State-Led Innovation Partnerships
Asian Developmental States within the Triple Helix Paradigm
In: European Journal of East Asian StudiesSearch for other papers by Zhengqi Pan in
Current site
Google Scholar
Why do Asian developmental states form partnerships with businesses? How and under what conditions do state–business partnerships evolve when a developmental state moves up the global value chain (GVC)? This paper argues that as Asian developmental states move up the GVC, they will engage in more intensive partnerships with businesses to spur innovation. Moreover, using the triple helix model of innovation in the business literature, Asian states high on the value chain will move away from a simple bilateral state–business relation to a trilateral state–business–university relation, leveraging talent in universities to drive innovation. Based on comparative case analysis of six Asian economies, the advanced economies not only show strong state–business relations, but also have tight triadic state–business–university closures. On the other hand, emerging Asian economies exhibit premature triple helix configurations. By contrasting a variety of cases, this paper provides insights to the heterogeneity of state-led innovation partnerships in Asia.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
-
4
Alice Amsden, Asia’s Next Giant: South Korea and Late Industrialization (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989).
-
7
For more information, see Wong, Betting on Biotech, p. 22, and Tun-Jen Cheng, ‘Political regimes and development strategies: South Korea and Taiwan’, in Gary Gereffi and Donald Wyman (eds), Manufacturing Miracles: Pathsto Industrialization in Latin America and East Asia (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1990).
-
14
Ziya Onis, ‘Review article: The logic of the developmental state’, Comparative Politics, Vol. 24, No. 1 (1991), pp. 109–126, p. 116.
-
18
H. Etzkowitz, The Triple Helix: University–Industry–Government Innovation in Action (London: Routledge, 2008).
-
26
Steven Ward, Neoliberalism and the Global Restructuring of Knowledge and Education (New York: Routledge, 2012).
-
57
D. Schiller, ‘The potential to upgrade the Thai innovation system by university–industry linkages’, Asian Journal of Technology Innovation, Vol. 14, No. 2 (2006), pp. 67–92; P. Intarakumnerd, ‘Country profile of Thailand for OECD Review of Innovation in South-East Asia’, College of Innovation, Thammasat University (2010).
-
64
Suteera Chanthes, ‘Increasing faculty research productivity via a triple-helix modeled university outreach project: empirical evidence from Thailand’, Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 52 (2012), pp. 253–258.
-
78
V.G.R. Chandran, A.G. Farha and P. Veera, ‘The commercialization of research results among researchers in public universities and research institutions’, Asia Profile, Vol. 36, No. 3 (2008), pp. 235–250.
-
85
A.A. Razak and M. Saad, ‘The role of universities in the evolution of the triple helix culture of innovation network: the case of Malaysia’, International Journal of Technology Management and Sustainable Development, Vol. 6, No. 3 (2007), pp. 211–225.
-
90
Chen et al., ‘Facilitators of national innovation policy’, p. 405.
-
91
Chen et al., ‘Facilitators of national innovation policy’, p. 405.
-
92
C.W. Hsu and H.C. Chiang, ‘The government strategy for the upgrading of industrial technology in Taiwan’, Technovation, Vol. 21, No. 2 (2001), pp. 123–132; Chen et al., ‘Facilitators of national innovation policy’.
-
95
P.L. Chang and H.Y. Shih, ‘The innovation systems of Taiwan and China: a comparative analysis’, Technovation, Vol. 24 (2004), pp. 529–539.
-
96
Chen et al., ‘Facilitators of national innovation policy’, p. 409.
-
101
Paul Morris, ‘Asia’s four little tigers: a comparison of the role of education in their development’, Comparative Education, Vol. 32, No. 1 (1996), pp. 95–109.
-
102
Morris, ‘Asia’s four little tigers’; also see D. Ashton, F. Green, J. Sung and D. James, ‘The evolution of education and training strategies in Singapore, Taiwan and South Korea: a development model of skill formation’, Journal of Education and Work, Vol. 15, No. 1 (2002), pp. 5–30.
-
104
William Lo, University Rankings: Implications for Higher Education in Taiwan (New York: Springer, 2014).
-
105
C. Wong, M. Hu and J. Shiu, ‘Collaboration between public research institutes and universities: a study of Industrial Technology Research Institute, Taiwan’, Science, Technology & Society, Vol. 20, No. 2 (2015), pp. 161–181.
-
121
D.W. Sohn and M. Kenney, ‘Universities, clusters, and innovation systems: the case of Seoul, Korea’, World Development, Vol. 35, No. 6 (2007), pp. 991–1004.
-
123
Sungchul Chung, ‘Innovation, competitiveness, and growth: Korean experiences’, in Annual WorldBank Conference on Development Economics 2010, Global (Washington, DC: The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank, 2011), p. 346.
-
124
MoST, Major Statistics on Science and Technology in Korea (Seoul: The Ministry of Science and Technology of Korea (MoST), 2005).
-
125
Sohn and Kenney, ‘Universities, clusters, and innovation systems’, p. 995.
-
139
P.K. Wong, ‘Commercializing biomedical science in a rapidly changing “triple-helix” nexus: the experience of the National University of Singapore’, International Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol. 32 (2007), pp. 367–395.
-
141
P.K. Wong, Y.P. Ho and A. Singh, ‘Towards an entrepreneurial university model to support knowledge-based economic development’, World Development, Vol. 35, No. 6 (2007), pp. 941–958.
-
144
Wong et al., ‘Towards an entrepreneurial university model’; H. Etzkowitz, A. Webster, C. Gebhardt and B.R.C. Terra, ‘The future of the university and the university of the future: evolution of ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm’, Research Policy, Vol. 29 (2000), pp. 313–330.
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 611 | 197 | 29 |
| Full Text Views | 240 | 1 | 0 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 79 | 1 | 0 |
State-Led Innovation Partnerships
Asian Developmental States within the Triple Helix Paradigm
In: European Journal of East Asian StudiesSearch for other papers by Zhengqi Pan in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Why do Asian developmental states form partnerships with businesses? How and under what conditions do state–business partnerships evolve when a developmental state moves up the global value chain (GVC)? This paper argues that as Asian developmental states move up the GVC, they will engage in more intensive partnerships with businesses to spur innovation. Moreover, using the triple helix model of innovation in the business literature, Asian states high on the value chain will move away from a simple bilateral state–business relation to a trilateral state–business–university relation, leveraging talent in universities to drive innovation. Based on comparative case analysis of six Asian economies, the advanced economies not only show strong state–business relations, but also have tight triadic state–business–university closures. On the other hand, emerging Asian economies exhibit premature triple helix configurations. By contrasting a variety of cases, this paper provides insights to the heterogeneity of state-led innovation partnerships in Asia.
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 611 | 197 | 29 |
| Full Text Views | 240 | 1 | 0 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 79 | 1 | 0 |
