The triple helix strategy for universities in developing countries: the experiences in Malaysia and...

Science and Public Policy July 2008 0302-3427/08/060431-13 US$08.00 © Beech Tree Publishing 2008 431

Science and Public Policy, 35(6), July 2008, pages 431–443 DOI: 10.3152/030234208X323316; http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/beech/spp

The triple helix strategy for universities in developing countries:

the experiences in Malaysia and Algeria

Mohammed Saad, Girma Zawdie and Chandra Malairaja

This article addresses issues relating to the policy shift in developing countries aimed at making universities increasingly relevant to the socio-economic milieu by promoting the ‘triple helix culture’ as a sustainable basis for innovation and technological progress. The role of universities in creating, disseminating and sharing knowledge is highlighted. Using the experiences of Malaysia and Algeria, the article explores evidence to show the extent to which the triple helix system of relationships between university, industry and government could be expected to enhance the relevance of universities to developing countries as active agents of innovation and sustainable development.

OR MOST OF the last four decades or so, de-veloping countries have procured technologies from developed countries through a variety of

transfer mechanisms in order to underpin their in-dustrialization and catch-up effort. But contrary to expectation, technology transfer has not, in most cases, translated into sustainable economic growth. Various factors have been at work. The prevalence of institutional and organizational fragmentation in these countries is one major factor that constrained the technology transfer process from translating into the development of innovation initiatives. Fragmen-tation precluded interaction and it saw institutional spheres like universities relegated to a passive role in the process of knowledge creation and knowledge sharing.

Second, for lack of economic growth, most devel-oping economies do not have the capacity or institu-tional infrastructure to be able to effectively absorb and learn from the technologies acquired from abroad. Technology transfer practices have often helped in providing the knowledge base for import-substituting industrialization. But the strategy of im-port-substituting industrialization is in most cases known to have failed to set developing countries on the path to sustainable growth because it thrived on the provision of protective policies that enhanced inefficiency and rent-seeking behaviour rather than innovation and competitiveness.

Third, technologies imported from developed countries usually take the form of hardware resulting from investments in plant and equipment based on ‘turnkey’ and ‘product in hand’ contracts. Conse-quently, technology transfer has been used as a strat-egy for increasing ‘factor accumulation’ to promote industrial growth rather than knowledge creation. Moreover, the scope for exploiting the innovation potential through ‘reverse engineering’ has been con-strained by the restrictive terms and conditions under-lying technology transfer agreements. It is not, therefore, surprising that in most developing countries, the growth impact of technology transfer has not extended beyond the development of produc-tion capability. Even the experience in production capability has not, in most cases, been found to be

F

Dr Mohammed Saad is Reader in the School of Operations and Information Management, Bristol Business School, University of the West of England, Frenchay Campus, Coldharbour Lane, Bristol BS16 1QY, UK; Email: [email protected]; Website: <www.intellectbooks.co.uk/ppjournals.php>; Tel: +44 (0)117 3283463; Fax: +44 (0) 1173282289. Dr Girma Zawdie is at the David Livingstone Institute of International Development Studies (DLIIDS), University of Strathclyde, John Anderson Building, Glasgow G4 0NG, Scotland, UK; Email: [email protected]. Dr Chandra Malairaja, Ministry of Sci-ence, Technology and Environment, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia; E-mail: [email protected].

Universities in developing countries

Science and Public Policy July 2008 432

sustainable enough to warrant the conditions for the development of investment, still less innovation capabilities.

Fourth, the technology transfer experience in many developing countries conformed to a linear model of relationships between agents of technology supply and demand. This arrangement effectively precludes the scope for knowledge sharing across

the economic spectrum and deprives developing countries of the potential benefits arising from the dynamic effects of technology transfer initiatives across a network of institutional spheres.

The aim of this article is to show the growing concern in developing countries about the need for policy shift from the traditional technology transfer practice to the development of a ‘triple helix cul-ture’ in which universities can take the lead role to provide a sustainable basis for innovation and tech-nological progress. Using the experiences of Malaysia and Algeria, the article seeks to show how confidence in universities can be established through the implementation of the triple helix strat-egy for the emergence of learning societies and innovation as a robust basis for sustainable devel-opment. In this connection, the following questions are addressed:

1. What are the constraints on and opportunities for promoting shared learning through systems of in-teractive networks involving institutional spheres like universities, industry and government and non-government organizations as key players?

2. What does it take for universities in developing countries to play an active role in the promotion of innovation and the emergence of a learning society?

3. What are the implications of the triple helix para-digm for the organization and management of the university system, and also for the modalities of technology transfer practices in developing countries?

In addressing these questions, the article draws es-sentially on the theory of social capital, which ar-gues for greater inter-organizational relationships to continuously acquire and update external knowledge and exploit it for sustainable competitive advantage.

The empirical part of the article is based on primary and secondary data that relate to university–industry–government interactions in Algeria and Malaysia. The focus on Algeria and Malaysia is based on the under-standing that in both countries there is keen policy interest in making a radical shift from the traditional import substitution (or technology or ‘supply push’-based) strategy of growth to the triple helix strategy for technological progress, sustainable indus-trialization and economic growth.

A qualitative case study approach is adopted to in-vestigate the data on each country experience. This methodological approach is well suited to the type of data obtained through semi-structured interviews and secondary sources, and to the types of questions ad-dressed relating to contextual conditions. The contex-tual conditions here relate to various government institutions, universities, innovation systems, indus-try and geographical regions. Blaikie (2000) makes a strong case for the application of the qualitative approach in the study of the social nature of triple helix relationships.

Mohammed Saad (Licence Sciences Eéconomiques, DMS, MSc, PhD) is Reader in Innovation and Operations Man-agement and Head of School of Operations and Information Management at Bristol Business School (University of the West of England, Bristol). He is a visiting professor at the University of Sfax (Tunisia) and the Besançon Business School. He also worked as a Lecturer of Management in Algeria for 10 years. His research activity spans several fields — mainstream operations management, innovation and technology management and more global policy-related issues of knowledge development, transfer and institutional collaborative learning in the context of developing countries. He is leading two very active research teams: (i) Innovation in Procurement and Supply Chain Management Research Group and (ii) Workpackage 4, of Building Operational Sus-tainable Services for GMES (Boss4GMES). His research track record includes around 100 publications including many international-quality refereed journal articles and three successful research books. He is co-founder and co-editor of the International Journal of Technology Management and Sustainable Development, which is published in collaboration with the Association of Commonwealth Universities. He is currently leading a collective book on triple helix innovation and development. Girma Zawdie (BA, MSc, PhD) is a lecturer in the David Livingstone Centre for Sustainability at the University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK. He is an economist with over 30 years of teaching and research experience gained from work in the UK and overseas. Areas of his research interest cover technology and innovation management; policy issues relating to environmental management; world poverty; and sustainable development. He has published papers widely in peer-reviewed journals, conference proceedings, books and monographs. He is co-founder and co-editor of the International Journal of Technology Management and Sustainable Development, which is published in collaboration with the Association of Commonwealth Universities. He also had a stint as managing editor of Science, Technology and Development, journal of the Third World Science, Technology and Development Forum. He has lived and worked in developing countries as an academic, a consultant and freelance journalist. He has at various times in the past undertaken research and consultancy work for UN agencies, ILO, DFID, the British Council and different NGOs, covering a wide range of development issues. He has also at various times played key roles in the organization and management of international conferences. Dr Chandra Malairaja has been a civil servant in the Malay-sian Government with responsibilities in policy matters relat-ing to the development of business enterprises through joint ventures, and technology transfer and technology develop-ment initiatives. He had a long stint at the Ministry of Sci-ence, Technology and Innovation (MPSTI) as a principal assistant director after which he took study leave to under-take PhD studies at the University of Strathclyde in Glas-gow, UK. He has researched and published on the effectiveness of science parks as a strategy for technologi-cal progress and industrialization in emerging economies like Malaysia. He is currently engaged as a senior staff in the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment of Ma-laysia, based in Kuala Lumpur.



The individual country cases are qualitatively dis-cussed with the aim of bringing out the underlying problems and prospects of triple helix development and the role of universities in developing countries. Using the data and information obtained, the indi-vidual cases are discussed with the aim of bringing out the underlying problems and prospects of triple helix development in each case.

The remainder of the article is in three sections. The first section following this introduction investi-gates the conceptual basis for the triple helix system and its relevance to developing countries with refer-ence to contemporary innovation studies and the theory of social capital, which will help identify the main issues and challenges linked to the devel-opment of the triple helix culture in developing countries. In the second section, the experiences of Malaysia and Algeria are discussed with respect to the role of universities, government and industry in technology transfer, knowledge exchange and de-velopment. The influence that the economic status of a country can have on the effectiveness of the triple helix system is also explored. The third section draws some conclusions from the discussions of the experiences of the two countries.

The triple helix system and relevance to developing countries

Key attributes of triple helix innovation

The triple helix model involves a network of relationships between university, industry and gov-ernment (U–I–G). As such, it offers firms, organiza-tions and institutions the opportunity to develop complementary capabilities and to tap into other systems of innovation and learning which can give them access to a wider range of solutions to techno-logical problems. The triple helix system thus corre-sponds to an alternative paradigm for technology transfer. It represents a radical departure from the conventional technology transfer practice that has done little or nothing to support development based on the comparative advantage of economies offered by local resource endowment, including indigenous knowledge. In the triple helix system, technology transfer is expected to play a residual role in support of the development of indigenous technological capability through learning-by-production, learning-by-adaptation and learning-by-innovation.

The origins of the triple helix concept can be traced to Schumpeter’s seminal contribution to the theory of innovation as a basis for the process of economic change, and also to the more recent works of neo-Schumpeterians for whom innovation is an evolutionary, interactive and cumulative process (Dosi, 1982; Clark and Juma, 1987). The U–I–G concept is based on the feedback deriving from the interaction between the economic, social, political and institutional spheres which influence the

development and diffusion of learning and innova-tion. It can therefore be viewed as a further devel-opment of the techno-economic paradigm introduced by Freeman and Perez (1988). For the triple helix model, innovation is caused by the interaction of the key players/actors in the model. On their own, indi-vidual players are ineffective. This multi-factor, network system approach to innovation is supported by Tidd et al (2001) for whom most of the major innovations take place as a result of the interaction of between technology, science and the market.

The triple helix model of innovation can also be seen as a further development of Rothwell’s model of fifth generation innovation (1992), significantly marked by a greater integration and greater use of networks and information and technology (IT). This model is known as systems integration and networks (SIN). By acknowledging the link between the milieux and innovation, the triple helix model places emphasis on the role of the extra level relationships and its impact on the development of learning and innovation. The triple helix system is thus akin to the theory of the milieux innovateurs in that it ac-knowledges the significance of the relationship be-tween innovation and specific locations (Morgan, 1997). It also stresses the importance of the systems for regional innovation and focuses on regions and geographical proximity to achieve quick learning and stimulate the innovation capability and competi-tiveness of local firms. (Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff, 1997, 2000; Etzkowitz 2002; Leydesdorff and Etzkowitz 1998, 2001).

This article views the triple helix system of inno-vation as a system of discontinuous innovation. This type of innovation does not follow conventional pathways (Etzkowitz and De Mello, 2004). The tri-ple helix system thus represents a radical departure from the conventional transfer of technology and knowledge. It requires new intra- and inter-organizational arrangements and culture, all of which require considerable commitment and re-sources and take time to develop (Saad, 2004; Saad and Zawdie, 2005). The merit of the system is that it is capable of creating the conditions for generating, sharing and disseminating appropriate knowledge that is conducive to quick learning and innovation

The university–industry–government concept is based on the feedback deriving from the interaction between the economic, social, political and institutional spheres which influence the development and diffusion of learning and innovation



necessary for speedy catch-up and growth. More-over, the system thrives in the breakdown of the monopoly culture of rent-seeking vested interests, and in the liquidation of the political culture of cen-tralization of power underlying the state of institu-tional fragmentation observed to be prevalent in developing countries. However, the institutions in most developing countries as well as their level of absorptive capacity may not be able to support such significant changes. As highlighted by Shinn (2002), the institutional realities of most developing countries are different from those in developed countries.

Thus, a fundamental feature of the triple helix model is its aim to bring together different actors, capitalizing on their interactions in order to provide a comprehensive understanding of the innovation process and its key determinants. It views innovation as a product of a complex and non-linear set of ac-tivities involving interactions within and between the principal players. It can be seen as deriving from a combination of both continuous and discontinuous innovation based upon previous learning and experi-ences but also requiring a significant level of ‘unlearning’ and new ‘ways of doing things’ — what Schumpeter refers to as ‘creative destruction’.

The innovation process assumes that each helix or organizational sphere experiences a high level of interactions and goes through a complex process of transformation. Effectively coordinating and manag-ing all interactions, interfaces and transformations happening within and between each helix calls for the ability to create, manage and reshape rela-tionships between individuals and organizations. It requires new intra- and inter-organizational ar-rangements and culture, all of which require consid-erable commitment and resources which may, however, be lacking in developing countries.

Triple helix as an innovation embedded in social relationships

At the heart of the triple helix model of innovation is a network of collaboration between firms, subcontrac-tors, universities, research institutions and govern-ment institutions aimed at generating useful knowledge and enhancing prospects for the develop-ment of innovation capability. Networking is seen as a means of facilitating learning, transfer of technology and innovation (Van Dijk and Sandee, 2002). This is why the triple helix system of innovation is often de-scribed as being embedded in social relationships which occur as a result of geographical concentration and proximity (Doloreux and Parto, 2004). It is there-fore useful to investigate the types of exchanges and relationships that take place within the triple helix system through the theory of social capital.

Social capital has been theorized by many in different ways (Granovetter, 1973; Bourdieu, 1985; Coleman, 1990; Nahapiet and Ghohsal, 1998; Portes, 1998; Putnam, 2000; Lin, 2001). In line with Bourdieu’s conception of social capital, Burt (2004)

notes that the success of individuals and even firms has often been explained solely in terms of human capital, ignoring the role of social capital and con-siders this to be naive. Lin (2001) suggests that the value of social capital can be captured in two main dimensions that are relevant to the successful opera-tionalization of a triple helix model whose objective is to create, share and disseminate the knowledge to foster learning and the development of innovation. First, social capital facilitates information flow and knowledge sharing between people. Second, social relations are instrumental in reinforcing group iden-tity and recognition which in turn fosters informal norms, trust and strong ties within the group or the sphere. Indeed, Putnam (2000) and Coleman (1990) claim that a social network with strong ties and densely interconnected players leads to higher social capital formation.

The close and informal relationships that can de-velop in a triple helix model can facilitate the trans-fer of both explicit and tacit knowledge (Cavusgil et al, 2003). Tacit knowledge, however important, particularly in the context of developing countries, is difficult to interpret, articulate, formalize and com-municate. It can only be transferred, and shared through close collaboration (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995) and geographical proximity (Jones et al, 1997).

Nahapiet and Ghoshal (1998) and Moran and Ghoshal (1996) suggest that the theory of social capital includes a relational dimension that is a func-tion of repeated relationship dynamics between the partners. For Cohen and Levinthal (1990), the amount of external knowledge an organization can obtain from key partners depends on the following three aspects of social capital: the level of social interaction between the organizations; the quality of the relationship in terms of goodwill, trust and recip-rocity; and the level of network ties created through the relationship. Morgan and Hunt (1994) link close and informal relationships with mutual trust, com-mitment and high quality and frequent communica-tions. This type of relationship can help in building relational contracting and thus avoid transactions-based contracting (Williamson, 1979).

However, ‘weak ties’ are also an important source of social capital. Burt (2005) explains the idea of ‘weak ties’ by suggesting that individual agents, who are structurally positioned to bridge the gap between two relatively closed social networks, can gain economic advantage by acting as ‘information brokers’ between the two networks. He refers to this activity as ‘brokerage’ and the gap as ‘structural hole’. Weak ties can help the different spheres of the triple helix model reinforce their links and interac-tions by bringing fresh information and new per-spectives which can be extremely useful in the context of developing countries. Through weak ties and interactions with others, access to external knowledge can be gained and combined with exist-ing knowledge.



Putman (2000) offers a more collective view of social capital by arguing that a society that has a higher stock of social capital generally tends to do better in terms of its well-being. Social capital creates value for its possessor but it entails commit-ment and investments, which the accumulation of capital in any form would call for. In developing countries, where the context is often characterized by lack of trust, triple helix relationships need to be supported by social capital self-consciously acquired by individuals and institutions.

Although the discussion on social capital is often focused on its positive aspects, there are drawbacks that need to be taken into consideration when intro-ducing and managing triple helix relationships. Social capital that can lead to social cohesiveness can also lead to suspicion and distrust of outsiders to the group or community. This can have a long-term detrimental effect on the well-being of both the community and its members (Fine, 2001). It can also impact the degree and ability of the group and its members to be open and accommodate new ideas and approaches. It is worth acknowledging that so-cial capital is often used in exerting influence over people to maintain a status quo and power. In other words, relations between people are often asymmet-ric with differential ability to influence people.

The literature suggests that social capital broadly enhances trust, search for network partners and or-ganizational knowledge production (Spender, 1996; Nahapiet and Ghosal,1998). However, it remains unclear whether social capital is an outcome or a prerequisite of the process. The presence of ‘prior’ social ties can encourage co-operative behaviour between partners that are even spatially and tempo-rally separated. Following from Granovetter’s argu-ment (1973), existing social ties also reduce the risk for opportunistic behaviour by one of the partners.

The role of universities in developing countries

Within the triple helix model, the university assumes a crucial and challenging role of leading innovation initiatives in knowledge-based societies (Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff, 2000). Not only is the university expected to fulfil its traditional functions, but it has also to take the role of others (Etzkowitz, 2006).

Etzkowitz (2003) claims that triple helix interac-tions can originate from varying institutional ar-rangements which can be set in three broad categories. The first is the statist model which fea-tures a strong governmental control over academia and industry. The second is the laissez-faire model in which industry, academia and government are set apart from each other with minimal interactions. The third model consists of hybrid organizations in which each institutional sphere maintains its identity and main mission, while also taking the role of the other.

In the triple helix system, universities are increas-ingly viewed as sources of regional economic devel-opment, and there is growing demand on academic

institutions to live up to this expectation. It can thus be argued that the triple helix system is a reaction to the ‘ivory tower syndrome’ of traditional universi-ties. In the triple helix framework, new organiza-tional mechanisms, such as incubators, science parks, and angel networks, become a source of eco-nomic activity, community formation, and inter-national exchange. Entrepreneurship is increasingly integrated with teaching and research as an academic mission to foster new initiatives within and outside the university. As the university assumes an entre-preneurial identity, it also becomes more directly involved in economic development and starts play-ing the role of other spheres (government and indus-try). This issue was debated by university leaders at the 1962 UNESCO/Economic Commission for Africa Conference which took place in Madagascar. However, it is only very recently that a few African universities have started readjusting their strategy by introducing and strengthening their entrepreneurial activities to play an active role in the socio-economic development of their regional and/or national environment (Sawyer, 2004; Kruss, 2005; 2008; Juma, 2006).

Elsewhere in the developing world, however, the situation is not as bleak as it is in Africa. For in-stance, while India and Latin America produce 2.4% and 3.5% of world’s research respectively, Africa accounts only for about 1.8% (Pouris and Pouris, 2007). In Brazil, universities and NGOs have col-laborated in fostering new types of cooperatives to create employment opportunities (Almeida et al, 2007). Sutz (2000) also states that the formalization of university–industry cooperation was already rec-ognized in Latin America. In other countries, like India, Singapore and Korea, links between teaching and research institutions are known to be strongly oriented towards the needs of the local environment and industry.

It is becoming increasingly clear to developing countries that strengthening their capacity to gener-ate, apply, adapt and disseminate knowledge is cru-cial to future economic growth and social development (World Bank, 2002; UNDP, 2001). This presumes a significant change in the role and status of universities in developing countries. Not all developing countries are, however, in the same boat,

In the triple helix system, universities are increasingly viewed as sources of regional economic development, and there is growing demand on academic institutions to live up to this expectation



as situations vary from one country to another, as the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) Technology Achievement Index ranking of develop-ing countries shows (UNDP, 2001). This means there are bound to be considerable differences between countries and universities in terms of the balance between teaching and research, science and technology research capacity, organizations and cultures. All of these shape their institutional re-sponses to the new academic and third mission (en-trepreneurship) as advocated by the triple helix model. This response will also be influenced by the centralized and bureaucratic nature of existing gov-ernment–university relationships.

It is, therefore, not appropriate to assume that the transition to a new paradigm will be universal taking the same form in all countries (Kraak, 2001). This is why Kruss (2008), claims that, in the context of developing countries, the transition to new economic and social forms cannot always follow a linear pro-cess. Kruss also argues that universities from devel-oping countries would need to develop flexible capabilities that permit them to weave together new and old, ‘change and continuity in sustainable form’. The state-led and top-down system, still predomi-nant in most developing countries, can be inappro-priate for the introduction of triple helix systems and a new role for universities.

It is also worth noting the paradox that can occur in poor countries as result of the orientation of the role of universities in knowledge-based societies often underpinned by the theory of resource-based value. The view here is that knowledge as the foun-dation of competitive advantage (Prahalad and Hamel, 1990; Wernerfelt, 1995; Makadok, 2001) can lead to the university system in developing countries being disconnected from its underdevel-oped and poor environment only to be connected to interests abroad. This does not, however, mean there are no lessons for developing countries to learn from the experiences of their developed counterparts or from interactions with them.

Triple helix as a reaction to the ‘supply push’ and ‘ivory tower’ paradigms

Historically, technological progress in the now ma-ture industrialized economies started with the gradual development of ‘home grown’ technologies. Con-temporary innovation in these economies derives from a balanced contribution of ‘science push’ forces at the upstream reach (involving basic research) and ‘demand pull’ forces at the downstream reach (in-volving applied research and development). In many developing countries, investment in universities has not produced a research and development capability; or where it has, as in the case of middle-income countries like Malaysia and, to a limited extent, Algeria, R&D initiatives have largely remained re-mote from industrial practice. Much of this is a reflec-tion of the prevalence of institutional fragmentation

and the absence of institutional mechanisms that facilitate interactive links between universities (or research centres), industry, and government institu-tions. This situation has resulted in the apparent re-luctance of policy to target need profiles as the basis for technology supply and, consequently, in the emergence of the ‘supply push’ culture that under-pins the educational systems (in which universities often stand out as ‘ivory towers’), R&D initiatives and technology transfer practices in these countries.

In seeking to promote the triple helix strategy, policy in developing countries should address the question of drawing a balance between the objec-tives of skill development and knowledge accumula-tion as the raison d’être for investment in universities (Zawdie, 1996). Skill development is essentially a response to questions arising from the prevailing demand profile of the economy. Knowl-edge accumulation, on the other hand, provides the basis for technological progress. The two functions of education are not unrelated; but what is important is that the balance between them is bound to vary at different stages of economic growth. Thus, for ex-ample, in a predominantly agrarian, low-income economy, the dominant function of education would be to equip farmers with skills that would help them raise their productivity. The demand in such countries would be largely for middle-level skills that complement the widespread employment of la-bour-intensive technologies. Tertiary-level education aimed at the accumulation of knowledge capital, though important for long-term development, would, in the light of prevailing circumstances, qualify as a high-opportunity cost initiative and would hence remain of marginal significance until the economy develops a sufficiently diversified structure.

On the other hand, activities at a higher level of economic development would call for high-level skills and R&D support systems in order to be com-petitive and efficient. The role of education in the process of growth and development would in this case be not simply to enhance the diffusion of tech-nologies perpetuating the ‘supply push’ syndrome, but to provide the broad basis — what Abramovitz (1986) calls ‘social capability’ (very much akin to the concept of ‘social capital’ discussed above) — for the development of indigenous technology, es-sentially through the institution of a framework for interactive learning. It is this process of learning, knowledge sharing and exchange made possible through networking of institutions and capacity building — and not merely the traditional North–South technology transfer — that warrants transition of economies from low-income to middle-income and then to high-income status. The transition from ‘supply push’-oriented technology transfer and dif-fusion to ‘need-oriented’ strategy of development within the framework of the ‘triple helix’ system is demonstrated in Figure 1. This transition presumes the development of social capital, which is in short supply at present in developing countries.



The triple helix challenge in developing countries

In this section, we look into the experiences of two countries — namely, Malaysia and Algeria — with respect to policy initiatives for capacity building and lessons to be derived as to the prospects and chal-lenges of implementing the triple helix system in developing countries.

Two issues are crucial for the success of a triple helix innovation (Saad and Zawdie, 2005). The first relates to the involvement and commitment of the various partners within and between the triple helix spheres: government, industry and academia. The second is associated with the challenge posed by the task of developing mechanisms for coordinating the multiple and complex interactions and interfaces in order to generate a context and a conducive environment for knowledge sharing, learning and innovation.

However, a major obstacle to the development of the triple helix culture in developing countries is the bureaucratic character of most institutions, including businesses and universities, which impedes the transfer and use of knowledge within and between organizational and institutional spheres. Decision-making at the level of organizations is still dependent upon directives coming from the top; and initiatives aimed at forging interactive links with external agencies are still not an important part of the busi-ness culture of most organizations.1 What is needed in developing countries is a set of policy initiatives that would remedy the institutional fragmentation

problem, enhance the development of social capital and provide the basis for the emergence of innova-tive and competitive culture. How do Malaysia and Algeria fare in this respect?

The Malaysian experience of triple helix research and technology transfer

By contrast to the experiences of many developing countries, Malaysia has made significant strides with respect to economic growth and technological pro-gress. Much of the economic progress has, however, derived from the experience of technology transfer from developed countries. Concern with sustainable development in recent years has, however, brought pressure to bear on policy to focus on the triple helix strategy of innovation and technology transfer as the way forward. This commitment is articulated in the MIGHT Report (2002). The concern to make the triple helix system work as a dynamic framework for knowledge creation and its dissemination across the economic spectrum is not new in Malaysia; but like many other developing countries, Malaysia has been constrained by systemic problems arising from the persistence of a political economy characterized by the centralization of power and the fragmentation of institutional spheres. Not surprisingly, university research is still for the most part remote from indus-trial practice, and the country still remains largely dependent on technology transfer from abroad for enhancing its competitive edge in export markets. It can be argued, however, that unlike the experience in most developing countries, in the Malaysian case,

Local large scale enterprises with in-house R&D

Private consultancy

firms

Universities

R & D Centres

International sources of technology supply

Small and medium size enterprises

(SMEs)

Government

Donor Agencies

Figure 1. The triple helix framework for innovation and technology transfer in developing countries

Source: Zawdie (1996)



technology transfer has had the benign effect of some technological learning that has helped to en-hance the production and investment capabilities of enterprises. But for all its impressive economic performance over the last three decades or so propped by technology transfer from abroad, Malay-sia’s success has not extended to the development of sustainable innovation.

The government has introduced various measures to strengthen university–industry links. Two major measures are: providing public funds to encourage collaborative research between universities and in-dustry;2 and strengthening the role of business units at universities to promote interactions with industry. Meanwhile, universities in Malaysia have estab-lished various mechanisms to facilitate links with industry, especially in the area of technology trans-fer and commercialization of research results. One noticeable effort is the setting-up of investment arms or business units to market expertise, skills and technology that could be utilized by private enter-prises. A good example is Unisains Holdings Sendirian Berhad (Unisains) formed in 1997 by the Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM) in Penang. Two additional units to complement and work together with Unisains were established by USM in April 2002 and are known as the Engineering Innovation and Technology Development (EITD) unit and the Medical Innovation and Technology Development unit.

According to Ali (2003), the constraints faced in university–industry collaboration include:

• Dominance of foreign investments in the critical sectors of manufacturing, especially electronics;

• Shortfalls in the provision of research funding by government and industry;

• The nascent state of the venture capital industry; • Lack of research scientists who can explore the

frontiers of knowledge; • The underdevelopment of innovative entrepreneu-

rial culture; and • The divergence of objectives between university

and industry.

The EITD unit in USM conducted a general survey to gauge its perspective about university–industry collaboration. Sadullah (2002) reports the findings of the survey to include the following: insufficient innovative products for commercialization; lack of research results worthy of commercialization; lack of conviction and commitment among academic staff to participate in research; and the commerciali-zation of research. The limited success of commer-cialization in Malaysia is attributed to a number of factors, including, inter alia, problems related to lack of industry-relevant R&D projects and finance to fund the various stages of commercialization (GoM, 2001).

The Ministry of Education has been organizing annual exhibitions since 2002 to showcase the

research and development outputs of the public sector institutions of higher education (HEIs). The participa-tion of the private sector in two such expositions held so far is reported to have been very disappointing due to lack of communication and information. Another factor explaining lack of commercialization is the preponderance of multinational companies in the nation’s industrial structure, especially in the electri-cal and electronics sector. Most of these foreign com-panies conduct their R&D in the home country and thus do not see the need to collaborate with local HEIs or research institutions to undertake joint R&D to improve their product performance.

The Malaysian Government has launched the National Innovation Agenda with focus on market-driven research aimed at promoting Malaysia’s competitive advantage and harnessing intellectual capital in science and technology. The government has also drawn up various plans and programmes to enhance commercialization of research deriving from local universities and research institutes. More-over, plans providing incentives to scientists and re-searchers from local universities are in the pipeline.3

There is clear evidence of most Malaysian univer-sities being positioned within either the statist or laissez-faire triple helix models. The triple helix sys-tem has yet to evolve. Meanwhile, universities are still struggling to fulfil their role as entrepreneurial institutions. The government remains a dominant actor, and is often seen dictating and imposing ambiguous and unclear terms on the other actors. Even though there is evidence of universities in Malaysia having an active relationship with industry, this is limited to educational development and ad hoc consultancy activities. Universities are nonethe-less still trying hard to find industrial partners and to commercialize their research

The focus on the commercialization of university research has, however, created concern among some in the academic community who believe that Malay-sian universities should first and foremost aim to be world-class teaching and research institutions and not commercial enterprises. This is a fair enough concern to the extent that well-educated graduates with critical minds and good learning skills are the universities’ most significant contribution to society and economy (Lundvall, 2002). What is not clear, however, is the point beyond which the commer-cialization objective ceases to be an academic virtue. That notwithstanding, there is no denying the gen-eral consensus regarding the significance of Malay-sia’s achievement in capacity-building and social capital and technological capability development initiatives. Whether Malaysia’s experience can be seen as a lesson that other developing countries may do well to emulate is, however, a moot point, as the Malaysian circumstances are not necessarily appar-ent elsewhere. What is incontrovertible is the need for social capital development to pave the way for innovation capability development — a policy ob-jective common to all developing countries.



The Algerian experience in S&T development and shift to triple helix innovation

Like Malaysia, Algeria has behind it a history of industrialization driven by the strategy of import substitution and the acquisition of foreign technolo-gies, with hardly any significant complementary contributions from local research institutions and universities. However, after independence in 1962, significant changes were introduced in order to fa-cilitate access to higher education. One of the most important reforms introduced in 1971 sought to re-lease the full potential of Algerian universities with the aim of enabling them to support the ambitious economic, social and cultural transformation and development of the newly independent country.

This reform was developed around the political agenda of democratization, Arabization and Algeri-anization, albeit without losing sight of the scientific and technological orientation of university educa-tion. The democratization of the university was aimed at ensuring greater and free access to higher education in the country. This resulted in the rapid expansion of enrollment over the years — from 1,137 in 1960 to 700,000 in 2004. This number is expected to reach 1 million in 2010. The pursuit of a third objective, namely emphasis on the scientific and technological orientation of university educa-tion, was motivated by the importance given to the achievement of rapid socio-economic development through industrialization and the exploitation of the natural resources, mainly hydrocarbons. Thus, for example, by 1986–87, about 70% of university stu-dents were registered in scientific and technological areas of study, with about 30% studying technology. However, these figures dropped fairly quickly in subsequent years as a result of lack of employment opportunities for graduates in those areas.

The next major reform was introduced in 1999. This reform was aimed at preparing Algerian univer-sities to support the transition from a centralized to a free market economy and also to address the threats and opportunities of globalization to the Algerian economy. The new economic, social and political challenges brought forth by globalization trends prompted revision of the role the universities played in the provision of science and technology through teaching and research activities. This reform also

aimed at ensuring that the Algerian university sys-tem was driven by the objective of not merely increasing quantity of output, but more importantly raising the quality of output.

A relatively greater autonomy was granted to uni-versities and faculties to align part of their activities to the specific needs of their region and industry to diversify their sources of funding for research and development programmes. This has stimulated de-mand from local private and public companies for specialized postgraduate courses and consultancy services which, in turn, has been crucial for the emergence of a fledgling entrepreneurial academic culture. However, this demand has been limited in extent, occasional in character and dependent on isolated actions or instructions from the top (minis-tries or national headquarters for state companies). In addition, most of these isolated and occasional initiatives have been carried out informally by indi-viduals, very often without any significant impact on or benefit to the universities and/or the business or-ganizations the individuals represent.

The number of researchers increased from 5,000 in 1996 to 15,000 in 2002. With the 1999 reform came a shift in S&T policy from a centralized to a decentralized approach; and institutional networks emerged through greater community involvement of universities in liaison with local actors. This process involved relationships and joint actions between government, industry and university and research institutions at both national and regional levels. However, the reform did not provide for sufficient power to be devolved to local actors, so that the po-tential gains expected to derive from the articulation of institutional networks is still far from fully realized. The dominant role of the state and its cen-tralized approach coupled with the lack of a knowl-edge-sharing culture has had the effect of rendering this coordination complex and unattainable in spite of the creation of a large number of committees at national and regional levels. There was also the lack of an adequate and consistent follow-up scheme for cooperative projects. This means that an integrated or holistic approach has not yet taken root as the way of doing things in Algeria. The fragmentation of decision-making networks limits the scope for con-sensus, which is identified by Etzkowitz and De Mello (2004) as one of the main preconditions for technological development through the application of the triple helix model of innovation.

Although the importance of strong ties and rela-tionships between the three triple helix spheres is widely acknowledged, little has been done in Alge-ria to date to establish a robust partnership between the university and its economic and social environ-ment. Consequently, there is currently a notable ab-sence of academic institutions among the agencies most preferred to deliver technological support services.4 The Algerian university system was hardly involved in the programme of business incubation systems recently introduced in Algeria as part of the

What is incontrovertible is the need for social capital development to pave the way for innovation capability development — a policy objective common to all developing countries



wider political and economic changes that have been taking place in the country since the early 1990s. This is indicative of the general lack of awareness of the crucial role universities can play in collaboration with government, non-government and other private sector organizations in the process of innovation. The university was not also fully involved in initia-tives aimed at upgrading the competitiveness and productivity of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). These initiatives, which were funded by UNIDO and the European Union, included the pro-vision of training and advisory services in the areas of human-resources management, production mar-keting, quality, business and financial planning and trade. The universities were, however, interested in large state-owned companies, and hardly showed interest in the development of SMEs and in their role as instruments of economic growth and technologi-cal change. On the other hand, it is often vocational training institutions that appear to be more involved in the development of SMEs’ technological capabili-ties through initiatives aimed at aligning their teach-ing activities to the social and economic needs of their external environment.

The changing environment of Algerian universi-ties requires new practices and significant changes in the organization and management of teaching and research. It is widely felt that if the university does not align itself to the needs of its environment, it will remain isolated as an ‘ivory tower’. Its graduates will continue having difficulties in finding jobs and will continue to swell the number of university graduates leaving the country to work abroad. It is, for instance, estimated that around 80,000 university graduates have left Algeria since the end of the 1970s. This brain drain, which was initially limited to scientists and high flyers in specific areas, now involves professionals from a wide range of disciplines.

Algerian universities have recently started open-ing themselves to their immediate external economic and social environments and to SMEs. Indeed, both university and industry are now realizing the signifi-cance of partnership as they cannot cope with the challenge of meeting the growing skill and technol-ogy needs on their own. The universities are taking the lead to forge partnership arrangements through various initiatives. For instance, they organized four major conferences in 2006/2007 to explore strategies for aligning themselves with the social and eco-nomic environment and for forging new forms of interaction with industry and public sector organiza-tions. Other initiatives aimed at creating the condi-tions for a more successful implementation of a triple helix strategy in Algeria are currently being investigated. In May 2007, the Algerian government organized a two-day event to examine how to re-structure and make their support more effective through greater decentralization and involvement of local actors and stakeholders. The idea of placing a greater emphasis on learning has also been

acknowledged. This can give an opportunity for the university sector to enhance its credibility and legitimacy by actively contributing to the develop-ment of local entrepreneurs and to the creation of small and sustainable enterprises from which it has traditionally excluded itself.

A second major government initiative is aimed at restructuring the national system of innovation and research. Plans are afoot to restructure the frame-work for the development of a national policy of scientific and technological research, which was put in place in 1998, in order to position the national system of innovation as the framework of the devel-opment process and thereby address the potential risks borne by population growth, globalization, climate change and natural disasters. This will call for proper scientific and strategic evaluation, gov-ernance and accountability aimed at improving the quality of the research and enhancing the integrity and authority of the university. The priority of the new policy framework will therefore be to ensure that research is geared towards addressing the key problems associated with the development of the economy.

These ongoing reforms are aimed at transforming and re-orienting the Algerian university sector as a driver of innovation and regional development. The reforms are also aimed at increasing the efficiency of the innovation system by placing a greater emphasis on institutional and organizational restructuring to phase out the problem of fragmentation that has hitherto thwarted the potential for innovation and technological progress in the country.

It is apparent from the portfolio of recent govern-ment initiatives that the centralized approach still forms a strong feature of the new system of innova-tion which positions the Algerian triple helix ap-proach clearly in the statist model. In addition, although the new policy framework allows many institutions from both the government, industry and university spheres to be involved in the planning, implementation and control of the national innova-tion system, it is not clear how their activities are to be coordinated. Without a coherent framework for coordination, the system would precipitate a new form of bureaucracy and leave prospects for synergy and innovation hostage to fortune.

Moreover, the government’s initiative to see uni-versities take the lead role in the development of the triple helix culture, however well-intentioned, comes without any cutting edge insofar as not much has been done to date by way of policy provision to re-lax the resource constraint on universities and to radically reorient the structure and ethos of their re-search and teaching activities. Algerian universities are still strongly dependent on the Ministry for Higher Education for their programmes, resources and even determination of learning outcomes. The government takes the lead role in coordinating and providing resources for new initiatives, and acade-mia and industry represent the weak partners in the



Algerian triple helix arrangement. This makes the triple helix system in Algeria one that is state-dominated and without evidence of hybrid institutions to show the dynamic benefits of the triple helix system at work (see Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff, 2000).

Yet, for all that, it can be argued that, by the standards of many developing countries, particularly those in the sub-Saharan region, Algeria has come a long way in appreciating the significance of the triple helix system as the way forward for establishing the university as an active agent in the creation and dissemination of knowledge and and the promotion of innovation and technological progress through engagement in industry-oriented research and skill development. Whether this would give way for the triple helix system to evolve into trilateral networks with hybrid organizations is, however, difficult to determine at this stage, particularly in the absence of any significant change of political culture.

Conclusion: the challenges for universities in developing countries

In the two countries considered, a series of reforms were initiated to transform the national economy from a tightly controlled centralized system to a market-oriented one. Structural adjustment pack-ages, supported by the World Bank and the Inter-national Monetary Fund, were introduced to correct the macro-economic imbalance, reforming and restructuring public enterprises, integrating the economy into world markets, and promoting private-sector development. The new policy initiatives also sought to promote learning and innovation through a system of interactions between the main actors of the innovation process. These reforms have resulted in a limited, if culturally important, shift of policy outlook; but, as elsewhere, there is no evidence of a triple helix culture capable of giving rise to hybrid institutions in line with the Etzkowitz model of triple helix innovation (2003). It is nonetheless apparent from the experiences and conditions of these two countries that the challenge of making the triple helix system work is perhaps more daunting in Alge-ria than in Malaysia. Malaysia is economically more advanced than Algeria, and hence relatively more effective with the triple helix exercise.

In the triple helix model of innovation and devel-opment, a greater role is given to the university in the creation, dissemination and utilization of knowledge. This is not, however, for universities of an ‘ivory tower’ ethos, but for those that are entre-preneurial in character, engaged not only in the pro-duction of knowledge but equally importantly in the commercialization and sharing of it. It is important for this reason that the system under which universi-ties in developing countries operate is liberalized enough to enable them to be entrepreneurial,

risk-taking and innovative. This would enhance the relevance of universities to the aspirations of devel-oping countries, considering that expansion of the tertiary education sector in developing countries has often raised questions about the high opportunity cost of investment in the sector and also about the general perception of the university system in these countries as an ‘ivory tower’ that could be dispensed with as good-for-nothing.

The triple helix system would indeed enhance the relevance of universities to the needs of developing countries, but only if their research and teaching ethos were to be recast in a mould that would allow the forging of close relationships and sharing of knowledge with institutions across the social, eco-nomic and political spectrum. This would see uni-versities in developing countries shed their passive role and evolve as active agents of innovation and change. Based on a study of the South African ex-perience, Kruss (2008) suggests that this can be achieved through a combination of old and new ways of doing things in order to accommodate the realities of local institutions, context and priorities.

The extent to which governments in developing countries would allow their universities to be inde-pendent actors and agents of innovation and change is, however, likely to be determined by the political nature and confidence level of governments. The problem in developing countries is that governments tend to be overtaken by short-term preoccupations, and this does not leave much room for a successful implementation of the triple helix model of innova-tion. The two cases discussed in this article are in-teresting for their contrast, with the implementation of the triple helix strategy being relatively more ad-vanced in one (Malaysia) than in the other (Algeria); and this appears to broadly correlate with Malaysia being more confident than Algeria to address the challenging question of breaking institutional moulds and putting paid to the fragmentation prob-lem that has for long impaired the development of partnership networks, and has seen instead the top-down bureaucratic culture thrive.

This article has defined triple helix innovation as a systems integrated and networked innovation strongly embedded in social relationships. However, there are prerequisites for the successful implemen-tation of this model. First, the conditions for the

It is important that the system under which universities in developing countries operate is liberalized enough to enable them to be entrepreneurial, risk-taking and innovative



development of learning societies, which needs to be based on knowledge creation, knowledge sharing and transfer, have to be created. This assumes a cen-tral role assigned to universities and the need for universities to improve their profiles, credibility and competence. Second, more power would need to be devolved to the main actors involved in the devel-opment of science and technology in order to facili-tate the emergence of a bottom-up innovation system suggested by the ‘triple helix’ model. Third, stable, lasting and trusting relationships between the main actors and institutional spheres (universities, gov-ernment and industry) would need to be developed. This should be supported by the development of a culture of partnership and collaboration and the re-moval of the rigid boundaries between organizations and institutions. This calls for a comprehensive programme of capacity-building in developing countries, and hence for the active role of the state to enable the institutional spheres to interact, giving rise to the hybrid variant of the triple helix innova-tion system.

Notes

1. Other obstacles include: limited appropriate mechanisms, structures and procedures to capture and codify learning; lim-ited budgets and lack of long-term approach to science and technology development; passive use of the imported technol-ogy resulting to little or no acquisition of knowledge through learning; low level of indigenous capability; the education and training strategy is still aimed at supporting the industrialization of the country through the acquisition of advanced technology from developed nations; lack of experience of shared learning; lack of appropriate economic and political stability; use of tradi-tional methods of teaching and learning approaches and mod-els; low performance of research activities.

2. Public research institutes including universities in Malaysia can apply for research funding provided directly by the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation (MOSTI) through the programme called the Intensification of Research under Prior-ity Areas (IRPA). The government has allocated 2.3 billion ringgit since 1991 to fund various projects under IRPA. Any research activity seeking funding under IRPA must adhere to one or more of the criteria established. The research project should be of high national priority; address the needs of the industry; encourage collaborative efforts among research insti-tutions; and enhance R&D linkages between the private and public sectors.

3. This was reported by the local daily, The Star, via its online service, The Star online, on 15 October 2004. The Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation (MOSTI) is awaiting ap-proval from the Cabinet to implement the incentives scheme.

4. Report of the First International Workshop on the introduction of business incubation systems in Algeria which took place in Algiers in May 2003.

References

Abramovitz, M 1986 Catching up, forging ahead and falling be-hind. Journal of Economic History, 46(2), June, 385–406.

Ali, A 2003 Engaging economic development through the com-mercialisation of research: the Malaysian experience. Paper presented at the General Conference of the Association of Commonwealth Universities, 31 August–4 September, Belfast.

Almeida, M, J Mello and H Etzkowitz 2007 Innovation in incuba-tion and inclusion: the diffusion of the Brazilian cooperative in-cubator. Paper presented at the Triple Helix VI Conference, 16–18 May, Singapore.

Blaikie, N 2000 Designing Social Research. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Bourdieu, P 1985 The social space and genesis of groups. The-ory and Society, 14(6), 723–744.

Burt, R 2005 Brokerage and Closure: an Introduction to Social Capital. New York: Oxford University Press.

Burt, R S 2004 Structural holes and good ideas. American Journal of Sociology, 110(2), 349–399.

Cavusgil, S T, R J Catelone and Y Zhao 2003. Tacit knowledge transfer in international acquisitions. Journal of International Business Studies, 18(1), 6–21.

Clark, N and C Juma 1987 Long-Run Economics: an Evolutionary Approach to Economic Growth. London/New York: Pinter.

Cohen, W M and D A Levinthal 1990 Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 28–152.

Coleman, J S 1990 Foundation of Social Theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Doloreux, D and S Parto 2004 Regional innovation systems: a critical synthesis. INTECH (Institute for New Technologies) Discussion Paper Series. Maastricht, The Netherlands: United Nations University.

Dosi, G 1982 Technological paradigms and technological trajecto-ries, Research Policy, 11(3), 147–162.

Etzkowitz, H 2002 Networks of innovation: science, technology and development in the triple helix era. International Journal of Technology Management and Sustainable Development, 1(1), 7–20.

Etzkowitz, H 2003 Research groups as ‘quasi-firms’: the invention of the entrepreneurial university. Research Policy, 32, 109–121.

Etzkowitz, H 2006 The new visible hand: an assisted linear model of science and innovation policy. Science and Public Policy, 33(5), 310–320.

Etzkowitz, H and L Leydesdorff, eds. 1997 The University in the Global Knowledge Economy. London: Continuum.

Etzkowitz, H and J M C de Mello 2004 The rise of a triple helix culture: innovation in Brazilian economic and social develop-ment. International Journal of Technology Management and Sustainable Development, 2(3), 159–171.

Etzkowitz, H and L Leydesdorff 2000 The dynamics of innovation: from national systems and ‘mode 2’ to a triple helix of university-industry-government relations. Research Policy, 29, 109–123.

Fine, B 2001 Social Capital versus Social Theory: Political Econ-omy and Social Science. London: Routledge.

Freeman, C and C Perez 1988 Structural crises of adjustment, busi-ness cycles and investment behaviour. In Technical Change and Economic Theory, eds. G Dosi, C Freeman, R Nelson, G Silverberg and L Soete. London: Frances Pinter.

GoM, Government of Malaysia 2001 Eighth Malaysian Plan, 2001–2005, Kuala Lumpur: Economic Planning Unit, Prime Minister’s Department.

Granovetter, M 1973 The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360–1380.

Jones, C, W S Hesterly and SP Borgatti 1997 A general theory of network governance: exchange conditions and social mecha-nisms. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 911–945.

Juma, C 2006 Redesigning African Economies: the Role of Engi-neering in International Development. London: Royal Academy of Engineering.

Kraak, A 2001 Debating Castells and Carnoy on the network society. In Challenges of Globalisation: South African Debates with Manuel Castells, eds. J Muller, N Cloete and S Badat. Cape Town: Maskew Miller Longman.

Kruss, G 2005 Harnessing innovation potential? Institutional ap-proaches to industry-higher education research partnerships in South Africa. Industry and Higher Education, 19(2), 131–142.

Kruss, G (forthcoming 2008) Balancing old and new organisa-tional forms: changing dynamics of government, industry and university interaction in South Africa, Technology Analysis and Strategic Management.

Leydesdorff, L 2001 Knowledge-based innovation systems and the model of a triple helix of university–industry–government relations. Paper presented at the New Economic Windows: New Paradigms for the New Millennium conference, Septem-ber, Salerno, Italy.

Leydesdorff, L and H Etzkowitz 1998 The triple helix as a model for innovation studies. Science and Public Policy, 25(3), 195–203.



Leydesdorff, L and H Etzkowitz 2001 The transformation of uni-versity–industry–government relations. Electronic Journal of Sociology 5(4), <www.sociology.org/content/vol005.004/th. html>, last accessed 7 July 2008.

Lin, N 2001 Social Capital: a Theory of Social Structure and Ac-tion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lundvall, B-A 2002 The university in the learning economy. DRUID Working Paper No.02-06. University of Aaalborg: Dan-ish Research Unit for Industrial Dynamics.

Makadok, R 2001 Toward a synthesis of the resource-based and dynamic capability views of rent creation. Strategic Manage-ment Journal, 22, 387–401.

MIGHT, Malaysian Industry–Government Group for High Tech-nology Report 2002 Prospecting Industry Deepening. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

Moran, P and S Ghoshal 1996 Theories of economic organisation: the case for realism and balance. Academy of Management Review, 21(1), 58–72.

Morgan, K 1997 The learning region; institutions, innovation and regional renewal. Regional Studies, 31(5), 491–503.

Morgan, R M and S D Hunt 1994 The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, 58, July, 20–38.

Nahapiet, J and S Ghoshal 1998 Social capital, intellectual capital and the organisational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242–266.

Nonaka, I and M Takeuchi 1995 The Knowledge-Creating Com-pany. New York: Oxford University Press

Portes A 1998 Social capital: its origins and applications in mod-ern sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 1–24.

Pouris, A and A Pouris 2007 The state of science and technology in Africa (2000–2004). In Proceedings of the International So-ciety for Scientometrics and Informetrics (ISI), eds. D Torres-Salinas and H Moed. Madrid: Spain.

Prahalad, C K and G Hamel 1990 The core competence of the corporation. Harvard Business Review, 68(3), 71–91.

Putnam, R D 2000 Bowling Alone: the Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Rothwell, R 1992 Successful industrial innovation: critical success factors for the 1990s. R&D Management, 22(30), 221–239.

Saad, M 2004 Issues and challenges arising from the application

of innovation strategies based on the triple helix culture – experience of the incubation system in Algeria. International Journal of Technology Management and Sustainable Devel-opment, 3(1), 19–36.

Saad, M and G Zawdie 2005 From technology transfer to the emergence of a triple helix culture: the experience of Algeria in innovation and technological capability development. Technol-ogy Analysis and Strategic Management, 17(1), 1–15.

Sadullah, A F 2002 Commercialisation of research results: issues and challenges. USM Engineering and Campus Perspective, USM Frontiers, 1(2), July.

Sawyer, A 2004 Challenges Facing African Universities. Accra, Ghana: Association of African Universities.

Shinn, T 2002 The triple helix and new production of knowledge: prepackaged thinking on science and technology. Social Stud-ies of Science, 32(4), 599–614.

Spender, J C 1996 Making knowledge the basis of a dynamic theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17, special issue: Knowledge and the Firm, 45–62.

Sutz, J 2000 The university-industry-government relations in Latin America. Research Policy, 29(2), 279–290.

Tidd, J, J Bessant and K Pavitt 2001 Managing Innovation, 2nd edn. Chichester: John Wiley.

Van Dijk, M P and H Sandee eds. 2002 Innovation and Small Enterprises in the Third World: New Horizons in the Econom-ics of Innovation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

UNDP, United Nations Development Programme 2001 Human Development Report 2001. Making New Technologies Work for Human Development. New York: UNDP.

Wernerfelt, B 1995 The Resource-based view of the firm: ten years after. Strategic Management Journal, 16(3), 171–174.

Williamson, O E 1979 The governance of contractual relations. Journal of Law and Economics, 22, 233–261.

World Bank 2002 Constructing Knowledge Societies: New Chal-lenges for Tertiary Education. Washington, DC: World Bank.

Zawdie, G 1996 Tertiary education and technological progress in transitional economies: whither demand pull? Science, Tech-nology and Development, 13(3), 89–104.

Zawdie, G and A Djeflat 1996 Tertiary education and technologi-cal progress in transitional economies: whither demand pull? Science, Technology and Development, 13(3), 89–104.

Date post:	02-Oct-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	chandra
View:	213 times
Download:	0 times

The triple helix strategy for universities in developing countries: the experiences in Malaysia and...

Documents