BazEkon - The Main Library of the Cracow University of Economics

BazEkon home page

Main menu

Author
Świadek Arkadiusz (University of Zielona Gora, Poland), Dzikowski Piotr (University of Zielona Góra), Gorączkowska Jadwiga (University of Zielona Góra, Poland), Tomaszewski Marek (University of Zielona Gora, Poland)
Title
The National Innovation System in a Catching-up Country : Empirical Evidence based on Micro data of a Triple Helix in Poland
Source
Oeconomia Copernicana, 2022, vol. 13, nr 2, s. 511-540, aneks, bibliogr. 84 poz.
Keyword
Narodowy system innowacji, Model Triple Helix, Przemysł
National innovation system, Triple Helix model, Industry
Note
JEL Classification: O31, O33, O38, L14, C35
summ.
Abstract
Research background: There are two main directions for the research of the national innovation system (NIS): the international comparison of macro data from national statistic offices or specific micro research restricted mostly to analysing selected issues. There is a lack of empirical studies regarding the national innovation system as a whole based on micro raw data and using statistical models.
Purpose of the article: To identify and evaluate the impact of the triple helix (an input and output approach) on the NIS in Poland, including internal interactions between industry, science and government.
Methods: A questionnaire surveys were conducted by the authors over the past five years in 6,284 manufacturing enterprises. The multifactor stepwise logistics regression forward was used to evaluate what, where and how effectively the NIS institutions in catching-up and medium-sized countries such as Poland are working.
Findings & value added: The NIS of Poland is a complicated and non-mature system. Some parts of the network are effective, while others are not. It is noted that cooperation between enterprises stimulates innovation to a greater extent than cooperation with scientific institutions and public administration. The vertical supply chain is the main driver of NIS in Poland. Domestic scientific institutions have an impact that is often short-term, fragmented, and non-continuous, though it can be strong from time to time. Strangely, organizations with low knowledge potential support industry innovation activity more efficiently and in a more organised way than science institutes, excluding foreign ones. For catching-up countries, this is an important bridging of the knowledge gap - it turns out that the quantity and quality of domestic knowledge in the national innovation system is inefficient. Scientific institutions need to achieve sufficient critical mass to stimulate innovative activity. The value of the conclusions is underlined by the fact that the analyses were based on micro data, which allowed to capture the relationships between the different elements of the triple helix. (original abstract)
Full text
Show
Bibliography
Show
  1. Adamik A. (2013). The role of inter-organizational cooperation of SMEs in the processes of shaping the competitiveness of the region on the example of companies from the Świętokrzyskie region. Studia i Materiały Miscellanea Oeconomicae Uniwersytetu Jana Kochanowskiego in Kielce, 1, 25-38.
  2. Ahn, J. M., Lee, W., & Mortara, L. (2020). Do government R&D subsidies stimulate collaboration initiatives in private firms? Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 151, 19840. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2019.119840.
  3. Akpinar M., & Qi, L. (2020). A comparison of the innovation ecosystems in China and Finlandusing the triple helix model. Finnish Business Review, 7, 13-26. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2019.119840.
  4. Aldabbas, H., Pinnington, A., & Lahrech, A. (2020). The role of innovation in the relationship between university-industry collaboration in R&D and ISO 9001. International Journal of Innovation Science, 12(4), 365-383. doi: 10.1108/IJIS-10-2019-0095.
  5. Andersson, S., Evers, N., & Kuivalainen, O. (2014). International new ventures: rapid internationalization across different industry contexts. European Business Review, 26(5), 390-405. doi: 10.1108/EBR-05-2014-0040.
  6. Apa, R., Grandinetti, R., & Sedita, S. R. (2017). The social and business dimensions of a networked business incubator: the case of H-Farm. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 24(2), 198-221. doi: 10.1108/JSBED-07-2016-0103.
  7. Ar, I. M., & Baki, B. (2011). Antecedents and performance impacts of product versus process innovation: empirical evidence from SMEs located in Turkish science and technology parks. European Journal of Innovation Management, 14(2), 172-206. doi: 10.1108/14601061111124885.
  8. Archibugi, D., Filippetti, A., & Frenz, M. (2013). The impact of the economic crisis on innovation: evidence from Europe. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 80(7), 1247-1260. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2013.05.005.
  9. Arranz, N., Arroyabe, M. F., & Schumann, M. (2020). The role of NPOs and international actors in the national innovation system: a network-based approach. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 159, 120183. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120183.
  10. Bengtsson, M., & Kock, S. (2000). Coopetition in business networks - to cooperate and compete simultaneously. Industrial Marketing Management, 4(29), 411-426. doi: 10.1016/S0019-8501(99)00067-X.
  11. Brem, A., & Radziwon, A. (2017). Efficient Triple Helix collaboration fostering local niche innovation projects - a case from Denmark. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 123, 130-141. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2017.01.002.
  12. Brink, T. (2020). The Triple Helix frame contributes to strategic innovation in nearshore wind park ecosystems. Triple Helix, 6(1), 1-35. doi: 10.1163/21971927-00601001.
  13. Brink, T., & Madsen, S. O. (2016). The triple helix frame for small- and medium sized enterprises for innovation and development of offshore wind energy. Triple Helix, 3, 4. doi: 10.1186/s40604-016-0035-8.
  14. Broström, A., & Lööf, H. (2006). What do we know about firms' research collaboration with universities? New quantitative and qualitative evidence. Royal Institute of Technology, CESIS-Centre of Excellence for Science and Innovation Studies, 74.
  15. Coussi, O., Faccin, K., & Balestrin, A. (2018). Foreign direct investment in an emerging country: a Brazilian case of a triple helix as practice. International Journal of Emerging Markets, 13(6), 1751-1775. doi:10.1108/IJoEM-06-2017-0200.
  16. Danson, M., & Todeva, E. (2016). Government and governance of regional Triple Helix interactions. Industry and Higher Education, 30(1), 13-26. doi: 10.5367/Ihe.2016.0293.
  17. Diez-Vial, I., & Fernandez-Olmos, M. (2015). Knowledge spillovers in science and technology parks: how can firms benefit most? Journal of Technology Transfer, 40(1), 70-84. doi: 10.1007/s10961-013-9329-4.
  18. ESPON KIT (2012). Knowledge, innovation, territory. Final report. Milan: ESPON & Politechnico di Milano.
  19. Fitriani, S., Wahjusaputri, S., & Diponegoro, A. (2019). Success factors in Triple Helix coordination: small-medium sized enterprises in Western Java. Etikonomi, 18(2), 233-248. doi: 10.15408/etk.v18i2.11548.
  20. Filippetti, A., & Archibugi, D. (2011). Innovation in times of crisis: National Systems of Innovation, structure, and demand. Research Policy, 40(2), 179-192. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2010.09.001.
  21. Freeman, C. (1995). The 'National System of Innovation' in historical perspective. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 19(1), 5-24. doi: 10.1093/oxfordournals.cje.a035309.
  22. Fuller, J., Jawecki, G., & Muhlbacher, H. (2007). Innovation creation by online basketball communities. Journal of Business Research, 60, 60-71. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2006.09.019.
  23. Glabiszewski, W., & Sudolska, A. (2009). The role of cooperation in the process of building enterprise competitiveness. Organization and Management, 2(136), 9-23.
  24. Główny Urząd Statystyczny (2016). Innovative activity of enterprises in the years 2013-2015. Szczecin: Zakład Wydawnictw Statystycznych.
  25. Gnyawali, D. R., & Park, B. -J. R. (2011). Co-opetition between giants: collaboration with competitors for technological innovation. Research Policy, 40(5), 650-663. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2011.01.009.
  26. Gorączkowska, J. (2020). Enterprise innovation in technology incubators and university business incubators in the context of Polish industry. Oeconomia Copernicana, 11(4), 799-817. doi: 10.24136/oc.2020.032.
  27. Gorączkowska, J. (2015). Technological parks and the innovation activity of enterprises in the industrial networks-developed vs. intermediate regions. Equilibrium. Quarterly Journal of Economics and Economic Policy, 10(2), 137-156. doi: 10.12775/EQUIL.2015.017.
  28. Guerrero, M., & & Urbano, D. (2017). The impact of Triple Helix agents on entrepreneurial innovations' performance: an inside look at enterprises located in an emerging economy. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 119, 294-309. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2016.06.015.
  29. Hernández-Trasobares, A., & Murillo-Luna, J.L. (2020). The effect of triple helix cooperation on business innovation: the case of Spain. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 161, 120296. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120296.
  30. Hirsch-Kreinsen, H., Jacobson, D., & Robertson, P. L. (2006). 'Low-tech' industries: innovativeness and development perspectives - a summary of a European research project. Prometheus, 24(1), 3-21. doi: 10.1080/08109020600563762.
  31. Hudec, O., & Prochadzkova, M. (2015). Visegrad countries and regions: innovation performance and efficiency. Quality Innovation Prosperity - Kvalita Inovacia Prosperita, 19(2), 55-72. doi: 10.12776/QIP.V19I2.593.
  32. Ilchuk, P., & Mushenyk, I. (2018). Influence of development of national innovation systems on the economic efficiency. Baltic Journal of Economic Studies, 4(2), 78-85. doi: 0.30525/2256-0742/2018-4-2-78-85.
  33. Jankowska, B., Matysek-Jedrych, A., & Mroczek-Dabrowska, K. (2017). Efficiency of National Innovation Systems - Poland and Bulgaria in the context of the Global Innovation Index. Comparative Economic Research - Central and Eastern Europe, 20(3), 77-94. doi: 10.1515/cer-2017-0021.
  34. Jeppesen, L. B., & Molin, M. J. (2003). Customers as co-developers: learning and innovation outside the firm. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 15(3), 363-383. doi: 10.1080/09537320310001601531.
  35. Kim, J.-Y., & Lee, M.-J. (2016). Living with casinos: the triple-helix approach, innovative solutions, and big data. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 110, 33-41. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2016.04.024.
  36. Kobzeva, L., Gribov, E., Snigireva, M., & Raevskaya, V. (2017). Cluster initiative in fine chemicals as a case of practical implementation of Triple Helix collaboration for regional economic growth and innovation-driven development. Management Dynamics in the Knowledge Economy, 5(1), 33-56. doi: 10.25019/mdke/5.1.03.
  37. Kruczek, M., & Żebrucki, Z. (2011). Characteristics of the cooperation of enterprises in the supply chains of selected industries, Logistics, 2, 363-374.
  38. Lamey, L., Deleersnyder, B., Steenkamp, J. -B., & Dekimpe, M. G. (2012). The effect of business-cycle fluctuations on private-label share: what has marketing conduct got to do with it? Journal of Marketing, 76(1), 1-19. doi: 10.1509/jm.09.0320.
  39. Larsen, Ø. H., Nesse, J. G., & Rubach, S. (2018) The public sector's role in Norwegian network cooperation: triple helix or laissez-faire? Triple Helix, 5, 4. doi: 10.1186/s40604-018-0052-x.
  40. Lee, Y. H., & Kim, Y. J. (2016). Analyzing interaction in R&D networks using the Triple Helix method: evidence from industrial R&D programs in Korean government. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 110, 93-105. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2015.10.017.
  41. Lee, C. J., Lee, D., & Shon, M. (2020). Effect of efficient triple-helix collaboration on organizations based on their stage of growth. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 58, 101604. doi: 10.1016/j.jengtecman.2020.101604.
  42. Lejpras, A., & Stephan, A. (2011). Locational conditions, cooperation, and innovativeness: evidence from research and company spin-offs. Annals of Regional Science, 46, 543-575. doi: 10.1007/s00168-009-0356-x.
  43. Lettl, C., Herstatt, C., & Gemuenden, H.G. (2006). Users' contributions to radical innovation: evidence from four cases in the field of medical equipment technology. R&D Management, 36(3), 251-272. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9310.2006.00431.x.
  44. Leydesdorf, L., (2012). The Triple Helix, Quadruple Helix, ..., and an N-Tuple of Helices: explanatory models for analyzing the knowledge-based economy? Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 3, 25-35. doi: 10.1007/s13132-011-0049-4.
  45. Leydesdorff, L., & Etzkowitz, H. (2001). The transformation of university-industry-government relations into a Triple Helix of innovation. Electronic Journal of Sociology, 5(4), 1-31.
  46. Li Y., Arora, S., Youtie, J., & Shapira, P. (2018). Using web mining to explore Triple Helix influences on growth in small and mid-size firms. Technovation, 77-78, 3-14. doi: 10.1016/j.technovation.2016.01.002.
  47. Liu, Y., & Huang, Q. (2018). University capability as a micro-foundation for the Triple Helix model: the case of China. Technovation, 76-77, 40-50. doi: 10.1016/j.technovation.2018.02.013.
  48. Lundvall, B. Å. (2007). National innovation systems - analytical concept and development tool. Industry and innovation, 14(1), 95-119. doi: 10.1080/13662710601130863.
  49. Lundvall, B. Å. (1992). User-producer relationships, national systems of innovation and internationalization. In B. Å. Lundvall (Ed.) National Systems of Innovation: towards a theory of innovation and interactive learning. London: PinterPublishers, 45-67.
  50. Mansano, F. H., & Pereira, M. F. (2016). Business incubators as support mechanisms for the economic development: case of maringa's technology incubator. International Journal of Innovation, 4(1), 23-32. doi: 10.5585/iji.v4i1.51.
  51. Marques, N. D., Sbragia, R., Oliveira, M. D., & Borini, F. (2019). Entrepreneur's background and product innovation evidences from technology-based incubated firms. Management Research - The Journal of The Iberoamerican Academy of Management, 18(2), 153-169. doi: 10.1108/MRJIAM-11-2018-087.
  52. Mascarenhas, C., Marques, C., & Ferreira, J. J. (2020). One for all and all for one: collaboration and cooperation in Triple Helix knowledge cocreation. International Regional Science Review, 43(4), 316-343. doi: 10.1177/0160017619889677.
  53. Medeiros, V., Marques, C., Galvao, A. R., & Braga, V. (2020). Innovation and entrepreneurship as drivers of economic development differences in European economies based on quadruple helix model. Competitiveness Review, 30(5), 681-704. doi: 10.1108/CR-08-2019-0076.
  54. Mêgnigbêto, E. (2018a). Measuring synergy within a Triple Helix innovation system using game theory: cases of some developed and emerging countries. Triple Helix, 5(1), 6. doi: 10.1186/s40604-018-0054-8.
  55. Mêgnigbêto, E. (2018b). Modelling the Triple Helix of university-industry-government relationships with game theory: Core, Shapley value and nucleolus as indicators of synergy within an innovation system. Journal of Infometrics, 12(4), 1118-1132. doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2018.09.005.
  56. Mińska-Struzik, E. (2015). Export as a source of innovation. Studia i Prace Kolegium Zarządzania i Finansów, Szkoła Główna Handlowa, 145, 139-162.
  57. Mungila Hillemane, B. S. (2020). Entrepreneurial ecosystem for tech start-ups in Bangalore: an exploration of structure and gap. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 27(7), 1167-1185. doi: 10.1108/JSBED-07-2019-0233.
  58. Nakwa, K., Zawdie, G., & Intarakumnerd, P. (2012). Role of intermediaries in accelerating the transformation of inter-firm networks into triple helix networks: a case study of SME-based industries in Thailand. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 52, 52-61. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.09.441.
  59. Nasierowski W. (2019). Technical efficiency of innovations in Poland from EU perspective. Gospodarka Narodowa. The Polish Journal of Economics (GNPJE), 4, 79-104. doi: 10.33119/GN/113063.
  60. Nelson, R. R. (Ed.). (1993). National innovation systems: a comparative analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press on Demand.
  61. Nooteboom B. (1999). Innovation and the inter-firm linkages: new implications for policy. Research Policy, 28(8), 793-805. doi: 10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00022-0.
  62. Nowiński, W., & Rialp, A. (2013). Drivers and strategies of international new ventures from a Central European transition economy. Journal for East European Management Studies, 18(2), 191-231. doi: 10.5771/0949-6181-2013-2-191.
  63. OECD (2005). Oslo manual. Guidelines for collecting and interpreting innovation data. Paris: OECD. doi: 10.1787/9789264013100-en.
  64. Olkiewicz M., Wolniak R., Eva-Grebski M., & Olkiewicz A. (2019). Comparative analysis of the impact of the business incubator center on the economic sustainable development of regions in USA and Poland. Sustainability, 11(1), 1-22. doi: 10.3390/su11010173.
  65. Patra, S. K., & Muchie, M. (2018). Research and innovation in South African universities: from the triple helix's perspective. Scientometrics, 116, 51-76. doi: 10.1007/s11192-018-2764-0.
  66. Poznańska K. (2009). Cooperation of enterprises with externalentities. In I. Lichniak (Ed.). Science in the enterprise. Selected issues. Warszawa: Szkoła Główna Handlowa, 397-409.
  67. Puangpronpitag, S. (2019). Triple Helix Model and knowledge-based entrepreneurship in regional engagement: a case study of Thai and UK universities. Procedia Computer Science, 158, 565-572. doi: 10.1016/j.procs.2019.09.090.
  68. Peixoto, L. D., Barbosa, R. R., & de Faria, A. F. (2021). Management of regional knowledge: knowledge flows among university, industry, and government. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 13(1), 92-110. doi: 10.1007/s13132-020-00702-9.
  69. Prohorovs, A., Fainglozs, L., & Solesvik, M. (2019). Measuring activity of business angels in Central and Eastern European countries. In K. S. Soliman (Ed.). Education exellence and innovation management through Vision 2020. Proceedings of the 33rd International Business Information Management Association Conference. Granada: International Business Information Management Assoc, 2868-2880.
  70. Raasch, C., Herstatt, C., & Lock, P. (2008). The dynamics of user innovation: drivers and impediments of innovation activities. International Journal of Technology Management, 26, 377-398. doi: 10.1142/S1363919608002060.
  71. Robertson, P. L., & Patel, P. R. (2007). New wine in old bottles: technological diffusion in developed economies. Research Policy, 36(5), 798-721. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2007.01.008.
  72. Saad, M., & Zawdie, G. (2005). From technology transfer to the emergence of a triple helix culture: the experience of Algeria in innovation and technological capability development. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 17(1), 89-103. doi: 10.1080/09537320500044750.
  73. Sarpong, D., AbdRazak, A., Alexander, E., & Meissner, D. (2017). Organizing practices of university, industry and government that facilitate (or impede) the transition to a hybrid triple helix model of innovation. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 123, 142-152. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2015.11.032.
  74. Sedita, S. R., Apa, R., Bassetti, T., & Grandinetti, R. (2019). Incubation matters: measuring the effect of business incubators on the innovation performance of start-ups. R&D Management, 49(4), 439-454. doi: 10.1111/radm.12321.
  75. Shelton R. D., & Leydesdorff L. (2012). Publish or patent: bibliometric evidence for empirical trade-offs in national funding strategies. Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, 63(3), 498-511. doi: 10.1002/asi.21677.
  76. Smętkowski, M., Olechnicka, A., &Płoszaj, A. (2017). Scientific cooperation as an element of the innovative potential of European regions. Regional and Local Studies, 1(67), 5-25. doi: 10.7366/1509499516701.
  77. Strand, Ø., & Leydesdorff, L. (2013). Where is synergy indicated in the Norwegian innovation system? Triple-Helix relations among technology, organization, and geography. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 80(3), 471-484. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2012.08.010.
  78. Tomaszewski, M., & Świadek, A. (2017). The impact of the economic conditions on the innovation activity of the companies from selected Balkan states. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istrazivanja, 30(1), 1896-1913. doi: 10.1080/1331677X.2017.1398099.
  79. Tylman B. (Eds.) (2015). Profitability of investing in research and development. Warszawa: NCN, PwC.
  80. Quartey, S. H., & Oguntoye, O. (2021). Understanding and promoting industrial sustainability in Africa through the Triple Helix approach: a conceptual model and research propositions. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 12(3), 1100-1118. doi: 10.1007/s13132-020-00660-2.
  81. Vasquez-Urriago, A. R., Barge-Gil, A., Rico, A. M., & Paraskevopoulou, E. (2014). The impact of science and technology parks on firms' product innovation: empirical evidence from Spain. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 24(4), 835-873. doi: 10.1007/s00191-013-0337-1.
  82. Villasana, M. (2011). Fostering university-industry interactions under a triple helix model: the case of Nuevo Leon, Mexico. Science and Public Policy, 38(1), 43-53. doi: 10.3152/030234211X12924093659996
  83. Watkins, A., Papaioannou, T., Mugwagwa, J., & Kale, D. (2015). National innovation systems and the intermediary role of industry associations in building institutional capacities for innovation in developing countries: a critical review of the literature. Research Policy, 44(8), 1407-1418. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2015.05.004.
  84. Wu, A., & Wang, C. C. (2017). Knowledge search pattern and product innovation of firms in low and high-technology industrial clusters: a knowledge relatedness perspective. Tijdschrift Voor Economische En Sociale Geografie, 108(4), 488-502. doi: 10.1111/tesg.12226.
Cited by
Show
ISSN
2083-1277
Language
eng
URI / DOI
http://dx.doi.org/10.24136/oc.2022.016
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Google+ Share on Pinterest Share on LinkedIn Wyślij znajomemu