Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Triple Helix of University–Industry–Government Relations in Japan: Transitions of Collaborations and Interactions

  • Published:
Journal of the Knowledge Economy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Japan’s stringent university regulations were considerably relaxed after 1998. This paper’s analysis of Japan clarifies changes in the collaborations and interactions between universities, industries, and governments before and after this deregulation. A historical case study with the triple helix framework is applied; it uses the ‘triple helix’ for modelling the dynamics of university–industry–government relations. Most studies that use the triple helix model focus on university collaborations, while this study examines the whole range of university–industry–government collaborations. The results show that the collaborations which lead the development of university–industry–government relations, as well as the scope of collaborations, change in response to reforms in regulations. Industry–government collaboration led the development of university–industry–government relations before deregulation, and university–industry collaboration did so after deregulation. Though university–industry–government relations continue to develop, the scope of industry–government collaboration decreases because of deregulation. We interpret these factual findings in line with the triple helix model. We discover the characteristic development process of the triple helix model; it has a period wherein the triple helix develops under the prominent role of the government. Two possible reasons could be cited for this process: first, there were stringent regulations on university–industry collaborations; and second, industry–government collaborations were active through public-sector laboratories which were widespread in Japan.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The three hits include Sun et al. (2007), Leydesdorff and Sun (2009), and Oh (2011). There are also other articles that discuss triple helix of Japan, such as Myoken (2011), Hosono and Nakayama (2012), and Li (2013). However, they use this term to refer to university–industry–government collaborations, and do not provide an analysis based on the triple helix framework.

  2. The literature uses various terminologies to denote the final form—triple helix model (Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff 2000), balanced configuration (Ranga and Etzkowitz 2013), overlapping model (Cai and Liu 2015), balanced helix model, and ideal model (Cai 2015). This study uses the term balanced configuration.

  3. In particular, research funding by enterprises for university laboratories in the form of grants and endowments, provision of research-related information by university researchers to enterprises, information exchanges at academic conferences, transfer of knowledge, and technology as a result of hiring students can be cited as examples (Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology 2003).

  4. The Technopolis concept includes new town development wherein industries, academia, and living spaces are organically connected with good balance, and the vitality of high-tech industries is designed, while accounting for the regions’ rich traditions and nature (Ministry of International Trade and Industry 1985).

  5. Japan’s science, technology, and industry have been criticised by some for being based on benefits derived from basic research performed in other countries (Science Council of Japan 1999).

  6. Researchers apply for funding and obtain it freely from a public participation-type system such as grants-in-aid for scientific research.

  7. The budget per project implemented from 1966 to 1992 was 5.8 billion yen for industrial technology and 27.6 billion yen for energy and environment; however, from 1993 to the first half of the 2000s, these figures decreased to 3.8 and 12.7 billion yen, respectively (Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry 2011b).

  8. Unlike Europe and the USA, joint applications are common in Japan (Inoue et al. 2007). There are cases in which the inventor and the applicant are different, as noted by Hosono and Nakayama (2012). However, the focus of this article is on the number of applications. To process joint patent application data, we reference the 2015 edition of the Institute of Intellectual Property Patent Database (IIP-DB).

  9. The share of joint patent applications denotes the share in total joint patent applications by different actors. The share of industries’ funds denotes the share in total industries’ funds for different actors’ R&D.

  10. Similar to the findings of this study, Nishizawa (2011) argued that Japan started with a statist configuration.

References

  • Agency of Industrial Science and Technology and Small and Medium Enterprise Agency. (1981). Kosetsushikenkenkyukikan genkyo, 1981. Tokyo: Agency of Industrial Science and Technology and Small and Medium Enterprise Agency.

    Google Scholar 

  • Agency of Industrial Science and Technology and Small and Medium Enterprise Agency. (1990). Kosetsushikenkenkyukikan genkyo, 1990. Tokyo: Agency of Industrial Science and Technology and Small and Medium Enterprise Agency.

    Google Scholar 

  • Breschi, S., & Catalini, C. (2010). Tracing the links between science and technology: An exploratory analysis of scientists’ and inventors’ networks’. Research Policy, 39(1), 14–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cai, Y. (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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cai, Y., & Liu, C. (2015). The roles of universities in fostering knowledge-intensive clusters in Chinese regional innovation systems. Science and Public Policy, 42(1), 15–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carayannis, E. G., & Campbell, D. F. J. (2009). ‘Mode 3′ and 'quadruple helix’: Toward a 21st century fractal innovation ecosystem. International Journal of Technology Management, 46(3), 201–234.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carayannis, E. G., & Campbell, D. F. J. (2010). Triple helix, quadruple helix and quintuple helix and how do knowledge, innovation, and environment relate to each other? International Journal of Social Ecology and Sustainable Development, 1(1), 41–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Castells, M., & Hall, P. (1994). Technopoles of the world: The making of twenty-first-century industrial complexes. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. The Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.

    Google Scholar 

  • Etzkowitz, H. (2002). Incubation of incubators: Innovation as a triple helix of university–industry–government networks. Science and Public Policy, 29(2), 115–128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Etzkowitz, H. (2003). Innovation in innovation: The triple helix of university-industry-government relations. Social Science Information, 42(3), 293–337.

    Google Scholar 

  • Etzkowitz, H. (2008). The triple helix: University-industry-government innovation in action. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Etzkowitz, H., & Klofsten, M. (2005). The innovating region: Toward a theory of knowledge-based regional development. R&D Management, 35(3), 243–255.

    Google Scholar 

  • Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (1995). The triple helix—university-industry-government relations: A laboratory for knowledge based economic development. EASST Review, 14(1), 14–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (1997). Introduction to special issue on science policy dimensions of the triple helix of university-industry-government relations. Science and Public Policy, 24(1), 2–5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: From national systems and “Mode2” to a triple helix of university–industry–government relations. Research Policy, 29(2), 109–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Etzkowitz, H., Mello, J. M. C., & Almeida, M. (2005). Towards “meta-innovation” in Brazil: The evolution of the incubator and the emergence of a triple helix. Research Policy, 34(4), 411–424.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farinha, L., Ferreira, J., & Gouveia, B. (2016). Networks of innovation and competitiveness: A triple helix case study. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 7(1), 259–275.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fogelberg, H., & Thorpenberg, S. (2012). Regional innovation policy and public-private partnership: The case of triple helix arenas in Western Sweden. Science and Public Policy, 39(3), 347–356.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, C. (1995). The ‘National System of innovation’ in historical perspective. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 19(1), 5–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goto, A. (2000). Japan's national innovation system: Current status and problems. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 16(2), 103–113.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hashimoto, T. (1999). The hesitant relationship reconsidered: University-industry cooperation in postwar Japan. In L. M. Branscomb, F. Kodama, & R. Florida (Eds.), Industrializing knowledge: University-industry linkages in Japan and the United States (pp. 234–251). Cambridge: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hiroshige, T. (1973). Kagaku no Shakaishi. Tokyo: Chuo Koronsha.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hosono, M., & Nakayama, Y. (2012). Lessons from the current Japanese triple helix model. The Asian Journal of Technology Management, 5(2), 87–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Inoue, H., Souma, W., & Tamada, S. (2007). Spatial characteristics of joint application networks in Japanese patents. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 383(1), 152–157.

    Google Scholar 

  • Inzelt, A. (2004). The evolution of university–industry–government relationships during transition. Research Policy, 33(6/7), 975–995.

    Google Scholar 

  • Izushi, H. (2005). Creation of relational assets through the ‘library of equipment’ model: An industrial modernization approach of Japan’s local technology centres. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 17(3), 183–204.

    Google Scholar 

  • Japan Industrial Location Center (JILC). (1990). Technopolis suishin chousa kenkyu houkokusho—Technopolis 2000 kousou chousa. Tokyo: JILC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, W. H. A. (2008). Roles, resources and benefits of intermediate organizations supporting triple helix collaborative R&D: The case of Precarn. Technovation, 28(8), 495–505.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaukonen, E., & Nieminen, M. (1999). Modeling the triple helix from a small country perspective: The case of Finland. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 24(2/3), 173–183.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kawamura, S., & Takeda, H. (2014). Abstract of history of Japan’s trade and industry policy: Abstract of Minoru Sawai, history of Japan’s trade and industry policy (9) industrial technology policy. Discussion paper series 14-P–016. Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry Policy. https://www.rieti.go.jp/jp/publications/pdp/14p016.pdf. Accessed 14 January 2018.

  • Kim, Y., Kim, W., & Yang, T. (2012). The effect of the triple helix system and habitat on regional entrepreneurship: Empirical evidence from the U.S. Research Policy, 41(1), 154–166.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klofsten, M., Jones-Evans, D., & Schärberg, C. (1999). Growing the Linköping Technopole—A longitudinal study of triple helix development in Sweden. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 24(2/3), 125–138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuwashima, K. (2018). Open innovation and the emergence of a new type of university–industry collaboration in Japan. Annals of Business Administrative Science, 17(3), 95–108. https://doi.org/10.7880/abas.0180314a

  • Lee, J., & Park, C. (2006). Research and development linkages in a national innovation system: Factors affecting success and failure in Korea. Technovation, 26(9), 1045–1054.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, Salerno, Italy.

  • Leydesdorff, L. (2012). The triple helix, quadruple helix,…, and an n-tuple of helices: Explanatory models for analyzing the knowledge-based economy? Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 3(1), 25–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leydesdorff, L., & Fritsch, M. (2006). Measuring the knowledge base of regional innovation systems in Germany in terms of a triple helix dynamics. Research Policy, 35(10), 1538–1553.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leydesdorff, L., & Meyer, M. (2006). Triple helix indicators of knowledge-based innovation systems: Introduction to the special issue. Research Policy, 35(10), 1441–1449.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leydesdorff, L., & Sun, Y. (2009). National and international dimensions of the triple helix in Japan: University–industry–government versus international coauthorship relations. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(4), 778–788.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leydesdorff, L., Dolfsma, W., & Panne, G. V. (2006). Measuring the knowledge base of an economy in terms of triple-helix relations among ‘technology, organization, and territory’. Research Policy, 35(2), 181–199.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, X. (2013). Enlightenment on the construction of American and Japanese university technology transfer organizations based on triple helix model. Journal of Applied Sciences, 13(15), 2909–2913.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lundvall, B. Å. (1992). User-producer relationships, national systems of innovation and internationalisation. In B. Å. Lundvall (Ed.), National Systems of Innovation: Towards a theory of innovation and interactive learning (pp. 47–70). London: Pinter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marques, J. P. C., Caraça, J. M. G., & Diz, H. (2006). How can university–industry–government interactions change the innovation scenario in Portugal?—The case of the University of Coimbra. Technovation, 26(4), 534–542.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, M., Siniläinen, T., & Utecht, J. T. (2003). Towards hybrid triple helix indicators: A study of university-related patents and a survey of academic inventors. Scientometrics, 58(2), 321–350.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) (2011a). Aratana kokka project no arikata ni tsuite. Material 4. 32th R&D and Evaluation Subcommittee of METI. http://www.meti.go.jp/committee/summary/0001620/032_04_00.pdf#search=%27%E6%96%B0%E3%81%9F%E3%81%AA%E5%9B%BD%E5%AE%B6%E3%83%97%E3%83%AD%E3%82%B8%E3%82%A7%E3%82%AF%E3%83%88%E3%81%AE%E5%9C%A8%E3%82%8A%E6%96%B9%E3%81%AB%E3%81%A4%E3%81%84%E3%81%A6%27. Accessed 14 January 2018.

  • Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) (2011b). Koremade no kokka project no hensen. Material 5. 31th R&D and Evaluation Subcommittee of METI. http://www.meti.go.jp/committee/summary/0001620/031_05_00.pdf#search=%27%E5%9B%BD%E5%AE%B6%E3%83%97%E3%83%AD%E3%82%B8%E3%82%A7%E3%82%AF%E3%83%88+%E9%80%9A%E7%94%A3%E7%9C%81%27. Accessed 14 January 2018.

  • Ministry of International Trade and Industy (MITI). (1985). 21seiki no sangyo ricchi vision. Tokyo: Tsusho shiryo chosa kai.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of International Trade and Industy (MITI). (1990). 90 nendai no sangyokagakugijutsu vision. Tokyo: Tsusho sangyo chosa kai.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morikawa, H. (1975). Gijyutsusha—Nihonkindaika no ninaite. Tokyo: Nikkei.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mroczkowski, T., & Miller, M. (2017). Envisioning smart development in Poland from a triple helix systems perspective: A critical assessment of the Morawiecki plan. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 8(2), 513–535.

    Google Scholar 

  • Myoken, Y. (2011). Science parks and triple-helix innovation in UK and Japan. International Journal of Technoentrepreneurship, 2(3/4), 261–274.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nakayama, Y., Hosono, M., Hasegawa, K., & Nagata, A. (2010). Study on university/industry collaboration at Japanese national universities using the database of university/industry collaboration. Tokyo: National Institute of Science and Technology Policy, MEXT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, R. R., & Rosenberg, N. (1993). Technical innovation and national systems. In R. R. Nelson (Ed.), National innovation systems: A comparative analysis (pp. 3–22). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nishimura, Y. (2003). Sangakurenkei—“Chuokenkyujo no jidai” wo koete. Tokyo: Nikkei Business Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nishizawa, A. (2011). From triple-helix model to eco-system building model. International Journal of Technoentreneurship, 2(3/4), 304–323.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nozawa, K. (2015). Regional triple helix and the contextualization of regional policy: A comparative analysis of three regions in Japan. Industry and Higher Education, 29(1), 51–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (1997). National innovation systems. Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oh, I. (2011). Not yet triple helix III? Japanese MOT policies and the problem of technology exploitation. In M. Saad & G. Zawdie (Eds.), Theory and practice of the triple helix system in developing countries (pp. 283–303). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Park, H. W., & Leydesdorff, L. (2010). Longitudinal trends in networks of university–industry–government relations in South Korea: The role of programmatic incentives. Research Policy, 39(5), 640–649.

    Google Scholar 

  • Priego, J. L. O. (2003). A vector space model as a methodological approach to the triple helix dimensionality: A comparative study of Biology and Biomedicine Centres of two European National Research Councils from a webometric view. Scientometrics, 58(2), 429–443.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ranga, M., & Etzkowitz, H. (2013). Triple helix systems: An analytical framework for innovation policy and practice in the Knowledge Society. Industry and Higher Education, 27(3), 237–262.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sakata, I., Fujisue, K., & Nobuhara, S. (2001). University-facilitated new business creation and the revitalization of regional economies. Tokyo: Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry.

    Google Scholar 

  • Samara, E., Georgiadis, P., & Bakouros, I. (2012). The impact of innovation policies on the performance of national innovation systems: A system dynamics analysis. Technovation, 32(11), 624–638.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sawai, M. (2009). A half century of Japan’s industrial science and technology policy and the agency of industrial science and technology. Column of Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry. https://www.rieti.go.jp/en/columns/a01_0265.html. Accessed 14 January 2018.

  • Saxenian, A. (1994). Regional advantage: Culture and competition in Silicon Valley and route 128. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The theory of economic development: An inquiry into profits, capital, credit, interest, and the business cycle. New Brunswick: Transaction publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Science and Technology Agency. (1964). White paper on science and technology in Japan, 1964. Tokyo: Printing Bureau, Ministry of Finance.

    Google Scholar 

  • Science Council of Japan (SCJ) (1999). Aratanaru kenkyurinen wo motomete. The Third Standing Committee of SCJ. http://www.scj.go.jp/ja/info/kohyo/17pdf/1708p.pdf. Accessed 14 January 2018.

  • Shin, J. C., Lee, S. J., & Kim, Y. (2012). Knowledge-based innovation and collaboration: A triple-helix approach in Saudi Arabia. Scientometrics, 90(1), 311–326.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shinn, T. (2002). The triple helix and new production of knowledge: Prepackaged thinking on science and technology. Social Studies of Science, 32(4), 599–614.

    Google Scholar 

  • Small and Medium Enterprise Agency. (1985). White paper on small and medium enterprises in Japan, 1985. Tokyo: Printing Bureau, Ministry of Finance.

    Google Scholar 

  • Small and Medium Enterprise Agency. (2005). Kosetsushi keiei no kihon senryaku. Tokyo: Small and Medium Enterprise Agency http://www.chusho.meti.go.jp/keiei/gijut/2005/download/051220kousetushi_senryaku_houkokusho.pdf. Accessed 14 January 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  • Small and Medium Enterprise Agency. (2008). White paper on small and medium enterprises in Japan, 2008. Tokyo: Printing Bureau, Ministry of Finance.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sun, Y., Negishi, M., & Leydesdorff, L. (2007). National and international dimensions of the triple helix in Japan: University-industry-government and international co-authorship relations. Paper presented at the 11th International Conference of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics, Madrid, Spain, 25–27 June 2007.

  • Suzuki, J., Goto, A., & Baba, Y. (2007). Daigakukyouin no kenkyukatsudou to sangakurenkei. In Y. Baba & A. Goto (Eds.), Empirical research on university-industry linkages in Japan (p. 61). Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tamai, K., & Miyata, Y. (2007). Nihon no sangakurenkei. Tokyo: Tamagawa daigaku shuppanbu.

    Google Scholar 

  • Technopolis ‘90 Kensetsukousouiinkai. (1982). Technopolis kihon kousou chousa sougou houkokusho. Tokyo: Japan Industrial Location Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ueda, H., & Honda, T. (2006). Kosetsushikenkenkyukikan to chushokigyo. Tokyo: Soufusha.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. (1994). Case study research, design and method. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their constructive and helpful comments on the paper. This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number JP16K03851. The views expressed in the papers are solely those of the authors, and not represent Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry of Japan.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Kanto Bureau of Economy, Trade and Industry, Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry of Japan, Saitama, Japan

    Noriko Yoda

  2. Faculty of Economics, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan

    Kenichi Kuwashima

Authors
  1. Noriko Yoda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kenichi Kuwashima
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Noriko Yoda.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yoda, N., Kuwashima, K. Triple Helix of University–Industry–Government Relations in Japan: Transitions of Collaborations and Interactions. J Knowl Econ 11, 1120–1144 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-019-00595-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-019-00595-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation