IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/respol/v35y2006i2p181-199.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Measuring the knowledge base of an economy in terms of triple-helix relations among 'technology, organization, and territory'

Author

Listed:
  • Leydesdorff, Loet
  • Dolfsma, Wilfred
  • Van der Panne, Gerben

Abstract

The interrelationships among technology, organization, and territory in an economic system have been considered as a 'holy trinity' from the perspective of regional development studies. The mutual information in three dimensions was proposed as an indicator of the surplus value (entropy) in triple-helix configurations. When this probabilistic entropy is negative, the configuration reduces the uncertainty that prevails at the systems level. Data about more than a million Dutch companies were used for testing this indicator. This data contain postal codes (geography), sector codes (proxy of technology), and firm sizes in terms of number of employees (proxy of organization). The knowledge base is mapped at three levels: national (NUTS-1), provincial (NUTS-2), and regional (NUTS-3). The levels can be cross-tabled with the knowledge-intensive sectors and services. The results suggest that medium-tech sectors contribute to the knowledge base of an economy more than high-tech ones. Knowledge-intensive services have an uncoupling effect, but less so at the high-tech end of these services.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Leydesdorff, Loet & Dolfsma, Wilfred & Van der Panne, Gerben, 2006. "Measuring the knowledge base of an economy in terms of triple-helix relations among 'technology, organization, and territory'," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 181-199, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:35:y:2006:i:2:p:181-199
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048-7333(05)00180-0
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gerben Van Der Panne & Wilfred Dolfsma, 2003. "The odd role of proximity in knowledge relations: high‐tech in the Netherlands," Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, Royal Dutch Geographical Society KNAG, vol. 94(4), pages 453-462, September.
    2. William McGill, 1954. "Multivariate information transmission," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 19(2), pages 97-116, June.
    3. Marina Doroshenko & Ian Miles & Dmitri Vinogradov, 2013. "Knowledge Intensive Business Services As Generators Of Innovations," HSE Working papers WP BRP 12/STI/2013, National Research University Higher School of Economics.
    4. Windrum, Paul & Tomlinson, Mark, 1999. "Knowledge-intensive services and international competitiveness: a four country comparison," Research Memorandum 023, Maastricht University, Maastricht Economic Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    5. Loet Leydesdorff, 2003. "The mutual information of university-industry-government relations: An indicator of the Triple Helix dynamics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 58(2), pages 445-467, October.
    6. Ove Granstrand, 1999. "The Economics and Management of Intellectual Property," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 1651.
    7. Dosi, Giovanni, 1993. "Technological paradigms and technological trajectories : A suggested interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 102-103, April.
    8. Cohen, Wesley M & Levinthal, Daniel A, 1989. "Innovation and Learning: The Two Faces of R&D," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 99(397), pages 569-596, September.
    9. Michael Fritsch, 2004. "Cooperation and the efficiency of regional R&D activities," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 28(6), pages 829-846, November.
    10. Loet Leydesdorff & Henry Etzkowitz, 2003. "Can ‘the public’ be considered as a fourth helix in university-industry-government relations? Report on the Fourth Triple Helix Conference, 2002," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 30(1), pages 55-61, February.
    11. Partha, Dasgupta & David, Paul A., 1994. "Toward a new economics of science," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 23(5), pages 487-521, September.
    12. Cowan, Robin & David, Paul A & Foray, Dominique, 2000. "The Explicit Economics of Knowledge Codification and Tacitness," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, vol. 9(2), pages 211-253, June.
    13. Etzkowitz, Henry & Leydesdorff, Loet, 2000. "The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and "Mode 2" to a Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 109-123, February.
    14. Etzkowitz, Henry & Webster, Andrew & Gebhardt, Christiane & Terra, Branca Regina Cantisano, 2000. "The future of the university and the university of the future: evolution of ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 313-330, February.
    15. Elias L. Khalil, 2004. "The Three Laws of Thermodynamics and the Theory of Production," Journal of Economic Issues, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 38(1), pages 201-226, March.
    16. Carlsson, B & Stankiewicz, R, 1991. "On the Nature, Function and Composition of Technological Systems," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 1(2), pages 93-118, April.
    17. Utterback, James M. & Suarez, Fernando F., 1993. "Innovation, competition, and industry structure," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 1-21, February.
    18. Pavitt, Keith, 1984. "Sectoral patterns of technical change: Towards a taxonomy and a theory," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 13(6), pages 343-373, December.
    19. Nicholas S. Vonortas, 2000. "Multimarket contact and inter-firm cooperation in R&D," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 10(1), pages 243-271.
    20. Dolfsma, Wilfred, 2005. "Towards a dynamic (Schumpeterian) welfare economics," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 69-82, February.
    21. Loet Leydesdorff & Henry Etzkowitz, 1998. "The Triple Helix as a model for innovation studies," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 25(3), pages 195-203, June.
    22. Pier P. Saviotti, 1996. "Technological Evolution, Variety and the Economy," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 727.
    23. Wintjes, Rene & Cobbenhagen, Jan, 2000. "Knowledge intensive Industrial Clustering around Océ; Embedding a vertical disintegrating," Research Memorandum 006, Maastricht University, Maastricht Economic Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    24. Frenken, Koen, 2000. "A complexity approach to innovation networks. The case of the aircraft industry (1909-1997)," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 257-272, February.
    25. Abernathy, William J. & Clark, Kim B., 1985. "Innovation: Mapping the winds of creative destruction," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 14(1), pages 3-22, February.
    26. Loet Leydesdorff, 2004. "The university–industry knowledge relationship: Analyzing patents and the science base of technologies," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 55(11), pages 991-1001, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Loet Leydesdorff & Wilfred Dolfsma & Gerben Van der Panne, 2010. "Measuring the Knowledge Base of an Economy in Terms of Triple-Helix Relations," Chapters, in: Riccardo Viale & Henry Etzkowitz (ed.), The Capitalization of Knowledge, chapter 11, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    2. Leydesdorff, Loet & Fritsch, Michael, 2006. "Measuring the knowledge base of regional innovation systems in Germany in terms of a Triple Helix dynamics," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(10), pages 1538-1553, December.
    3. Dosi, Giovanni & Nelson, Richard R., 2010. "Technical Change and Industrial Dynamics as Evolutionary Processes," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 51-127, Elsevier.
    4. Maxim Kotsemir & Alexander Abroskin & Dirk Meissner, 2013. "Innovation concepts and typology – an evolutionary discussion," HSE Working papers WP BRP 05/STI/2013, National Research University Higher School of Economics.
    5. Leydesdorff, Loet & Meyer, Martin, 2006. "Triple Helix indicators of knowledge-based innovation systems: Introduction to the special issue," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(10), pages 1441-1449, December.
    6. Giovanni Dosi & Richard Nelson, 2013. "The Evolution of Technologies: An Assessment of the State-of-the-Art," Eurasian Business Review, Springer;Eurasia Business and Economics Society, vol. 3(1), pages 3-46, June.
    7. Rakas, Marija & Hain, Daniel S., 2019. "The state of innovation system research: What happens beneath the surface?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(9), pages 1-1.
    8. Md. Dulal Hossain & Junghoon Moon & Hyoung Goo Kang & Sung Chul Lee & Young Chan Choe, 2012. "Mapping the dynamics of knowledge base of innovations of R&D in Bangladesh: triple helix perspective," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 90(1), pages 57-83, January.
    9. Martin Meyer & Kevin Grant & Piera Morlacchi & Dagmara Weckowska, 2014. "Triple Helix indicators as an emergent area of enquiry: a bibliometric perspective," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 99(1), pages 151-174, April.
    10. Dahesh, Mehran Badin & Tabarsa, Gholamali & Zandieh, Mostafa & Hamidizadeh, Mohammadreza, 2020. "Reviewing the intellectual structure and evolution of the innovation systems approach: A social network analysis," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).
    11. Loet Leydesdorff & Martin Meyer, 2003. "The Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 58(2), pages 191-203, October.
    12. Balland, Pierre-Alexandre & Boschma, Ron, 2022. "Do scientific capabilities in specific domains matter for technological diversification in European regions?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(10).
    13. Hötte, Kerstin, 2023. "Demand-pull, technology-push, and the direction of technological change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(5).
    14. Kerstin Hotte, 2021. "Demand-pull, technology-push, and the direction of technological change," Papers 2104.04813, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2023.
    15. Murmann, Johann Peter & Frenken, Koen, 2006. "Toward a systematic framework for research on dominant designs, technological innovations, and industrial change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(7), pages 925-952, September.
    16. Loet Leydesdorff & Han Woo Park & Balazs Lengyel, 2014. "A routine for measuring synergy in university–industry–government relations: mutual information as a Triple-Helix and Quadruple-Helix indicator," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 99(1), pages 27-35, April.
    17. Harabi, Najib, 1994. "Technischer Fortschritt in der Schweiz: Empirische Ergebnisse aus industrieökonomischer Sicht [Technischer Fortschritt in der Schweiz:Empirische Ergebnisse aus industrieökonomischer Sicht]," MPRA Paper 6725, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    18. Boschma, Ron A., 1999. "The rise of clusters of innovative industries in Belgium during the industrial epoch," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 28(8), pages 853-871, November.
    19. van Rijnsoever, Frank J. & van den Berg, Jesse & Koch, Joost & Hekkert, Marko P., 2015. "Smart innovation policy: How network position and project composition affect the diversity of an emerging technology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(5), pages 1094-1107.
    20. Loet Leydesdorff & Martin Meyer, 2007. "The scientometrics of a Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations (Introduction to the topical issue)," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 70(2), pages 207-222, February.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • D8 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty
    • L2 - Industrial Organization - - Firm Objectives, Organization, and Behavior
    • M - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics
    • M10 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Business Administration - - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:35:y:2006:i:2:p:181-199. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/respol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.