Search

This article looks at the evolution of university-industry collaboration (UIC) policies in Japan since the mid-1990s to the present and analyses their role in shaping the country's innovation ecosystem. UIC policies are examined within a multidimensional innovation policy framework that encompasses five Science and Technology Basic Plans and a vast array of support measures for venture business, intellectual property, innovation networks and business promotion, all reflecting an extensive top-down government intervention with ambitious goals. A dense network of UIC centres has been established throughout the country, mostly in universities, and these centres are tightly embedded in regional innovation structures. In spite of the sustained government policy intervention, Japan lags behind the United States and Europe in a ranking of the top 20 global ecosystems and has some of the world's lowest entrepreneurial indicators, as defined by the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor. The authors argue that a likely cause for the lag is Japan's slow and still incomplete transition from a "traditional" innovation system to a modern innovation ecosystem with a strong entrepreneurial spirit and culture, effective intermediaries between university and industry, high absorptive capacity in companies using academic research, cross-boundary mobility of workforce and ideas and global outreach. The experience of Osaka University and Hokkaido University, two UIC leaders in Japan and internationally, supports this hypothesis.

University technology transfer has been receiving significant government funding since 2012. Results of this major investment are now expected by the Turkish government and society, not only in terms of better teaching and research performance, but also of new jobs, new products and services, enhanced regional development and contribution to economic growth. This article examines the technology transfer capacity of Turkish universities and provides several policy recommendations for further improvement. The analysis uses the dataset of a recent project funded by the European Patent Office and managed by Ege University Science and Technology Centre (EU.EBILTEM-TTO) and the Turkish Patent Institute. This was the first large-scale national assessment of IPR activities in Turkish universities. The findings reveal an early-stage university technology transfer capacity, facing many challenges caused by low technology- and market-oriented research capacity, institutional obstacles to patenting, licensing and spin-offs, low IPR awareness and spread of IPR policies, and the current IPR regime. University-industry cooperation activities, such as contract research, joint projects and publications, consultancy, etc. that have been present for three decades in Turkey continue to be the major paradigm and tend to be considered as a separate strand from technology transfer activities, such as patenting, licensing and spin-off formation that are less developed. Systemic policy intervention expanded to the broader national innovation ecosystem to improve technology absorption capacity and interest in technology-driven innovation, together with a combined top-down/bottom-up transformative action that can accelerate the change of deeply-rooted old perceptions and practice.

This paper introduces the concept of Triple Helix systems as an analytical construct that synthesizes the key features of university--industry--government (Triple Helix) interactions into an "innovation system" format, defined according to systems theory as a set of components, relationships and functions. Among the components of Triple Helix systems, a distinction is made between (a) R&D and non-R&D innovators; (b) "single-sphere" and "multi-sphere" (hybrid) institutions; and (c) individual and institutional innovators. The relationships between components are synthesized into five main types: technology transfer; collaboration and conflict moderation; collaborative leadership; substitution; and networking. The overall function of Triple Helix systems--knowledge and innovation generation, diffusion and use--is realized through a set of activities in the knowledge, innovation and consensus spaces. This perspective provides an explicit framework for the systemic interaction between Triple Helix actors that was previously lacking, and a more fine-grained view of the circulation of knowledge flows and resources within and among the spaces, helping to identify existing blockages or gaps. From a Triple Helix systems perspective, the articulation and the non-linear interactions between the spaces can generate new combinations of knowledge and resources that can advance innovation theory and practice, especially at the regional level. (Contains 6 figures, 4 boxes, and 17 notes.)

Iran has implemented financial and legal support policies for new technology-based firms (NTBFs) since 2009. An assessment of these policies shows an unintended effect of perpetuating core–periphery development gaps, but also a limited understanding of the conditions for NTBF creation. This paper proposes a policy model for NTBF creation in less developed regions that adopts the broader perspective of the entrepreneurial discovery process associated with the Smart Specialisation concept. The policy model considers the entrepreneurs' level, the firms' level and the regional entrepreneurial environment to ensure adequate representation of all actors in the process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We argue that the current economic crisis is a fault line in the transition from an industrial to a knowledge-based society and is thus potentially subject to a different set of dynamics than previous crises, like the Great Depression of the 1930s, which occurred within an existing mode of production. A qualitatively different response is needed to address the current downturn: one that puts in place new drivers for long-term knowledge-based economic renewal and growth. Keynesian methods, are no longer sufficient. Large-scale targeted government intervention in the innovation system and support to knowledge-based firms, technologies, products and services are required to compensate for declining innovation support from the private sector and boost economic growth. 'Picking winners' approaches that proved successful during World War II and afterwards need to be revisited, to hasten recovery from the current economic crisis and manage the transition to a knowledge-based regime. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]