68.
17. Lawton Smith, H., and M. Vershawmy. 2008. Final Report on Business Networks in the Oxford to Cambridge Arc. Oxford: OEO.
18. Lawton Smith, H., J. Glasson, and A. Chadwick. 2007. Enterprising Oxford: The Oxfordshire model. Oxford: Oxfordshire Economic Observatory.
19. Lawton Smith, H., D. Keeble, C. Lawson, B. Moore, and F. Wilkinson. 2001. Technology transfer in two elite locations: The Oxford and Cambridge regions. Tijdschrift Voor Economiche en Sociale Geographie 1: 88-99.
20. Markusen, A. 1996. Sticky places in slippery space: A typology of industrial districts. Economic Geography 72: 293-313.
21. Martinelli, A., M. Meyer, and N. von Tunzelmann. 2008. Becoming an entrepreneurial university? A case study of knowledge exchange relationships and faculty attitudes in a medium-sized, research-oriented university. Journal of Technology Transfer 33: 259-83.
22. McKelvey, M. 2004. Evolutionary economics perspectives in the regional-national-international dimensions of biotechnology innovations. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 22: 179-198.
23. Minshall, T.H.W., and W. Wicksteed. 2005. University spin-out companies: Starting to fill the evidence gap. A report for the Gatsby Charitable Foundation. http://www.stjohns.co.uk/documents/usoreport.pdf (accessed 25 June 2006).
24. Owen-Smith, J., M. Riccaboni, F. Pammolli and W. Powell. 2002. US and European university-industry relationships in the life sciences. Management Science 48: 24-43.
25. OBN. 2002. Growth and sustainability, the cluster report, 2002. Oxford: OBN.
26. OBN. 2005. Oxfordshire bioscience cluster report, 2005. Oxford: OBN.
27. OBN. 2008. BioCluster report. http://www.obn.org.uk/seeb/images/publications/OBN_BioCluster_Report_2008_ Exec_Summary_for_web.pdf (accessed 25 August 2010).
28. Power, D., and A. Malmberg. 2008. The contribution of universities to innovation and economic development: In what sense a regional problem? Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society 1: 233-245.
29. Tuunainen, J. 2002. Reconsidering the mode 2 and triple helix: A critical comment based on a case study. Science Studies 15, no. 2: 36-58.
30. Waters, R., and H. Lawton Smith. 2009. Global circuits of labour and high technology local economies. Paper presented to Research Network on Transatlantic Comparison of Continental Innovation Models, 13-14 November 2009, Oxford, UK.
31. Zucker, L., M. Darby, and J. Armstrong. 2002. Commercializing knowledge: University science, knowledge capture, and firm performance in biotechnology. Management Science 48: 138-153.
32. Zucker, L., M. Darby, and M. Brewer. 1998. Intellectual human capital and the birth of US biotechnology enterprises. American Economic Review 88: 290-306.