A system of university–industry–government (UIG) collaboration in a region can take the form of a Regional Triple Helix (RTH) model. RTH can be regarded as the collective relations of universities, companies and governments. The study was conducted by postal survey, targeting the collaborative activities of companies and examining the case of three selected regions in Japan. When the Triple Helix approach is adopted at regional level, territoriality becomes a critical issue. The more companies that accumulate experience of UIG collaboration, the greater is their ability to exploit external knowledge. Consequently, the RTH structure may become increasingly vulnerable as it evolves. Even though the three regions studied displayed similar local infrastructures, their RTHs differed. To understand the features of RTH clearly, it is argued that regional conditions must be investigated in more detail and thus that RTH, as a regional policy, must be contextualized.
AlmeidaP.KogutB. (1997), ‘The exploration of technological diversity and the geographic localization of innovation’, Small Business Economics, Vol 9, No 1, pp 21–31.
2.
AnselinL.VargaA.AcsZ. (1997), ‘Local geographic spill-overs between university research and high technology innovations’, Journal of Urban Economics, Vol 42, No 3, pp 422–448.
3.
AntonelliC.QuéréM. (2002), ‘The governance of interactive learning within innovation systems’, Urban Studies, Vol 39, No 5–6, pp 1051–1063.
4.
AmaralM.FerreriaA.TeodoroP. (2011), ‘Building and entrepreneurial university in Brazil: The role and potential of university–industry linkages in promoting regional economic development’, Industry and Higher Education, Vol 25, No 5, pp 383–395.
5.
AsheimB.T.CoenenL. (2006), ‘Contextualising regional innovation systems in a globalising learning economy: On knowledge bases and institutional frameworks’, Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol 31, No 1, pp 163–173.
6.
AudretschD.B.FeldmanM.P. (1996), ‘R&D spill-overs and the geography of innovation and production’, The American Economic Review, Vol 86, No 3, pp 630–640.
7.
BatheltH.GlücklerJ. (2003), ‘Toward a relational economic geography’, Journal of Economic Geography, Vol 3, No 2, pp 117–144.
8.
BoggsJ.S.RantisiN.M. (2003), ‘The “relational turn” in economic geography’, Journal of Economic Geography, Vol 3, No 2, pp 109–116.
9.
BonaccorsiA.PiccalugaA. (1994), ‘A theoretical framework for the evaluation of university–industry relationships’, R&D Management, Vol 24, No 3, pp 229–247.
10.
BoschmaR. (2005), ‘Proximity and innovation: A critical assessment’, Regional Studies, Vol 39, No 1, pp 61–74.
11.
BradzykH.J.CookesP.N.HeidenreichM., eds (1998) Regional Innovation Systems: The Role of Governances in a Globalized World. Routledge: London.
CrossanM.M.LaneH.W.WhiteR.E. (1999), ‘An organisational learning framework: From intuition to institution’, Academy of Management Review, Vol 24, No 3, pp 522–537.
16.
DankbarB. (2004), ‘Embeddedness, context, proximity and control’, European Planning Studies, Vol 12, No 5, pp 691–701.
17.
EtzkowitzH. (2008) The Triple Helix, Routledge, New York.
18.
EtzkowitzH.LeydesdorffL., eds (1997), Universities and the Global Knowledge Economy, Pinter, London.
19.
EtzkowitzH.LeydesdorffL. (2000), ‘The dynamics of innovation: From national systems and “Mode 2” to a Triple Helix of university–industry–government relations’, Research Policy, Vol 29, No 2, pp 109–123.
20.
EtzkowitzH.DzisahJ.RangaM.ZhouC. (2007) ‘The Triple Helix model of innovation: The university–industry–government interaction’, Asia Pacific Tech Monitor, Vol 24, No 1, pp 14–23.
FeldmanM.P. (2000), ‘Where science comes to life: University biosciences, commercial spin-offs and regional economic development’, Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis, Research and Practice, Vol 2, No 3, pp 345–361.
23.
FukugawaN. (2008), ‘Evaluating the strategy of local public technology centers in regional innovation systems: Evidence from Japan’, Science and Public Policy, Vol 35, No 3, pp 159–170.
24.
GeddesM. (2008), ‘Inter-organizational relationships in local and regional development partnership’, in CropperS.EbersM.HuxhamC.RingR.S., eds, The Oxford Handbook of Inter-Organizational Relations, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 203–230.
25.
GranovetterM. (1992), ‘Economic institutions as social construction: A framework for analysis’, Acta Sociologica, Vol 35, No 1, pp 3–11.
26.
GunasekaraC. (2006), ‘The generative and developmental roles of universities in regional innovation systems’, Science and Public Policy, Vol 33, No 2, pp 137–150.
27.
HugginsR.JohnstonA.ThompsonP. (2012), ‘Network capital, social capital and knowledge flow: How the nature of inter-organizational networks impacts on innovation’, Industry and Innovation, Vol 19, No 3, pp 203–232.
28.
HugginsR.KitagawaF. (2012), ‘Regional policy and university knowledge transfer: Perspectives from development regions in the UK’, Regional Studies, Vol 46, No 10, pp 817–832.
29.
IsaksenA.KarlsenJ. (2012), ‘What is regional in regional clusters? The case of the globally oriented oil and gas cluster in Agder, Norway’, Industry and Innovation, Vol 19, No 3, pp 249–263.
30.
JaffleA.TrajtenbergM.HendersonR. (1993), ‘Geographic location of knowledge spill-overs as evidenced by patent citations’, Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol 108, No 3, pp 577–598.
31.
KitagawaF. (2007), ‘The regionalization of science and innovation governance in Japan?’, Regional Studies, Vol 41, No 8, pp 1099–1114.
32.
KnobenJ. (2009), ‘Localized inter-organizational linkages, agglomeration effects, and the innovative performance of firms’, Annals of Regional Science, Vol 43, No 3, pp 757–779.
33.
LaursenK.ReichsteinT.SalterA. (2011), ‘Exploring the effect of geographical proximity and university quality on university–industry collaboration in the United Kingdom’, Regional Studies, Vol 45, No 4, pp 507–523.
34.
SmithLawton H.Bagchi-SenS. (2006), ‘University–industry interactions: The case of the UK biotech industry’, Industry and Innovation, Vol 13, No 4, pp 371–392.
35.
SmithLawton H.Bagchi-SenS. (2012), ‘The research university, entrepreneurship and regional development: Research propositions and current evidence’, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, Vol 24, No 5–6, pp 383–404.
36.
LazersonM.H.LorenzoniG. (2008), ‘Transforming industrial districts: How leading firms are escaping the manufacturing cage’, in CropperS.EbersM.HuxhamC.RingP.S., eds, The Oxford Handbook of Inter-Organizational Relations, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 31–60.
37.
LorenzenM.MaurerI.StaberU. (2012), ‘Space and inter-organizational relations’, Industry and Innovation, Vol 19, No 3, pp 181–186.
38.
LynskeyM.J. (2009), ‘Knowledge spill-overs from public research institutions to the private sector: Evidence from Japanese new technology-based firms’, International Journal of Technology Transfer and Commercialisation, Vol 8, No 2/3, pp 159–184.
39.
LynskeyM.J. (2010), ‘Capitalizing on knowledge from public research institutions: Indications from new technology-based firms in Japan’, Industry and Higher Education, Vol 24, No 1, pp 29–45.
40.
LundvallB., ed (1992), National Systems of Innovation, Pinter, London.
41.
MaskellP.MalmbergA., (1999), ‘Localised learning and industrial competitiveness’, Cambridge Journal of Economics, Vol 23, No 2, pp 167–185.
MorganK. (1997), ‘The learning region: Institutions, innovation and regional renewal’, Regional Studies, Vol 31, No 5, pp 491–503.
44.
MoulaertF.SekiaF. (2003) Territorial innovation models: A critical survey’, Regional Studies, Vol 37, No 3, pp 289–302.
45.
NISTEP (National Institute of Science and Technology Policy) (2011), ‘Academic start-ups survey 2010: A questionnaire survey of universities and research institutions’, NISTEP Research Material, Number 200, NISTEP, Tokyo, (in Japanese).
46.
NISTEP (National Institute of Science and Technology Policy) (2013aa), ‘Survey on the collaboration between local companies and national University in Yamagata prefecture’, NISTEP Discussion Paper, Number 90, NISTEP, Tokyo (in Japanese).
47.
NISTEP (National Institute of Science and Technology Policy) (2013bb), ‘Survey on the collaboration between local companies and national university in Gunma Prefecture’, NISTEP Discussion Paper, Number 91, NISTEP, Tokyo (in Japanese).
48.
NISTEP (National Institute of Science and Technology Policy) (2013cc), Survey on the collaboration between local companies and the National University in Nagano Prefecture’, NISTEP Discussion Paper, No 92, NISTEP, Tokyo (in Japanese).
49.
NozawaK. (2014) ‘Unzip the Triple Helix: Application of regional Triple Helix in Japan’, Hélice, Vol 2, No 4 and Vol 3, No 1, pp 29–33.
50.
Owen-SmithJ.PowellW.W. (2004), ‘Knowledge networks as channels and conduits: The effects of spill-overs in the Boston biotechnology community’, Organization Science, Vol 15, No 1, pp 5–21.
51.
PorterM.E. (1998), On Competition, Harvard Business School Publishing, Boston, MA.
52.
Rodríguez-PoseA. (2013), ‘Does institution matter for regional development?’, Regional Studies, Vol 47, No 7, pp 1034–1047.
53.
SaxenianA (1994), Regional Advantage: Culture and Competition in Silicon Valley and Route 128, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
54.
ScottAJ (1988), New Industrial Spaces: Flexible production Organization and Regional Development in North America and Western Europe, Pion, London.
55.
TödtlingF.TripplM, (2005), ‘One size fits all? Towards a differentiated regional innovation policy approach’, Research Policy, Vol 34, No 8, pp 1203–1219.
WarrenR. (1967), The interorganizational field as a focus for investigation’, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol 12, No 3, pp 396–419.
58.
ZuckerL.DarbyM.BrewerM.B. (1998), ‘Intellectual human capital and the birth of US biotechnology enterprise’, American Economic Review, Vol 88, No 1, pp 290–306.
