Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer

Evolution of the regional innovation system in terms of the Covid-19 pandemic, financial and economic crisis: The long term perspective from Central European region

Abstract

Research background: The evolution of the innovation system is not easy to explore due to the small number or selective nature of the international research about it. The natural trajectory is well known in a long time period but differs between regions and countries — more or less developed. If the impact of the external shocks on regional innovation system (RIS) is added here, the situation is even more complicated. The answer for the crises depends on the development level of a country and region, the maturity of the relationships between actors of the Triple Helix (entrepreneurship, science, government) — their strength and stability over time, some endogenous conditions specific to it. The knowledge about the evolution of the innovation system is crucial to understand how the system works, where it was, is and will be at the evolution trajectory.  

Purpose of the article: Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to identify the evolution of the RIS in the one of Central Europe’s regions (Lower Silesian in Poland) including the impact of the global financial crisis and the Covid-19 pandemic on the innovation technology there.

Methods: Using microdata collected by the authors and the stepwise logit modelling, industrial enterprises were analysed in three time periods: 2004–2006, 2010–2012 and 2019–2021. Total 1649 questionnaires forms were collected. The research was made in the one of Poland's well advanced regional innovation systems — the Lower Silesian. The matrix of success and fail was used as long as the AUC curve and some statistical indicators to prove the usefulness of models. The dependent variables were the new technology pushed by R&D and the investment in new machinery and equipment.

Findings & value added: The nature of RIS evolution in the one of the regions in Central Europe in a catching-up country in the context of financial crises and Covid-19 was examined. The analyses identified two alternative groups of conditions — high or low resilience to various market shocks. To the first group belongs: R&D and equipment interactions (the growing competence effect) and a cooperation along the supply chain in the industry. The low resilience is observed in the other categories, as follows: the cooperation with science institutes and business support organizations (the isolation effect), the lack of external sources of funding (the sinking effect), the short time reaction of entrepreneurs (the adaptation effect). As was pointed above in the catching-up country, some elements of the Triple Helix are more sensitive to external shocks, while others are not. The crisis situation can radically slow down an evolutionary development or change its direction. Knowing them will allow the local authority to react on time or with a low delay to reduce negative consequences of it to the regional economy. Authors have shown a new approach to the evolution process of regional innovation system. It could be useful to learn how, where and when the system is going to.

Keywords

innovation system, evolutionary approach, Triple Helix, COVID-19, financial crisis

PDF

References

  1. Alameeri, K. A., Alshurideh, M. T., & Al Kurdi, B. (2021). The effect of covid-19 pandemic on business systems’ innovation and entrepreneurship and how to cope with it: A theatrical view. In M. Alshurideh, A. E. Hassanien & R. Ma-sa’deh (Eds.). The effect of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) on business intelligence. Studies in systems, decision and control, vol. 334 (pp. 275–288). Edinburgh: Springer.
    View in Google Scholar
  2. 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.
    View in Google Scholar
  3. Almeida, M., Liboreiro, K. R., dos Santos, E. F., Alves, M. A. B., de Carvalho, S. P. M., Borin, E. C. P., Baeta, A., & Terra, B. (2021). Triple Helix spaces in Brazilian universities during the Covid-19 pandemic. Polem!ca, 21(2), 39–68.
    View in Google Scholar
  4. 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.
    View in Google Scholar
  5. Arman, H., & Al-Qudsi, S. (2024). A strategic framework to analyse the East Asian miracle within triple helix model - lessons for Kuwait. Journal of Science and Technology Policy Management, 15(2), 244–267.
    View in Google Scholar
  6. Butkus, M., Schiuma, G., Bartuševičienė, I., Rakauskiene, O. G., Volodzkiene, L., & Dargenyte-Kacileviciene, L. (2023). The impact of organizational resilience on the quality of public services: Application of structural equation modeling. Equilibrium. Quarterly Journal of Economics and Economic Policy, 18(2), 461–489.
    View in Google Scholar
  7. Cai, Y. Z. (2015). What contextual factors shape "innovation in innovation'? Integration of insights from the triple helix and the institutional logics perspective. Social Science Information, 54(3), 299–326.
    View in Google Scholar
  8. Cai, Y., & Etzkowitz, H. (2020). Theorizing the triple helix model: Past, present, and future. Triple Helix Journal, 6(1), 1–38.
    View in Google Scholar
  9. Carvalho F. P., Morel, C. M., & Desiderio, M. (2012). Health universal access and innovation: The Triple Helix approach in action. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 52, 236–245.
    View in Google Scholar
  10. Casadella, V., & Uzunidis, D. (2017). National innovation systems of the South, innovation and economic development policies: A multidimensional approach. Journal of Innovation Economics and Management, 23(2), 137–157.
    View in Google Scholar
  11. Chang, Y. C., Chen, P. H., & Teng, M. J. (2021) How do institutional changes facilitate university-centric networks in Taiwan? The triple helix model of innovation view. Science and Public Policy, 48(3), 309–324.
    View in Google Scholar
  12. Choi, S., Yang, J. S., & Park, H. W. (2015). Quantifying the triple helix relationship in scientific research: Statistical analyses on the dividing pattern between developed and developing countries. Quality & Quantity, 49(4), 1381–1396.
    View in Google Scholar
  13. Chung, S. (2002). Building a national innovation system through regional innovation systems. Technovation, 22(8), 485–491.
    View in Google Scholar
  14. Cieślik, A., Qu, Y., & Qu, T. (2019). Innovations and export performance: Firm level evidence from China. Enterpreneurial Business and Economics Review, 6(4), 27–47.
    View in Google Scholar
  15. Ciołek, D., Golejewska, A., & Zablocka-Abi Yaghi, A. (2021). Regional innovation systems in Poland: How to classify them? Ekonomik – Regiona - Economy of Region, 17(3), 987–1003.
    View in Google Scholar
  16. Cooke, P., & Morgan, K. (1993). The network paradigm: New departures in corporate and regional development. Environment and Planning, D: Society and Space, 11(5), 543–564.
    View in Google Scholar
  17. Coussi, O., Faccin, K., & Balestrin, A. (2019). 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.
    View in Google Scholar
  18. Danieluk, B. (2010). Application of logistic regression in experimental research. Psychologia społeczna, 5(2-3(14)), 199–216.
    View in Google Scholar
  19. van Dijk, M. P. (2023). Triple Helix approach to innovation in Rwanda's agriculture resulted in a partnership between educational institutions and a private firm producing clean seed potatoes. Journal of Agribusiness in Developing and Emerging Economies.
    View in Google Scholar
  20. Dzikowski, P. (2022). Product and process innovation patterns in Polish low and high technology systems. Equilibrium. Quarterly Journal of Economics and Economic Policy, 17(3), 747–773.
    View in Google Scholar
  21. Eggink, M. (2013). The components of an innovation system: A conceptual innovation system framework. Journal of Innovation and Business Best Practices, 2013, 1–12.
    View in Google Scholar
  22. Erzurumlu, S., Erzurumlu, Y. O., & Yoon, Y. (2022). National innovation systems and dynamic impact of institutional structures on national innovation capability: A configurational approach with the OKID method. Technovation, 114, 1–14.
    View in Google Scholar
  23. Etzkowitz, H., & Dzisah, J. (2008). Rethinking development: Circulation in the triple helix. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 20(6), 653–666.
    View in Google Scholar
  24. Fang, X., Paez, N. R., & Zeng, B. (2021). The nonlinear effects of firm size on innovation: An empirical investigation. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 30(1), 48–65.
    View in Google Scholar
  25. Feola, R., Parente, R., & Cucino, V. (2021). The entrepreneurial university: How to develop the entrepreneurial orientation of academia. Journal of Knowledge Economy, 12, 1787–1808.
    View in Google Scholar
  26. Ferdinands, R., Azam, S. M. F., & Khatibi, A. (2023). The work in progress of a developing nation's Triple Helix and its impact on patent commercialization. The case of Sri Lanka. Journal of Science and Technology Policy Management.
    View in Google Scholar
  27. Fidanoski, F., Simeonovski, K., Kaftandzieva, T., Ranga, M., Dana, L. P., Davidovic, M., Ziolo, M., & Sergi, B. S. (2022). The triple helix in developed countries: When knowledge meets innovation? Heliyon, 8(8), 1–13.
    View in Google Scholar
  28. Figueiredo, N. D., Fernandes, C.I., & Abrantes, J. L. (2023). Triple Helix model: Cooperation in knowledge creation. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 14(2), 854–878.
    View in Google Scholar
  29. Filippetti, A., & Archibugi, D. (2011). Innovation in times of crisis: National systems of innovation, structure and demand. Research Policy, 40(2), 179–192.
    View in Google Scholar
  30. Flechas, X. A., Takahashi, C. K., & de Figueiredo, J. C. B. (2023). The Triple Helix and the quality of the startup ecosystem: A global view. Rege-Revista de Gestao, 30(3), 238–252.
    View in Google Scholar
  31. Friz, K., & Gunther, J. (2021). Innovation and economic crisis in transition economies. Eurasian Business Review, 11(4), 537–563.
    View in Google Scholar
  32. Galvao, A., Mascarenhas, C., Marques, C., Ferreira, J., & Ratten, V. (2019). Triple helix and its evolution: A systematic literature review. Journal of Science and Technology Policy Management, 10(3), 812–833.
    View in Google Scholar
  33. Gourieroux C., & Monfort, A. (1981). Asymptotic properties of the maximum likelihood estimator in dichotomous logit models. Journal of Econometrics, 17(1), 83–97.
    View in Google Scholar
  34. Gruszczyński, M. (2009). Qualitative variable models. In M. Gruszczyński, T. Kuszewski & M. Podgórska (Eds.). Econometrics and operational research (pp. 161–188). Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
    View in Google Scholar
  35. 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, 1–12.
    View in Google Scholar
  36. 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.
    View in Google Scholar
  37. Jaklic, A., Damijan, J. P., Rojec, M., & Kuncic, A. (2014). A relevance of innovation cooperation for firms' innovation activity: The case of Slovenia. Economic Research, 27(1), 645–661.
    View in Google Scholar
  38. James, S., Liu, Z., White, G. R. T., & Samuel, A. (2023). Introducing ethical theory to the triple helix model: Supererogatory acts in crisis innovation. Technovation, 126, 1–10.
    View in Google Scholar
  39. Jovanovic, M., Savic, G., Cai, Y. Z., & Levi-Jaksic, M. (2022). Towards a triple helix based efficiency index of innovation systems. Scientometrics, 127(5), 2577–2609.
    View in Google Scholar
  40. Kapetaniou, C., Samdanis, M., & Lee, S. H. (2018). Innovation policies of Cyprus during the global economic crisis: Aligning financial institutions with national innovation system. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 133, 29–40.
    View in Google Scholar
  41. Khan, M. S. (2022) Absorptive capacities approaches for investigating national innovation systems in low and middle income countries. International Journal of Innovation Studies, 6(3), 183–195.
    View in Google Scholar
  42. 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.
    View in Google Scholar
  43. Kimatu, J. N. (2016). Evolution of strategic interactions from the triple to quad helix innovation models for sustainable development in the era of globalization. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 5(1), 1–7.
    View in Google Scholar
  44. Kontovas, C., Bras, A. A., Chang, C. H., Romano, A., Poo, M. C. P., Wang, J., McCormack, H., Qu, Z. H., Paraskevadakis, D., Lamb, L., & Yang, Z. L. (2022). Fostering innovation in the blue economy within the United Kingdom (UK): A stakeholders’ perspective. Ocean & Coastal Management, 224, 1–12.
    View in Google Scholar
  45. Kopczynska, E., & Ferreira, J.J. (2021). The role of government measures in university-industry collaboration for economic growth: A comparative study across levels of economic development. Triple Helix, 8(3), 486–533. https://doi.org/0.1163/21971927-BJA10023.
    View in Google Scholar
  46. Kuczewska, J., & Tomaszewski, T. (2022). Exploring potential drivers of innovation-related activities in Poland: Evidence from Polish business clusters. Equilibrium. Quarterly Journal of Economics and Economic Policy, 17(3), 775–801.
    View in Google Scholar
  47. 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.
    View in Google Scholar
  48. 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.
    View in Google Scholar
  49. Lew, Y. K., & Park, J. Y. (2021). The evolution of N-helix of the regional innovation system: Implications for sustainability. Sustainable Development, 29(2), 453–464.
    View in Google Scholar
  50. 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.
    View in Google Scholar
  51. Leydesdorff, L., & Smith, H. L. (2022). Triple, quadruple, and higher-order helices: Historical phenomena and (neo-) evolutionary models. Triple Helix, 9(1), 6–31.
    View in Google Scholar
  52. Liche, M. B., & Strelcová, A. B. (2023). The pathway towards Triple Helix technology development evaluation in Ethiopian science & technology universities. Triple Helix, 10(1), 12–39.
    View in Google Scholar
  53. de Lima Figueiredo, N., Fernandes, C. I., & Abrantes, J. L. (2022). Triple Helix model: Cooperation in knowledge creation. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 14, 854–878.
    View in Google Scholar
  54. Luengo-Valderrey, M. J. (2018). Impact of the Triple Helix and the difficulties to innovate in the innovation aims: Spain. 2007–2013. Revista de Estudios Regionale, 113, 165–192.
    View in Google Scholar
  55. Lundvall, B.-Å. (2023). The COVID-19 crisis, National Innovation Systems, and world development. Science, Technology and Society, 28(3), 359–369.
    View in Google Scholar
  56. Ma, R. F., Ding, H., & Zhai, P. X. (2017). R&D cooperation, financial constraint & annovation performance. Interciencia, 42(6), 355–363.
    View in Google Scholar
  57. Majumdar, A., Ali, S. M., Agrawal, R., & Srivastava, S. (2023) A triple helix framework for strategy development in circular textile and clothing supply chain: An Indian perspective. Journal of Cleaner Production, 367, 1–15.
    View in Google Scholar
  58. Manjunatha, N. (2021). Internationalization and innovation capabilities determine export performance of Indian auto component manufacturing industry. Pacific Business Review International, 13(3), 105–116.
    View in Google Scholar
  59. Martin, R., & Trippl, M. (2017). The evolution of the ICT cluster in southern Sweden – regional innovation systems, knowledge bases and policy actions. Geografiska Annaler Series B-Human Geography, 99(3), 268–283.
    View in Google Scholar
  60. McFadden, D. (1979). Quantitative methods for analyzing travel behavior of individuals: Some recent developments. In D. Hensher & P. Stopher (Eds.). Behavioral travel modelling (pp. 279–318). London: Croom Helm.
    View in Google Scholar
  61. Mêgnigbêto, E. (2018). Measuring synergy within a triple helix innovation system using game theory: Cases of some developed and emerging countries. Triple Helix, 5, 1–22.
    View in Google Scholar
  62. Mohammed, A. B. (2010). Jordan higher education and triple helix innovation systems: Case study analysis and lessons learned. In K.S. Soliman (Eds.). Business transformation throught innovation and knowledge management: An academic perspective (pp. 1369–1381). Instanbul: IBIMA.
    View in Google Scholar
  63. Mood, C. (2010). Logistic regression: Why we cannot do what we think we can do, and what we can do about it. European Sociological Review, 26(1), 67–82.
    View in Google Scholar
  64. Mood, C. (2017). Logistic regression: Uncovering unobserved heterogeneity. Swedish Institute for Social Research. Stockholm: Stockholm University.
    View in Google Scholar
  65. Munoz, F. F., & Encinar, M. I. (2014). Agents intentionality, capabilities and the performance of systems of innovation. Innovation - Organization & Management, 16(1), 71–81.
    View in Google Scholar
  66. Nakwa, K., & Zawdie, G. (2016). The 'third mission' and 'Triple Helix mission' of universities as evolutionary processes in the development of the network of knowledge production: Reflections on SME experiences in Thailand. Science and Public Policy, 43(5), 622–629.
    View in Google Scholar
  67. Nguyen, N. T. M., & Duong, C. M. (2019). What make the impact of the financial crisis on innovation different across European countries? International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management, 16(6), 1–32.
    View in Google Scholar
  68. O’Dwyer, M., Filieri, R., & O’Malley, L. (2023). Establishing successful university–industry collaborations: Barriers and enablers deconstructed. Journal of Technology Transfer, 48, 900–931.
    View in Google Scholar
  69. Ojubanire, O. A., Sebti, H., & Berbain, S. (2023). Towards developing a national framework for industry 4.0 in African emerging economies. African Journal of Science, Technology, Innovation and Development, 15(4), 496–513,
    View in Google Scholar
  70. de Oliveira, L. S., Echeveste, M. E. S., Carvalho, A. D., Camarotto, M., & Zarelli, P. (2020). Innovation diagnosis in technology companies of a regional innovation system. Brazilian Journal of Operations & Production Management, 17(3), 1–10.
    View in Google Scholar
  71. Oplakanskaia, R. V., Osmuk, L. A., Pogorelskaya, A., & Pomorina, I. (2019). Post-industrial university towns and the triple helix concept: Case studies of Bristol, Sheffield, Novosibirsk and Tomsk. Bulletin of Geography-Socio-Economic Series, 44(44), 39–46.
    View in Google Scholar
  72. OECD & Eurostat (2005). Oslo Manual. Guidelines for collecting and interpreting innovation data. Third edition. Paris: OECD, Eurostat.
    View in Google Scholar
  73. Pan, J., & Guo, J. (2022) Innovative collaboration and acceleration: An integrated framework based on knowledge transfer and Triple Helix. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 13, 3223–3247.
    View in Google Scholar
  74. Park, H., Anderson, T. R., & Seo, W. (2021). Regional innovation capability from a technology-oriented perspective: An analysis at industry level. Computers in Industry, 129, 1–18.
    View in Google Scholar
  75. Park, H. W., & Stek, P. (2022). Measuring helix interactions in the context of economic development and public policies: From triple to quadruple and N-tuple helix vs. N-tuple and quadruple helix to triads. Triple Helix, 9(1), 43–53.
    View in Google Scholar
  76. Pereira, R., & Franco, M. (2023). University-firm cooperation and regional development: Proposal of a model of analysis. Journal of Knowledge Economy, 14, 676–690.
    View in Google Scholar
  77. Pique, J. M., Berbegal-Mirabent, J., & Etzkowitz, H. (2018). Triple Helix and the evolution of ecosystems of innovation: The case of Silicon Valley. Triple Helix, 5(1), 1–21.
    View in Google Scholar
  78. Pique, J. M., Berbegal-Mirabent, J., & Etzkowitz, H. (2021). The role of universities in shaping the evolution of Silicon Valley's ecosystem of innovation. Triple Helix, 7(2-3), 277–321.
    View in Google Scholar
  79. 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.
    View in Google Scholar
  80. Ranjbar, M. S., Ghazinoori, S., & Manteghi, M. (2022). Evolution of Iran's gas turbine sectoral innovation system as a complex product system (CoPS). African Journal of Science, Technology, Innovation and Development, 14(4), 1102–1116.
    View in Google Scholar
  81. Ravic, N., Dekic, M., & Korenak, B. (2023). Cooperation between IT companies and ecosystem participants as one of the innovation-generating factors: An empirical case from Serbia. International Review, 1-2, 129–135.
    View in Google Scholar
  82. Ribeiro, S. X., & Nagano, M. S. (2023). On the relation between knowledge management and university-industry-government collaboration in Brazilian national institutes of science and technology. VINE Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems, 53(4), 808–829.
    View in Google Scholar
  83. Runiewicz-Wardyn, M. (2022). The role of proximity in technology dynamics of high-tech industries: The case of biotechnology and aviation industries. Triple Helix, 9(2), 138–173.
    View in Google Scholar
  84. Rypestol, J. O., Martin, R., & Kyllingstad, N. (2022). New regional industrial path development and innovation networks in times of economic crisis. Industry and Innovation, 29(7), 879–898.
    View in Google Scholar
  85. Sanchez-Gonzalez, G., & Herrera, L. (2015). User cooperation effects on firm's innovation outputs. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 32(2), 86–101.
    View in Google Scholar
  86. Samo, A. H., & Ul Huda, N. (2019). Triple helix and academic entrepreneurial intention: understanding motivating factors for academic spin-off among young researchers. Journal of Global Enterpreneuarship Research, 9(1), 1–15.
    View in Google Scholar
  87. Schocair, M. M., Dias, A. A., Galina, S. V. R., & Amaral, M. (2022). The evolution of the Triple Helix thematic: A social networks analysis. Triple Helix, 9(3), 325–368.
    View in Google Scholar
  88. Seker, M. (2022). National innovation system: What the national technology initiative brings to Turkiye? National Techology Initiative, 43, 81–95.
    View in Google Scholar
  89. Sianipar, C. P. M., & Widaretna, K. (2012). NGO as Triple-Helix axis: Some lessons from Nias community empowerment on cocoa production. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 52, 197–206.
    View in Google Scholar
  90. Skoric M. M. (2014). The implications of big data for developing and transitional economies: Extending the Triple Helix? Scientometrics, 99(1), 175–186.
    View in Google Scholar
  91. Stanisz A. (2016). Logistic regression models. Applications in medicine, natural and social sciences. Kraków: Statsoft.
    View in Google Scholar
  92. Statistics Poland, Statistical Office in Szczecin (2023). Innovation activities of enterprises in the years 2020–2022. Warszawa, Szczecin: Zakład Wydawnict Statystycznych.
    View in Google Scholar
  93. Steiber, A., & Alange, S. (2013). The formation and growth of Google: A firm-level triple helix perspective. Sozial Scienece Information, 52(4), 575–604.
    View in Google Scholar
  94. Stock, G. N., Greis, N. P., & Fischer, W. A. (2002). Firm size and dynamic technological innovation. Technovation, 22(9), 537–549.
    View in Google Scholar
  95. Świadek A., Dzikowski, P., Gorączkowska, J., & Tomaszewski, M. (2022). The national innovation system in a catching-up country: Empirical evidence based on micro data of a Triple Helix in Poland. Oeconomia Copernicana, 13(2), 511–540.
    View in Google Scholar
  96. Świadek, A., & Gorączkowska, J. (2020). The institutional support for an innovation cooperation in industry: The case of Poland. Equilibrium. Quarterly Journal of Economics and Economic Policy, 15(4), 811–831.
    View in Google Scholar
  97. Tiossi, F. M., & Rodrigues, R. G. (2023). Triple helix in the management of innovation in public policies: A study of two countries. Revista de Gestão e Secretariado, 14(8), 14516–14531.
    View in Google Scholar
  98. Toshevska-Trpchevska, K., Disoska, E. M., Tevdovski, D., & Stojkoski, V. (2019). The impact of a crisis on the innovation systems in Europe: Evidence from the CIS10 Innovation Survey. European Review, 27(4), 543–562.
    View in Google Scholar
  99. Umiński, S., Nazarczuk, J. M., & Borowicz, A. (2023). The role of foreign-owned entities in building economic resilience in times of crisis: The case of European digital and technologically-intensive firms during the Covid-19 pandemic. Equilibrium. Quarterly Journal of Economics and Economic Policy, 18(3), 751–777.
    View in Google Scholar
  100. Vaona, A., & Pianta, M. (2008). Firm size and innovation in European manufacturing. Small Business Economics, 30(3), 283–299.
    View in Google Scholar
  101. Vetsikas, A., & Stamboulis, Y. (2023). A conceptual framework for modeling heterogeneous actors' behavior in national innovation systems. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 33, 773–796.
    View in Google Scholar
  102. Wang, X. J., Peng, J. S., Sun, W. X., & Wang, S. H. (2007). Research on the mechanism of triple helix model: Based on technological capability evolution of receivers. In H. Lan (Eds.). Proceedings of 2007 International Conference on Management Science and Engineering, 1-3 (pp. 1931–1938). IEEE Xplore.
    View in Google Scholar
  103. Welfe A. (2008). Econometrics. Warszawa: PWE.
    View in Google Scholar
  104. 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.
    View in Google Scholar
  105. Yadav, V. S., & Majumdar, A. (2024). What impedes digital twin from revolutionizing agro-food supply chain? Analysis of barriers and strategy development for mitigation. Operations Management Research.
    View in Google Scholar
  106. Ye, W. W., & Wang, Y. (2020). Exploring the Triple Helix synergy in Chinese national system of innovation. Sustainability, 11(23), 1–17.
    View in Google Scholar
  107. Yegorov, I. Y. (2018). The formation of national R&D and innovation policy based on "Triple Helix" (government-science-industry) extended model (brief information about the project). Science and Innovation, 14(1), 76–79.
    View in Google Scholar
  108. Yoda, N., & Kuwashima, K. (2020). Triple helix of university–industry–government relations in Japan: Transitions of collaborations and interactions. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 11, 1120–1144.
    View in Google Scholar
  109. Yoon, J. (2015). The evolution of South Korea's innovation system: Moving towards the triple helix model? Scientometrics, 104(1), 265–293.
    View in Google Scholar
  110. Zarebski, P., Czerwinska-Jaskiewicz, M., & Klonowska-Matynia, M. (2022). Innovation in peripheral regions from a multidimensional perspective: Evidence from the Middle Pomerania region in Poland. Sustainability, 14(14), 1–18.
    View in Google Scholar
  111. Zhao, J., Dong, L., & Xi, X. (2019). Research on the strategic alliance innovation system evolution mechanism: The perspective of knowledge flow. Cluster Computing, 22, 9209–9227.
    View in Google Scholar
  112. Zhao, J. Y., & Wu, G. D. (2017). Evolution of the chinese industry-university-research collaborative innovation system. Complexity, 2017, 1–13.
    View in Google Scholar

Similar Articles

1-10 of 387

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.