Research Policy 29Ž. 2000 109±123 www.elsevier.nlrlocatereconbase The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and ``Mode 2'' to a Triple Helix of university±industry±government relations Henry Etzkowitz a,), Loet Leydesdorff b,1 a Science Policy Institute, Social Science DiÕision, State UniÕersity of New York at Purchase, 735 Anderson Hill Road, Purchase, NY 10577-1400, USA b Department of Science and Technology Dynamics, Nieuwe Achtergracht 166, 1018 WV Amsterdam, Netherlands Abstract The Triple Helix of university±industry±government relations is compared with alternative models for explaining the current research system in its social contexts. Communications and negotiations between institutional partners generate an overlay that increasingly reorganizes the underlying arrangements. The institutional layer can be considered as the retention mechanism of a developing system. For example, the national organization of the system of innovation has historically been important in determining competition. Reorganizations across industrial sectors and nation states, however, are induced by new technologiesŽ. biotechnology, ICT . The consequent transformations can be analyzed in terms of Ž. neo- evolutionary mechanisms. University research may function increasingly as a locus in the ``laboratory'' of such knowledge-intensive network transitions. q 2000 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved. Keywords: Mode 2; Triple helix; University±industry±government relations; Innovation 1. Introduction: From the endless frontier to an and expectations that reshape the institutional ar- endless transition rangements among universities, industries, and gov- ernmental agencies. The Triple Helix thesis states that the university As the role of the military has decreased and can play an enhanced role in innovation in increas- academia has risen in the institutional structures of ingly knowledge-based societies. The underlying contemporary societies, the network of relationships model is analytically different from the national sys- among academia, industry, and government have tems of innovationŽ. NSI approach Ž Lundvall, 1988, also been transformed, displacing the Cold War 1992; Nelson, 1993. , which considers the firm as ``Power Elite'' trilateral mode of MillsŽ. 1958 with having the leading role in innovation, and from the an overlay of reflexive communications that increas- ``Triangle'' model of Sabato Ž. 1975 , in which the ingly reshape the infrastructureŽ Etzkowitz and Ley- state is privilegedŽ. cf. Sabato and Mackenzi, 1982 . desdorff, 1997. Not surprisingly, the effects of these We focus on the network overlay of communications transformations are the subject of an international debate over the appropriate role of the university in ) Corresponding author. Tel.: q1-914-251-6600; fax: q1-914- technology and knowledge transfer. For example, the 251-6603; e-mail: [email protected] Swedish Research 2000 Report recommended the 1 E-mail: [email protected]. withdrawal of the universities from the envisaged 0048-7333r00r$ - see front matter q 2000 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved. PII: S0048-7333Ž. 99 00055-4 110 H. Etzkowitz, L. LeydesdorffrResearch Policy 29() 2000 109±123 ``third mission'' of direct contributions to industry the Small Business Technology Transfer Program Ž.see Benner and Sandstrom,È this issue . Instead, the Ž.STTR , the Advanced Technology Program Ž. ATP , university should return to research and teaching the IndustryrUniversity Cooperative Research Cen- tasks, as traditionally conceptualized. However, it tersŽ. IUCRC and Engineering Research Centers can be expected that proponents of the third mission Ž.ERC of the National Science Foundation, etc. from the new universities and regional colleges, Ž.Etzkowitz et al., 2000 . In Sweden, the Knowledge which have based their research programmes on its Competency Foundation and the Technology Bridge premises, will continue to make their case. Science Foundation were established as public venture capi- and technology have become important to regional tal source, utilizing the Wage Earners Fund, origi- developmentsŽ. e.g., Braczyk et al., 1998 . Both R&D nally intended to buy stock in established firms on and higher education can be analyzed also in terms behalf of the public. The beginnings of a Swedish of marketsŽ. Dasgupta and David, 1994 . movement to involve academia more closely in this The issues in the Swedish debate are echoed in direction has occasioned a debate similar to the one the critique of academic technology transfer in the that took place in the US in the early 1980s. At that USA by several economistsŽ e.g., Rosenberg and time, Harvard University sought to establish a firm Nelson, 1994. The argument is that academic tech- jointly with one of its professors, based on his nology-transfer mechanisms may create unnecessary research results. transaction costs by encapsulating knowledge in Can academia encompass a third mission of eco- patents that might otherwise flow freely to industry. nomic development in addition to research and But would the knowledge be efficiently transferred teaching? How can each of these various tasks con- to industry without the series of mechanisms for tribute to the mission of the university? The late 19th identifying and enhancing the applicability of re- century witnessed an academic revolution in which search findings? How are development processes to research was introduced into the university mission be carried further, through special grants for this and made more or less compatible with teaching, at purpose or in new firms formed on campus and in least at the graduate level. Many universities in the university incubator facilities? USA and worldwide are still undergoing this trans- The institutional innovations aim to promote closer formation of purpose. The increased salience of relations between faculties and firms. The ``endless knowledge and research to economic development frontier'' of basic research funded as an end in itself, has opened up a third mission: the role of the with only long-term practical results expected, is university in economic development. A ``second being replaced by an ``endless transition`` model in academic revolution'' seems under way since World which basic research is linked to utilization through War II, but more visibly since the end of the Cold a series of intermediate processesŽ. Callon, 1998 , WarŽ. Etzkowitz, forthcoming . often stimulated by government. In the USA in the 1970s, in various Western The linear model either expressed in terms of European countries during the 1980s, and in Sweden ``market pull'' or ``technology push'' was insuffi- at present, this transition has led to a reevaluation of cient to induce transfer of knowledge and technol- the mission and role of the university in society. ogy. Publication and patenting assume different sys- Similar controversies have taken place in Latin tems of reference both from each other and with America, Asia, and elsewhere in Europe. The Triple reference to the transformation of knowledge and Helix series of conferencesŽ Amsterdam, 1996; Pur- technology into marketable products. The rules and chase, New York, 1998; and Rio de Janeiro, 2000. regulations had to be reshaped and an interface have provided a venue for the discussion of theoreti- strategy invented in order to integrate market pull cal and empirical issues by academics and policy and technology push through new organizational analystsŽ. Leydesdorff and Etzkowitz, 1996, 1998 . mechanismsŽ e.g., OECD, 1980; Rothwell and Different possible resolutions of the relations among Zegveld, 1981. the institutional spheres of university, industry, and In the USA, these programs include the Small government can help to generate alternative strate- Business Innovation Research programŽ. SBIR and gies for economic growth and social transformation. H. Etzkowitz, L. LeydesdorffrResearch Policy 29() 2000 109±123 111 2. Triple Helix configurations The evolution of innovation systems, and the current conflict over which path should be taken in university±industry relations, are reflected in the varying institutional arrangements of university±in- dustry±government relations. First, one can distin- guish a specific historical situation which one may wish to label Triple Helix I. In this configuration the nation state encompasses academia and industry and directs the relations between themŽ. Fig. 1 . The strong version of this model could be found in the former Soviet Union and in Eastern European coun- tries under ``existing socialism''. Weaker versions were formulated in the policies of many Latin Amer- ican countries and to some extent in European coun- tries such as Norway. Fig. 2. A ``laissez-faire'' model of university±industry±govern- A second policy modelŽ. Fig. 2 consists of sepa- ment relations. rate institutional spheres with strong borders dividing them and highly circumscribed relations among the institutional spheres, with each taking the role of the spheres, exemplified in Sweden by the noted Re- other and with hybrid organizations emerging at the search 2000 Report and in the US in opposition to interfacesŽ. Fig. 3 . the various reports of the Government±University± The differences between the latter two versions of Ž. Industry Research Roundtable GUIRR of the Na- the Triple Helix arrangements currently generate Ž tional Research Council MacLane, 1996; cf. GUIRR, normative interest. Triple Helix I is largely viewed 1998. Finally, Triple Helix III is generating a knowledge