IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/stagec/257873.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Triple helix networks matching knowledge demand and supply in seven Dutch horticulture Greenport regions

Author

Listed:
  • Geerling-Eiff, Florentien A.
  • Hoes, Anne-Charlotte
  • Dijkshoorn-Dekker, Marijke W.C.

Abstract

This paper investigates the triple helix (industry, knowledge workers and governments) cooperation on knowledge co-production and valorisation for innovation, which took place in seven horticultural regions in the Netherlands. It thus provides more empirical insight into the functioning of this form of cooperation. Based on a secondary multiple case study analysis, this paper sets out to ascertain what enabled triple helix cooperation in the seven regions with respect to the organisation, the formulation and support for goals and action on knowledge co-production and valorisation. The results indicate that in order to stimulate innovation through triple helix cooperation, the different partners first need to build a proper working relationship and a common language. In order to accomplish this, primary aims for innovation should not be formulated too ambitiously (i.e. too far beyond the entrepreneurs’ daily practice, in particular SMEs). Knowledge workers and policy makers often want to stimulate knowledge co-production and valorisation more radically and quickly. Hence, they have to temper their ambitions. Procedures regarding the cooperation should be rather simple and flexible. Once a steady working relationship and a common language are developed, then the triple helix collaboration can focus on taking the innovation ambition to a higher level in order to realise more valuable change. At first, entrepreneurs have to experience how they can profit from the cooperation and learn to incorporate knowledge co-production and valorisation step-by-step in their business strategy, including financial investments.

Suggested Citation

  • Geerling-Eiff, Florentien A. & Hoes, Anne-Charlotte & Dijkshoorn-Dekker, Marijke W.C., 2017. "Triple helix networks matching knowledge demand and supply in seven Dutch horticulture Greenport regions," Studies in Agricultural Economics, Research Institute for Agricultural Economics, vol. 119(1), April.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:stagec:257873
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.257873
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/257873/files/1052-geerling_v3.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.257873?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Etzkowitz, Henry & Leydesdorff, Loet, 2000. "The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and "Mode 2" to a Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 109-123, February.
    2. Hall, Andy, 2006. "Public private sector partnerships in an agricultural system of innovation: concepts and challenges," MERIT Working Papers 2006-002, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    3. Debackere, Koenraad & Veugelers, Reinhilde, 2005. "The role of academic technology transfer organizations in improving industry science links," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 321-342, April.
    4. B. Van Looy & K. Debackere & P. Andries, 2001. "Regionale ontwikkeling door kennisgedreven ondernemerschap," Review of Business and Economic Literature, KU Leuven, Faculty of Economics and Business (FEB), Review of Business and Economic Literature, vol. 0(2), pages 203-237.
    5. Hessels, Laurens K. & van Lente, Harro, 2008. "Re-thinking new knowledge production: A literature review and a research agenda," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(4), pages 740-760, May.
    6. Laurens K. Hessels & Harro van Lente, 2008. "Re-thinking knowledge production: a literature review and a research agenda," Innovation Studies Utrecht (ISU) working paper series 08-03, Utrecht University, Department of Innovation Studies, revised Feb 2008.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Marius Drechsler & Andreas Holzapfel, 2022. "Decision Support in Horticultural Supply Chains: A Planning Problem Framework for Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-25, November.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Niels Stijn & Frank J. Rijnsoever & Martine Veelen, 2018. "Exploring the motives and practices of university–start-up interaction: evidence from Route 128," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 43(3), pages 674-713, June.
    2. Loet Leydesdorff & Martin Meyer, 2010. "The decline of university patenting and the end of the Bayh–Dole effect," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 83(2), pages 355-362, May.
    3. Mari Jose Aranguren & James Karlsen & Miren Larrea & James R. Wilson, 2013. "The development of action research processes and their impacts on socio-economic development in the Basque Country," Chapters, in: Roger Sugden & Marcela Valania & James R. Wilson (ed.), Leadership and Cooperation in Academia, chapter 14, pages 216-233, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    4. Frank Rijnsoever & Leon Welle & Sjoerd Bakker, 2014. "Credibility and legitimacy in policy-driven innovation networks: resource dependencies and expectations in Dutch electric vehicle subsidies," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 39(4), pages 635-661, August.
    5. Martina Fromhold-Eisebith & Claudia Werker, 2013. "Universities’ functions in knowledge transfer: a geographical perspective," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 51(3), pages 621-643, December.
    6. Sjoerd Hardeman, 2013. "Organization level research in scientometrics: a plea for an explicit pragmatic approach," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 94(3), pages 1175-1194, March.
    7. Rakas, Marija & Hain, Daniel S., 2019. "The state of innovation system research: What happens beneath the surface?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(9), pages 1-1.
    8. Atiase, Victor Yawo & Kolade, Oluwaseun & Liedong, Tahiru Azaaviele, 2020. "The emergence and strategy of tech hubs in Africa: Implications for knowledge production and value creation," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 161(C).
    9. Carolina Cañibano & Richard Woolley & Eric J. Iversen & Sybille Hinze & Stefan Hornbostel & Jakob Tesch, 2019. "A conceptual framework for studying science research careers," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 44(6), pages 1964-1992, December.
    10. Ismael Rafols & Alan Porter & Loet Leydesdorff, 2009. "Overlay Maps of Science: a New Tool for Research Policy," SPRU Working Paper Series 179, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    11. Rocco Frondizi & Chiara Fantauzzi & Nathalie Colasanti & Gloria Fiorani, 2019. "The Evaluation of Universities’ Third Mission and Intellectual Capital: Theoretical Analysis and Application to Italy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-23, June.
    12. Olmos Peñuela,Julia & Benneworth,Paul & Castro-Martínez,Elena, 2014. "Explaining researchersâ readiness to incorporate external stimuli in their research agendas," INGENIO (CSIC-UPV) Working Paper Series 201408, INGENIO (CSIC-UPV).
    13. Loet Leydesdorff, 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, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 3(1), pages 25-35, March.
    14. Ivan Cucco, 2014. "Network-based policies and innovation networks in two Italian regions: a comparison through a social selection model," STUDI ECONOMICI, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2014(114), pages 78-96.
    15. Luis Antonio Orozco Castro, 2015. "Diversidad y heterogeneidad en redes de colaboración científica. Un estudio de las escuelas de administración de América Latina," Books, Universidad Externado de Colombia, Facultad de Administración de Empresas, edition 1, number 44, August.
    16. Laurens K. Hessels & Harro van Lente & Ruud Smits, 2008. "In search of relevance: The changing contract between science and society," Innovation Studies Utrecht (ISU) working paper series 08-16, Utrecht University, Department of Innovation Studies, revised May 2008.
    17. Hemert, P. van & Nijkamp, P. & Verbraak, J., 2009. "Evaluating social science and humanities knowledge production: an exploratory analysis of dynamics in science systems," Serie Research Memoranda 0013, VU University Amsterdam, Faculty of Economics, Business Administration and Econometrics.
    18. Thai Thi Minh & Carsten Nico Hjotrsø, 2015. "Relational dynamics in the multi-helices knowledge production system: A new institutionalism perspective," Globelics Working Paper Series 2015-08, Globelics - Global Network for Economics of Learning, Innovation, and Competence Building Systems, Aalborg University, Department of Business and Management.
    19. Battaglia, Daniele & Landoni, Paolo & Rizzitelli, Francesco, 2017. "Organizational structures for external growth of University Technology Transfer Offices: An explorative analysis," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 45-56.
    20. Julia Olmos‐Peñuela & Paul Benneworth & Elena Castro‐Martínez, 2015. "Exploring the factors related with scientists’ willingness to incorporating external knowledge," CHEPS Working Papers 201504, University of Twente, Center for Higher Education Policy Studies (CHEPS).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:stagec:257873. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

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

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

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

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/akiiihu.html .

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

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