https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6591-5610
![Sample our Area Studies journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5922/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Area-Studies.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
This study addresses the changing role of government in China’s triple-helix constellation among government, industry and universities via an exploratory case study in two innovative industry clusters in China. It finds that (a) local governments are motivated to facilitate innovation networking processes, but rather not to exert full control over these; (b) New Research and Development Institutes (NRDIs) play a crucial role in the evolution and operation of innovative industry clusters in China. They derive their importance from incorporating strong market elements in the operations of government-affiliated institutions; (c) facilitating localization and cluster development has been a crucial element for stimulating innovation-driven transformation. These findings invite us to propose a catalyzing-state conception of the role of government in China’s innovation system. This innovative concept may refresh the discussion of how far China should be perceived as representing a statist triple helix model.
Acknowledgments
The authors are grateful for the comments and suggestions received from the workshops in University of Duisburg-Essen, Jilin University, Zhejiang University, and for the insightful comments from the reviewers and the chief editor of this journal.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Notes
1 Henry Etzkowitz et al., ‘University—industry–government interaction: the triple helix model for innovation’, Asia Pacific Tech Monitor 24(1), (2007), pp.14–23; Chunyan Zhou, ‘Emergence of the Entrepreneurial University in Evolution of the Triple Helix: The Case of Northeastern University in China’, Journal of Technology Management in China 3 (1), (2008), pp.109–126.
2 Alberto Arenal, ‘Innovation ecosystems theory revisited: The case of artificial intelligence in China’, Telecommunications Policy 44(6), (2020), pp.101960; Yuzhuo Cai and Cui Liu, ‘The roles of universities in fostering knowledge-intensive clusters in Chinese regional innovation systems’, Science and Public Policy 42(1), (2015), pp.15–29; Etzkowitz et al., ‘University—industry–government interaction: the triple helix model for innovation’; Cui Liu and Yuzhuo Cai, ‘Triple Helix model and institutional logics in Shenzhen special economic zone’, Science and Public Policy 45(2), (2018), pp. 221–231.
3 Shuanping Dai and Markus Taube (eds), China’s Quest for Innovation: Institutions and Ecosystems (London, UK: Routledge 2020).
4 Henry Etzkowitz, ‘The triple helix: Academic-industry-government relations- implications for the New York regional innovation environment’, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 787(1), (1996), pp. 67–86; Henry Etzkowitz and Loet Leydesdorff, ‘The triple helix of university-industry-government relations: a laboratory for knowledge based economic development’, EASST Review 14(1), (1995), pp.11–19; Loet Leydesdorff and Henry Etzkowitz, ‘Emergence of a triple helix of university-industry-government relations’, Science and Public Policy 23(5), (1996), pp. 279–286.
5 Emanuela Todeva, ’Governance of innovation and intermediation in triple helix interactions’, Industry and Higher Education 27(4), (2013), pp. 263–278.
6 Mike Danson and Emanuela Todeva, ‘Government and governance of regional Triple Helix interactions’, Industry and Higher Education 30(1), (2016), pp.13–26.
7 Todeva, ’Governance of innovation and intermediation in triple helix interactions’.
8 Loren Brandt et al. ‘industrialization in China’ in Kevin H. O’Rourke and Jeffrey G. Williamson (eds), The Spread of Modern Industry to the Periphery since 1871 (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press 2017).
9 Shuanping Dai and Markus Taube, ‘Strategic ambiguity in policy formulation: exploring the function of the term “township and village enterprises” in China’s industrial ownership reforms’, Journal of Chinese Governance 6(2), (2021), pp.232–256; Jean C. Oi, ‘Fiscal reform and the economic foundations of local state corporatism in China’, World Politics 45(1), (1992), pp. 99–126.
10 Jinlong Gao et al., ’Spatial restructuring and the logic of industrial land redevelopment in urban China: I. Theoretical considerations’, Land Use Policy, 68, (2017), pp. 604–613; Boy Lüthje ‘Platform capitalism “Made in China”? Intelligent manufacturing, Taobao villages and the restructuring of work’, Science, Technology and Society 24(2), (2019), pp.199–217.
11 William Lazonick, ‘The Chandlerian corporation and the theory of innovative enterprise’, Industrial and Corporate Change 19(2), (2010), pp.317–349.
12 Loet Leydesdorff, The Knowledge-based Economy and the Triple Helix Model (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar 2006).
13 see, e.g. Naubahar Sharif and Yu Huang, ‘Achieving industrial upgrading through automation in Dongguan, China’, Science, Technology and Society 24(2), (2019), pp. 237–253, for individual firm cases in Dongguan.
14 Cai and Liu, ‘The roles of universities in fostering knowledge-intensive clusters in Chinese regional innovation systems’.
15 Liu and Cai, ‘Triple Helix model and institutional logics in Shenzhen special economic zone’.
16 Arenal, ‘Innovation ecosystems theory revisited: The case of artificial intelligence in China’.
17 Cai and Liu, ‘The roles of universities in fostering knowledge-intensive clusters in Chinese regional innovation systems’.
18 Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff, ‘The triple helix of university-industry-government relations: a laboratory for knowledge based economic development’; Leydesdorff and Etzkowitz, ‘Emergence of a triple helix of university-industry-government relations’.
19 Henry Etzkowitz, The Triple Helix: University—Industry–Government Innovation in Action (New York/London: Routledge 2008).
20 Loet Leydesdorff, ‘The triple helix: an evolutionary model of innovations’, Research Policy 29, (2000), p. 243–255; Leydesdorff and Etzkowitz, ‘Emergence of a triple helix of university-industry-government relations’.
21 Henry Etzkowitz and Loet Leydesdorff, ’The dynamics of innovation: from national systems and ‘Mode 2’ to a triple helix of university—industry–government relations’, Research Policy 29(2), (2000), pp. 109–123.
22 Etzkowitz, The Triple Helix: University—Industry–Government Innovation in Action.
23 Henry Etzkowitz, ‘Incubation of incubators: innovation as a triple helix of university-industry-government networks’, Science and Public Policy 29(2), (2002), pp.115–128.
24 Yuzhuo Cai and Henry Etzkowitz, ‘Theorizing the Triple Helix model: Past, present, and future’, Triple Helix 1(aop), (2020), pp. 1–38.
25 Leydesdorff, ‘The triple helix: an evolutionary model of innovations’.
26 Cai and Etzkowitz, ‘Theorizing the Triple Helix model: Past, present, and future’; Yipeng Liu and Qihai Huang, ‘University capability as a micro-foundation for the triple helix model: The case of China’, Technovation 76/77 (August/September), (2018), pp. 40–50.
27 Henry Etzkowitz, ‘Triple helix clusters: boundary permeability at university-industry-government interfaces as a regional innovation strategy’, Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 30, (2012), pp. 766–779; Liu and Huang, ‘University capability as a micro-foundation for the triple helix model: The case of China’.
28 Chunyan Zhou and Xumei Peng, ‘The entrepreneurial university in China: Nonlinear paths’, Science and Public Policy 35(9), (2008), pp. 637–646.
29 Yuzhuo Cai, ‘Implementing the Triple Helix model in a non-Western context: an institutional logics perspective’, Triple Helix 1(1), (2014), pp.1–20; Yuzhuo Cai, ‘What contextual factors shape “innovation in innovation”? Integration of insights from the Triple Helix and the institutional logics perspective’, Social Science Information 54(3), (2015), pp. 299–326.
30 For details, see Etzkowitz et al., ‘University—industry–government interaction: the triple helix model for innovation’.
31 Zhou, ‘Emergence of the Entrepreneurial University in Evolution of the Triple Helix: The Case of Northeastern University in China’.
32 Yijie Cheng et al., ‘Triple helix on globalization: A case study of the China international nanotech innovation cluster’, Information Development 35(2), (2019), pp. 272–289.
33 Harley Balzer and Jon Askonas, ‘The triple helix after communism: Russia and China compared’, Triple Helix 3 (1), (2016), pp.1 –31.
34 Cai and Liu, ‘The roles of universities in fostering knowledge-intensive clusters in Chinese regional innovation systems’.
35 Liu and Cai, ‘Triple Helix model and institutional logics in Shenzhen special economic zone’.
36 Arenal, ‘Innovation ecosystems theory revisited: The case of artificial intelligence in China’.
37 Yingyi Qian, How reform worked in China: The transition from plan to market, (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2017).
38 Wolfgang Streeck, Kathleen Ann Thelen (eds.), Beyond continuity: Institutional change in advanced political economies, (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2005).
39 Barry Naughton, ‘A political economy of China’s economic transition’, in Loren Brandt and Thomas G. Rawski, eds., China’s great economic transformation (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2008), pp. 91–135.
40 Kaidong Feng, Yin Li, and William Lazonick, ‘Transforming China’s industrial innovation in the new era’, The China Review, 22(1),(2022), pp. 1–10.
41 Markus Taube, ‘Principles of property rights evolution in China’s rural industry’, in Thomas Heberer, and Gunter Schubert eds., Regime legitimacy in contemporary China. institutional change and stability (London, UK, and New York, NY: Routledge, 2009), pp.108–128.
42 Steven K. Vogel, Marketcraft: How governments make markets work (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2018).
43 Robert K. Yin, Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods (Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications 2017).
44 Albert L. Barabási, et al., ‘Evolution of the social network of scientific collaborations’, Physica A: Statistical mechanics and its applications 311(3–4), (2002), pp.590–614; Simen G. Enger, ‘Closed clubs: Network centrality and participation in Horizon 2020’, Science and Public Policy 45(6), (2018), pp. 884–896.
45 Except Gaogou there exist three other cable industry clusters in China. These, however, focus on the production of ordinary cables, i.e. often bundles of small wire used for regular electricity transmission.
46 Xun Li et al., ‘Transition from factor-driven to innovation-driven urbanization in China: A study of manufacturing industry automation in Dongguan City’, China Economic Review 59, (2020), pp.101382.
47 Ministry of Industry and Information, ’A white paper of the Chinese robot industry’ (2017) (in Chinese).
48 Leydesdorff, ‘The triple helix: an evolutionary model of innovations’.
49 Dai and Taube, ‘Strategic ambiguity in policy formulation: exploring the function of the term “township and village enterprises” in China’s industrial ownership reforms’; Oi, ‘Fiscal reform and the economic foundations of local state corporatism in China’.
50 Sinan Aral and Marshall van Alstyne, ‘The diversity-bandwidth trade-off’, American Journal of Sociology 117(1), (2011), pp. 90–171.
51 Arenal, ‘Innovation ecosystems theory revisited: The case of artificial intelligence in China’; Cai and Liu, ‘The roles of universities in fostering knowledge-intensive clusters in Chinese regional innovation systems’; Etzkowitz et al., ‘University—industry–government interaction: the triple helix model for innovation’.
52 Liu and Cai, ‘Triple Helix model and institutional logics in Shenzhen special economic zone’.
53 Ibid.
54 Shengwen Tseng and Sabrina Habich-Sobiegalla, ‘Piloting away—state-signaling and confidence-building in China’s renewable energy sector’, Journal of Contemporary China 29(123), (2020), pp. 416–430.
55 Jonathan Unger and Anita Chan, ‘Inheritors of the boom: private enterprise and the role of local government in a rural south China township’, The China Journal 42, (1999), pp.45–74.
56 Zhikuan Ren, ‘Models and mechanism of industry-university-research collaboration in new R&D institutes’, Forum on Science and Technology in China 10, (2019), pp.16–23 (in Chinese).
57 Paula Kivimaa, ‘Government-affiliated intermediary organizations as actors in system-level transitions’, Research Policy 43, (2014), pp.1370–1380.
58 Gautam Ahuja, ‘Collaboration networks, structural holes, and innovation: A longitudinal study’, Administrative Science Quarterly 45(3), (2000), pp. 425–455.
59 Marcus Conlé et al., ‘Technology transfer models for knowledge-based regional development: New R&D institutes in Guangdong, China’, Science and Public Policy 48(1), (2021), pp. 132–144.
60 Tindara Abbate et al., ‘Linking entities in knowledge transfer: the innovation intermediaries’, Journal of the Knowledge Economy 4, (2013), pp. 233–243.
61 Jeremy Howells, ‘Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation’, Research Policy 35, (2006), pp.715–728; Matthijs J. Janssen and Koen Frenken, ‘Cross-specialisation policy: rationales and options for linking unrelated industries’, Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society 12(2), (2019), pp.195–212.
62 Etzkowitz, The Triple Helix: University—Industry–Government Innovation in Action.
63 Cai and Liu, ‘The roles of universities in fostering knowledge-intensive clusters in Chinese regional innovation systems’.
64 Liu and Cai, ‘Triple Helix model and institutional logics in Shenzhen special economic zone’.
65 Shaomin Li et al., ‘The road to capitalism: Competition and institutional change in China’, Journal of Comparative Economics 28(2), (2000), pp.269–292; Bingyang Lv et al., ‘Fiscal incentives, competition, and investment in China’, China Economic Review 59, (2020), pp.101371; Andrew G. Walder, ‘Local governments as industrial firms: an organizational analysis of China’s transitional economy’, American Journal of Sociology 101(2), (1995), pp. 263–301.
66 Chen Zhao et al., ‘Local government competition and regional innovation efficiency: from the perspective of China-style fiscal federalism’, Science and Public Policy 48(4), (2021), pp. 488–498.
67 Wesley M. Cohen and Daniel A. Levinthal, ‘Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation’, Administrative Science Quarterly 35(1), (1990), pp.128–152.
68 Hong Cheng et al., ‘The rise of robots in China’, Journal of Economic Perspectives 33(2), (2019), pp. 71–78.
69 Lorenzo Ardito et al., ‘From technological inventions to new products: A systematic review and research agenda of the main enabling factors’, European Management Review 12(3), (2015), pp. 113–147.
70 for the interplay between cooperation and competition, see, e.g. Werner Hoffmann et al., ‘The interplay of competition and cooperation’, Strategic Management Journal 39(12), (2018), pp. 3033–3052.
71 Ufuk Akcigit et al., ‘Connecting to Power: Political Connections, Innovation, and Firm Dynamics’ (2020) FRB Atlanta Working Paper No. 2020–5 <http://doi.org/10.29338/wp2020–05> accessed November 15, 2022.
72 Kevin Corder, ‘The federal reserve system and the credit crisis’, Public Administration Review 69(4), (2009), pp. 623–631.
73 Andrés Rodríguez-Pose and Marco Di Cataldo, ‘Quality of government and innovative performance in the regions of Europe’, Journal of Economic Geography 15(4), (2015), pp.673–706.
74 Ramon Gil-Garcia et al., ‘Being smart: Emerging technologies and innovation in the public sector’, Government Information Quarterly 31, (2014), pp.11-I8; Bernd W. Wirtz and Steven Birkmeyer, ‘Open government: Origin, development, and conceptual perspectives’, International Journal of Public Administration 38(5), (2015), pp. 381–396.