The Swedish system of innovation: Regional synergies in a knowledge-based economy

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology

Volumn 64, Issue 9, 2013, Pages 1890-1902

  Leydesdorff, Loet ^a   Strand, Øivind ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

^b NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY   (Norway)

Author keywords

innovation

Indexed keywords

KNOWLEDGE BASED ECONOMY; METROPOLITAN REGIONS; MUNICIPAL LEVELS; MUTUAL INFORMATIONS; OTHER STATISTICS; REGIONAL LEVELS; THREE DIMENSIONS; TRIPLE HELIXES;

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE; INNOVATION;

SOFTWARE ENGINEERING;

EID: 84882448837     PISSN: 15322882     EISSN: 15322890     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/asi.22895     Document Type: Article

References (86)

1. Abramson, N., (1963). Information theory and coding. New York: McGraw-Hill.
2. Arthur, W.B., (1989). Competing technologies, increasing returns, and lock-in by historical events. Economic Journal, 99, 116-131.
3. Ashby, W.R., (1964). Constraint analysis of many-dimensional relations. General Systems Yearbook, 9, 99-105.
4. Asheim, B.T., &, Conen, L., (2005). Knowledge base and regional innovation systems: Comparing Nordic clusters. Research Policy, 34, 1173-1190.
5. Asheim, B.T., &, Gertler, M.S., (2005). The geography of innovation: Regional innovation systems. In, J. Fagerberg, D. Mowery, R. Nelson, (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of innovation (pp. 291-317). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
6. Benner, M., &, Sandström, U., (2000). Institutionalizing the triple helix: research funding and norms in the academic system. Research Policy, 29 (2), 291-301.
7. Benneworth, P., Conen, L., Moodysson, J., &, Asheim, B., (2009). Exploring the multiple roles of Lund University in strengthening Scania's regional innovation system: Towards institutional learning? European Planning Studies 17 (11), 1645-1664.
8. Berggren, E., &, Lindholm Dahlstrand, Å., (2009). Creating an entrepreneurial region: Two waves of academic spin-offs from Halmstad University. European Planning Studies, 17 (8), 1171-1189.
9. Blau, P.M., &, Schoenherr, R.A., (1971). The structure of organisations. New York: Basic Books.
10. Brillouin, L., (1962). Science and information theory. New York: Academic Press.
11. Brink, J., Dahlander, L., &, McKelvey, M., (2007). Developing dapabilities: An analysis of biotechnology in two regions in Australia and Sweden. European Planning Studies, 15 (6), 728-751.
12. Bruckner, E., Ebeling, W., Montaño, M.A.J., &, Scharnhorst, A., (1994). Hyperselection and innovation described by a stochastic model of technological evolution. In, L. Leydesdorff, &, P. Van den Besselaar, (Eds.), Evolutionary economics and chaos theory: New directions in technology studies (pp. 79-90). London: Pinter.
13. Carlsson, B., (2006). Internationalization of innovation systems: A survey of the literature. Research Policy, 35 (1), 56-67.
14. Cohen, W.M., &, Levinthal, D.A., (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35 (1), 128-153.
15. Cooke, P., (2005). Rational drug design, the knowledge value chain and bioscience megacentres. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 29, 325-341.
16. David, P.A., (1985). Clio and the economics of QWERTY. American Economic Review, 75, 332-337.
17. David, P.A., &, Foray, D., (1994). Dynamics of competitive technology diffusion through local network structures: The case of EDI document standards,. In, L. Leydesdorff, &, P. Van den Besselaar, (Eds.), Evolutionary economics and chaos theory: New directions in technology studies (pp. 63-78). London: Pinter.
18. Etzkowitz, H., (1994). Academic-industry relations: A sociological paradigm for economic development. In, L. Leydesdorff, &, P. van den Besselaar, (Eds.), Evolutionary economics and chaos theory: New directions in technology studies (pp. 139-151). London: Pinter.
19. Etzkowitz, H., (2002). MIT and the rise of entrepreneurial science. London: Routledge.
20. Etzkowitz, H., (2005). Trippelhelix: den nya innovationsmodellen. Stockholm: SNS Press.
21. Etzkowitz, H., &, Leydesdorff, L., (1995). The triple helix-university-industry-government relations: A laboratory for knowledge-based economic development. EASST Review, 14, 14-19.
22. Etzkowitz, H., &, 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), 109-123.
23. Eurostat (2010), File: Gross domestic expenditure on R&D, 2000-2010 (% share of GDP).png, available at http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics- explained/index.php?title=File:Gross-domestic-expenditure-on-R%26D, -2000-2010-(%25-share-of-GDP).png&filetimestamp=20121016060906
24. Eurostat (2011), Eurostat regional yearbook 2011, European Union 2011; retrieved from http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY-OFFPUB/KS-HA-11-001/ EN/KS-HA-11-001-EN.PDF
25. Fagerberg, J., Mowery, D.C., &, Verspagen, B., (2009a). The evolution of Norway's national innovation system. Science and Public Policy, 36 (6), 431-444.
26. Fagerberg, J., Mowery, D.C., &, Verspagen, B., (2009b). Introduction: Innovation in Norway. In, J. Fagerberg, D.C. Mowery, &, B. Verspagen, (Eds.), Innovation, path dependency and policy. The Norwegian case. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
27. Freeman, C., (1987). Technology and economic performance: Lessons from Japan. London: Pinter.
28. Garner, W.R., &, McGill, W.J., (1956). The relation between information and variance analyses. Psychometrika, 21 (3), 219-228.
29. Hallencreutz, D., &, Lundequist, P., (2003). Spatial clustering and the potential for policy practice: Experiences from cluster-building processes in Sweden. European Planning Studies, 11 (5), 533-547.
30. Hallencreutz, D., &, Power, D., (2003). Cultural industry cluster building in Sweden. In, P. Oinis, &, A. Lagendijk, (Eds.), Proximity, distance and diversity: Issues on economic interaction and local development. London: Ashgate.
31. Han, T.S., (1980). Multiple mutual information and multiple interactions in frequency data. Information and Control, 46 (1), 26-45.
32. Hauge, A., Malmberg, A., &, Power, D., (2009). The space and place of Swedish fashion. European Planning Studies, 17 (4), 529-547.
33. Jakulin, A., (2005). Machine learning based on attribute interactions. PhD Thesis, Ljubljana: University of Ljubljana. Available at: http://stat.columbia.edu/~jakulin/Int/jakulin05phd.pdf
34. Jones-Evans, D., &, Klofsten, M., (1997). Universities and local economical development: The case of Linkoping. European Planning Studies, 5 (1), 77-94.
35. Kauffman, S.A., (2000). Investigations. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
36. Krippendorff, K., (2009a). W. Ross Ashby's information theory: A bit of history, some solutions to problems, and what we face today. International Journal of General Systems, 38 (2), 189-212.
37. Krippendorff, K., (2009b). Information of interactions in complex systems. International Journal of General Systems, 38 (6), 669-680.
38. Kwon, K.S., Park, H.W., So, M., &, Leydesdorff, L., (2012). Has globalization strengthened South Korea's national research system? National and international dynamics of the triple helix of scientific co-authorship relationships in South Korea. Scientometrics, 90 (1), 163-175.
39. Lawton-Smith, H., &, Leydesdorff, L., (manuscript in preparation). The Triple Helix in the context of global change: Dynamic and challenges.
40. Lehmbruch, G., &, Schmitter, P.C., (1982). Patterns of corporatist policy-making. London: Sage.
41. Lengyel, B., &, Leydesdorff, L., (2011). Regional innovation systems in Hungary: The failing synergy at the national level. Regional Studies, 45 (5), 677-693.
42. Leydesdorff, L., (1994). Epilogue. In, L. Leydesdorff, &, P. v. d. Besselaar, (Eds.), Evolutionary economics and chaos theory: New directions for technology studies (pp. 180-192). London and New York: Pinter.
43. Leydesdorff, L., (2003). The mutual information of university-industry- government relations: An indicator of the triple helix dynamics. Scientometrics, 58 (2), 445-467.
44. Leydesdorff, L., (2006). The knowledge-based economy: Modeled, measured, simulated. Boca Raton, FL: Universal Publishers.
45. Leydesdorff, L., (2009). Interaction information: Linear and nonlinear interpretations. International Journal of General Systems, 38 (6), 681-685.
46. Leydesdorff, L., (2010a). The knowledge-based economy and the triple helix model. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 44, 367-417.
47. Leydesdorff, L., (2010b). Redundancy in systems which entertain a model of themselves: Interaction information and the self-organization of anticipation. Entropy, 12 (1), 63-79.
48. Leydesdorff, L., (2011). "Structuration" by intellectual organization: The Configuration of knowledge in relations among scientific texts. Scientometrics, 88 (2), 499-520.
49. Leydesdorff, L., Dolfsma, W., &, Van der Panne, G., (2006). Measuring the knowledge base of an economy in terms of triple helix relations among "technology, organization, and territory". Research Policy, 35 (2), 181-199.
50. Leydesdorff, L., &, Fritsch, M., (2006). Measuring the knowledge base of regional innovation systems in Germany in terms of a triple helix dynamics. Research Policy, 35 (10), 1538-1553.
51. Leydesdorff, L., &, Sun, Y., (2009). National and international dimensions of the triple helix in Japan: University-industry-government versus international co-authorship relations. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60 (4), 778-788.
52. Leydesdorff, L., &, Van den Besselaar, P., (Eds.). (1994). Evolutionary economics and chaos theory: New directions in technology studies. London and New York: Pinter.
53. Leydesdorff, L., &, Van den Besselaar, P., (1998). Technological development and factor substition in a complex dynamic system. Journal of Social and Evolutionary Systems 21 (2), 173-192.
54. Leydesdorff, L., &, Deakin, M., (2011). The Triple-Helix Model of Smart Cities: A Neo-Evolutionary Perspective. Journal of Urban Technology, 18 (2), 53-63.
55. Li, T.-Y., &, Yorke, J.A., (1975). Period three implies chaos. American Mathematical Monthly, 82 (10), 985-992.
56. Lundequist, P., &, Power, D., (2002). Putting Porter into Practice? Practices of regional cluster building: Evidence from Sweden. European Planning Studies, 10 (6), 685-704.
57. Lundvall, B.-Å., (1988). Innovation as an interactive process: From user-producer interaction to the national system of innovation. In, G. Dosi, C. Freeman, R. Nelson, G. Silverberg, &, L. Soete, (Eds.), Technical change and economic theory (pp. 349-369). London: Pinter.
58. Lundvall, B.-Å., (Ed.). (1992). National systems of innovation. London: Pinter.
59. Martin, R., (2012). Measuring knowledge bases in Swedish regions. European Planning Studies, 20 (9), 1569-1582.
60. Martin, R., &, Moodysson, J., (2011). Innovation in symbolic industries: The geography and organization of knowledge sourcing. European Planning Studies, 19 (7), 1183-1203.
61. McGill, W.J., (1954). Multivariate information transmission. Psychometrika, 19 (2), 97-116.
62. Moodysson, J., Coenen, L., &, Asheim, B., (2008) Explaining spatial patterns of innovation: Analytical and synthetic modes of knowledge creation in the Medicon Valley life-science cluster. Environment and Planning A, 40 (5), 1040-1056
63. Nelson, R.R., (Ed.). (1993). National innovation systems: A comparative analysis. New York: Oxford University Press.
64. Nelson, R.R., &, Winter, S.G., (1977). In search of useful theory of innovation. Research Policy, 6, 35-76.
65. Nelson, R.R., &, Winter, S.G., (1982). An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
66. OECD (2012). Main science and technology indicators 2012/1. Paris: OECD.
67. Park, H.W., Hong, H.D., &, Leydesdorff, L., (2005). A comparison of the knowledge-based innovation systems in the economies of South Korea and the Netherlands using triple helix indicators. Scientometrics, 65 (1), 3-27.
68. Park, H.W., &, Leydesdorff, L., (2010). Longitudinal trends in networks of university-industry-government relations in South Korea: The role of programmatic incentives. Research Policy, 39 (5), 640-649.
69. Pugh, D.S., Hickson, D.J., &, Hinings, C.R., (1969a). An empirical taxonomy of structures of work organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 115-126.
70. Pugh, D.S., Hickson, D.J., Hinings, C.R., &, Turner, C., (1969b). The context of organization structures. Administrative Science Quarterly, 91-114.
71. Rosiello, A., (2007). The geography of knowledge transfer and innovation in biotechnology: The cases of Scotland, Sweden and Denmark. European Planning Studies, 15 (6), 787-815.
72. Sahal, D., (1981). Patterns of Technological Innovation. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
73. Schumpeter, J., (1939, 1964). Business Cycles: A Theoretical, Historical and Statistical Analysis of Capitalist Proces s. New York: McGraw-Hill.
74. Shannon, C.E., (1948). A mathematical theory of communication. Bell System Technical Journal, 27, 379-423 and 623-656.
75. Statistics Sweden, (2011a). Search for industry code (SNI 2007); available at http://www.sni2007.scb.se/snisokeng.asp
76. Statistics Sweden, (2011b). Företag och anställda (FDB) efter näringsgren SNI2007 och storleksklass. År 2008-2012; available at http://www.scb.se/Pages/SSD/SSD-SelectVariables.aspx?id=340487&rxid= 1e2fd91a-0352-4e56-8ede-1d74139474aa&px-tableid=ssd-extern%3aFDBR07
77. Statistics Sweden, (2011c). Research and development in Sweden-an overview, international comparisons etc.; available at http://www.scb.se/Pages/ TableAndChart-260593.aspx
78. Strand, O., &, Leydesdorff, L., (in press). Where is synergy in the Norwegian innovation system indicated? Triple helix relations among technology, organization, and geography. Technological Forecasting and Social Change.
79. Sun, Y., Negishi, M., &, Nishizawa, M., (2007). Coauthorship linkages between universities and industry in Japan. Research Evaluation, 16 (4), 299-309.
80. Theil, H., (1972). Statistical decomposition analysis. Amsterdam and London: North-Holland.
81. Tsujishita, T., (1995). On triple mutual information. Advances in Applied Mathematics 16 (3) 269-274.
82. Ulanowicz, R.E., (1986). Growth and development: Ecosystems phenomenology. San Jose: toExcel.
83. Utterback, J., &, Suarez, F.F., (1993). Innovations, competition, and industry structure. Research Policy, 22 (1), 1-22.
84. Vernon, R., (1979). The product cycle hypothesis in a new international environment. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 41 (4), 255-267.
85. Ye, F.Y., Yu, S.S., &, Leydesdorff, L., (in press). The Triple Helix of University-Industry-Government Relations at the Country Level, and Its Dynamic Evolution under the Pressures of Globalization. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology.
86. Yeung, R.W., (2008). Information theory and network coding. New York: Springer.