clusters and Innovation.pdf

PAUL MADGETT, CHARLES H. BELANGER AND JOAN MOUNT

CLUSTERS, INNOVATION AND TERTIARY EDUCATION

ABSTRACT. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the integration betweenresearch findings produced at the University and Community College levels and localSMEs (small and medium enterprises) as it impacts regional innovation systems andin particular the prospect of cluster formation. The paper explores certain factors

that have been identified in international literature as being critical to fosteringinnovation in non-metropolitan regions. These factors include government policiesand programmes, internal and external infrastructure, partnership or research links

among educational institutions, and support from local business and civic leaders.Stakeholders from non-metropolitan regions were asked to judge the level of effec-tiveness with reference to these development ‘‘factors’’ while highlighting weak-

nesses, strengths, and effects on innovation in their locale.

Introduction

Innovation is generally defined as a process through which value suchas new economic and social benefits is extracted from skills andknowledge by generating, developing, and implementing ideas toproduce new or improved products, processes, and services (Con-ference Board 2003a, b). Holbrook and Clayman (2003) believe thattertiary education plays an important role in generating innovativeskills and research that feed enterprises in the particular region.Examples such as the core contribution of Stanford University andMIT to the success of the Silicon Valley and route 128, respectively,have often been cited. Knowledge created at universities is a basis forproviding needed skills and expertise, and also allows companies toaccess state of the art labs and capable graduates. Downstreamactivities such as testing and prototype development are congenial tocommunity colleges. This type of interaction between public researchinfrastructure and the private sector helps attract new investments byallowing companies to access the level of expertise to test and toimprove new ideas, processes, and products. Therefore, public

Tertiary Education and Management (2005) 11: 337–354 � Springer 2005DOI 10.1007/s11233-005-0983-4

research may play dual roles in these regions but the main attractionis the potential economic and intellectual spillover of these areas.Wolfe (2004a, b) states that

universities are now expected to generate more applied knowledge of greater rele-

vance to industry, to diffuse knowledge, and to provide technical support toindustry... reinforced by the political expectation that research funding be tied tobroader public policy objectives about promoting national innovative capacity,

greater competitiveness and, increasingly, local and regional economic development.

As noted by Holbrook and Clayman, Wolfe, and the ConferenceBoard of Canada, innovation is generated mostly in large urbancentres with universities, where public and private sector actors jointhe same platform(s). However, only six large urban areas representapproximately 40% of its total population: Greater Toronto Area,Greater Vancouver Regional District, Edmonton, Calgary, Ottawaand Montreal. These areas have diverse and easily accessible skillssets that are important in further strengthening their regional econ-omies. These cities have easier access to venture and angel financing,and to government capital for more innovative and higher riskbusiness projects. What about the remaining 60% of the populationlocated in more remote and non-metropolitan regions, dotted acrossroughly 85% of the inhabited non-circumpolar territory? Themajority of these areas are resource based economies supported by afew large publicly owned firms, and as a consequence are also thetheatre of a mass youth exodus due to the lack of employmentopportunities. These areas are experiencing skill gaps that are hin-dering their capabilities for innovation. Also, even when financingcan be procured for new technologies that would allow furtherexpansion, many small and medium enterprises (SMEs) are unwillingto take part in any sort of research or process change because of therelatively high financial risks (Goldfarb & Henrekson 2003; Todtling &Kaufman 2002). To date Canada has not formulated a visible andeffective strategy to stem the youth exodus from these regions.

Focus of This Study

The main purpose of this study is to examine the innovationrequirements to create and foster industrial clusters in more remotenon-metropolitan regions of Canada. Bridges between university/college research expertise and local businesses/industries were iden-tified as major factors in fostering innovation, and regional economic

PAUL MADGETT ET AL.338

growth. The study looked at the tertiary education institutions, theirconnections with local economic development agencies, and theirinteractions with local SMEs, the latter being relatively dominant inthese non-metropolitan areas. The first segment of this article tries toencapsulate the international and Canadian contexts. The secondsegment presents the views of key stakeholders in relevant locales.

International Context

There has been a global trend to progressively increase innovationlevels in many economies. Innovation is multifaceted, drawing uponstakeholders in the public, the private, and the non-profit sector.Strong positive effects have been seen where close links exist betweentertiary education research and SMEs, and such collaboration hasbeen successfully fostered in many countries for the advancement ofregional innovation systems. Many industrial countries have one ormore levels of government using and/or creating policies to initiateand further develop their innovation systems. At the regional levelthese innovation systems, when linked with many stakeholders andstable government funding, may expand into an industry cluster.Porter (1998) defines clusters as ‘‘a geographically proximate groupof interconnected companies and associated institutions in a partic-ular field, linked by commodities and complementarities.’’ Wolfe(2004a, b) believes that ‘‘strong research intensive universities feed thegrowth of clusters by expanding the local knowledge base and pro-viding a steady stream of talent to support the growth of firms in theclusters.’’ There has been a strong belief in recent literature thatpublic research, which includes university research, is a prerequisitefor accumulating the skills and capacities required to further developinnovation (Holbrook & Clayman 2003). Figure 1 depicts theEuropean context and demonstrates the network of stakeholdersrequired for innovation where no dominant player exists. This set ofinteractions could be extrapolated and/or adapted to any industrialcountry (Kuhlman 2001).

The United Kingdom, Israel, Australia, and Japan, as well asSweden, Upper Austria, Italy and other European countries have allbeen attempting to strengthen their innovation network with gov-ernment programmes. These strategies are typically based onemphasising research collaboration between industry and the publicresearch sector, for the most part of universities. Where the research

CLUSTERS, INNOVATION AND TERTIARY EDUCATION 339

capacity is lacking, industry may look at technology centres(Todtling & Kaufman 2002). The United States seems to be followinga regional innovation platform, as opposed to a national, byincreasing the linkages between the university research capacity andindustry players within the region. The US has created a programme,SBIR (Audretch 2003), to help reduce the barriers so as to allowSMEs to integrate research and development by funding some of theprocess. This funding allows for these SMEs to improve theirperformance and quality of the product and services.

To date, there have been different indicators used in differentcountries and in some cases a general lack of measurable data,making comparison of national economies in terms of progress,growth, and sustainability arduous and time consuming. As exam-ples, the United States counts the number of new patents, licences,

Figure 1. Network of stakeholders with no dominant player.


and copyrights to rate the innovativeness of their universities whileSweden employs the number of spin-off companies (Goldfarb &Henrekson 2003; Henrekson & Rosenberg 2001). Every industrialcountry is attempting to maximise performance on its chosen indi-cators, hoping that deliberately crafted policies will help preserve thestandard of living, improve productivity and increase income levels.For the most part, these industrial economies need to continue gen-erating and implementing new ideas, processes and products in orderto maintain their competitiveness in the global market while com-pensating for cost differentials offered by developing countries.Developing countries have an opportunity to wreak havoc on themanufacturing sector of the major global economies by offeringinexpensive human capital, government subsidies, and incentives.Most industrial countries have three responses (Audretch 2002) toconfront this threat:

(1) Realign and reduce wages and production costs significantly tocompete with international competitors (downsizing).

(2) Substitute equipment and technology for labour and produc-tivity.

(3) Shift production to these low cost countries.

To compensate for these drawbacks, the industrial sector is graduallylearning to incorporate new technologies into its manufacturingprocesses from universities, other public research centres (e.g., gov-ernment laboratories, technology transfer centres) and industryconsortia. In this circumstance, the government tries to play aninstrumental role by providing financial resources to mitigate therisks for businesses, improving the relevant research infrastructureand creating desirable legal frameworks. To optimise new discoveries,for example, many governments have created an intellectual property(IP) policy to implement the required ownership frameworks. In theUnited States, the BayhDoyle Act (1980) gives universities control oftheir professors’ discoveries, thus allowing them to market thesefindings to industry (Goldfarb & Henrekson 2003). This means thatoverall the university administrators have a greater motivation toseek out potential revenue sources via commercialisation of research,through such means as corporate partnerships, licensing agreementsand royalties. On the opposite end, in Sweden all rights and discov-eries are owned by the inventor which may cause some problemsin demonstrating, prototyping and commercialising the researchfindings, and hence compel the university and industry to employ


certain incentives such as royalties, shared ownership and financialreward in order to gain the inventor’s cooperation (Goldfarb &Henrekson 2003). Arguably, when dealing with public research, anintellectual property policy permits the different players involved tounderstand the framework and rules.

In general, a number of countries have avoided trying to imple-ment a broad mandate to strengthen their National InnovationSystem and are working on creating regional innovation systems in ahope of establishing a strong innovation base. These countries maybe attempting to simulate the creation of clusters such as route 128,Silicon Valley and Cambridge that brings international recognition,skills, expertise and spillover opportunities. These clusters in almostall cases include universities and colleges, and at least one largeanchor company that will help attract competitors as well as suppliersto an area (Conference Board 2003). Exhibit 1 provides an exampleof a well known success story that illustrates the evolution of a clusterby way of new product development.

Many governments, ministries and programmes have used and/orsupported different tools in their strategies, such as technology parks,incubation centres, research centres, industry liaison officers andstrong industry partnerships. They have deliberately undertaken tocreate or to enhance a number of major medical/doctoral universities,

Exhibit 1. Silicon valley renewal.


mainly located in large metropolitan areas, and to encourage com-mercialisation wherever possible.

There are many different types of collaborations being used. Forexample, the Japanese government instituted a plan to transfer someof the innovation capacity away from its metropolitan areas by cre-ating Technopoles in more remote, less affluent areas. The desiredoutcome has been dogged, however, by the difficulty of maintainingthe long-term commitment of large anchor corporations and also bybranch plant status relative to Tokyo (Conference Board 2004;Kitagawa 2004). In Canada it has been noted that plants belonging toCanadian firms place a higher degree of importance on building thelocal economy and give distinct preference to locally conductedresearch. Foreign owned companies, of which there are many, nor-mally tend to conduct research within their own geographical homebase (Wolfe 2000a, b).

The Canadian Context

Canada’s innovation indicators reveal that this country is not keepingpace with its southern neighbour and main trading partner, theUnited States. Falling behind will spell detrimental long-term effectson productivity, social capital, brain drain and standard of living ofCanadians. The Federal and Provincial governments have takensome important steps during the last 15 years by continuing to pro-vide an affordable higher education for their students while engagingin world class research. This allows the federal government theopportunity to utilise the highly skilled graduates produced by col-leges and universities to help implement its innovation agenda.Further, in recent years Canada, following a world trend, has beenattempting to use its research funded bodies and tertiary education toincrease the level of innovation directly in an attempt to developindustry clusters. Higher education research has mostly been fundedthrough federal government research councils (NSERC, SSHRC,CIHR) which support both pure and applied research and also pro-vide demonstration funding. Another arms-length, federally fundedgroup, the Canadian Foundation for Innovation (CFI), requiresother partners to supply funding for their projects which are intendedto support applied research centres. These funding programmes arethe main tools at the discretion of the federal government to realise itsgoals and objectives. The current strategic direction has universities


playing the role of an economic trigger (Carson 1999; Rae 1996) forthe national economy.

In Canada, the innovation agenda has put substantial onus on theuniversities and colleges to provide three important factors: newideas, expertise and skilled graduates for the market (Government ofCanada 2002). These are needed to support the level of technologicalchange required to maintain, if not grow, regional economies. Can-ada’s Innovation Agenda focuses on three areas: knowledge perfor-mance, skills and the environment for innovation. There is evidencethat the Highly Qualified Personnel (HQP) ratio is very important toestablishing prolonged innovation leading to economic growth(Holbrook and Clayman 2003). Clearly the youth migration of skilledlabour must be stemmed for any innovation policy to be effective.

Canadian universities may have some communication issues withthe private sector outside their research centres, while the communitycolleges typically have strong linkages with suitable industry partners.The colleges concentrate on contract research designed to findapplied solutions to industrial issues that a company may be facing.In this regard, the Association of Community Colleges of Canada,their national association, has articulated their role as being to assistin product and process development; provide industry access toequipment and pilot plants; build awareness of new and best practicetechnologies; provide access to resource centres; assist with marketand product feasibility assessments; and supply input to businessplanning (ACCC 2002). At the same time the universities participatein contract research, engage in joint R&D projects, and often providetesting and consulting skills (Fritsch & Schwirten 1999), all of whichalso lead to commercialisation, technology transfer, etc. In thisregard the line of demarcation between the two types of educationalinstitution is conspicuously fuzzy.

Canada’s national innovation strategy, while quite broad, has notemphasised strengthening non-metropolitan regions to any notabledegree despite its vast land mass. However, in order to counter astrong metropolitan representation at all levels of government, thefederal government has created FedNor and other agencies to providestronger financial support for more remote regions. Most provincesand territorial governments have established similar entities todevelop local economies. Recently, regions such as Northern Ontariohave begun looking at industrial clusters to re-stimulate their econo-mies. Most of these regions have certain environmental rehabilitationskill sets and knowledge that may be readily used to further strengthen


the sector. Two decades ago, many of these same regions or com-munities strove to bolster their economic life through diversification.However, there is currently a feeling that diversification strategiesalone have proved disappointing and that they should be strengthenedby the cluster approach (Robinson 2002). This new strategy wouldaim at building and capitalising on regional assets, essentially throughvertical and horizontal integration. The evolution of a viable clusternormally entails recognizable phases (Conference Board 2004).

Some uncertainty exists as to whether these non-metropolitanlocales would have the capacity within their regional universities andcolleges, industry, and government to handle the evolution of thecluster.

Methodology of the Study

In line with the objectives of this exploratory study, a one-pagequestionnaire was prepared and emailed and/or faxed to a selectivenumber of stakeholders perceived as representative experts, with theoverarching view of stimulating the policy debate. Such experts werethe deans of science at local universities, college presidents, Chamberof Commerce presidents or managing directors, and executivedirectors of regional economic development agencies in the targetedregions. The questionnaire dealt with the main items identified in theinternational literature as being critical for the development ofindustry groupings/clusters, Many of the bigger non-metropolitanregions have at least a community college and/or a university to helpstimulate their knowledge and research capacity. The questionnaire

Exhibit 2. Evolution of clusters according to phase.


queried the stakeholders on certain issues to determine the currentstate and attempted to identify the most effective levers of develop-ment for the region. The section below shows the results of expertopinions sought from tertiary education (N=22) and economic(N=9) targeted stakeholders.

Do Different Perspectives Exist?

Innovation involves the collaboration of both business and tertiaryeducation. These groupings and partnerships do bring rewards to allthe involved participants; otherwise no individual or institutionwould partake in these transactions. Why collaborate? Both groupsharbour their own perspectives, goals and understandingsconcerning the benefits to be derived. For example, the businesscommunity is looking for profit or competitive advantage whileacademia is devoted to expanding knowledge and expertise.In Exhibit 3, Lee (2000) posited some reasons for these industry–academic partnerships:

Looking at some of these potential rewards, one wonders if theproper framework prevails at present for effective links betweeneducational institutions and business enterprises in non-metropolitanregions. The questionnaire sought to discover the extent to which keyfactors are present, as well as the degree to which they are deemed tobe desirable. The difference between the ‘‘occurring’’ and ‘‘desired’’columns represents the gap analysis.

Table I sets out the dimensions most desired by universities, withfive out of six dealing with integrating themselves within the businesscommunity or commercialising their findings through collaboration.Hopefully, SMEs will actively pursue and use applied research due totheir major economic roles in non-metropolitan regions. Overall,there is a strong indication that universities and colleges are vying tooccupy a bigger role in the economic development of their regions.

The business communities (Table II) show a close parallel to thetertiary education institutions, with the first five desired factors beingthe same. Particular to the business communities was the desireexpressed to obtain financial support from federal and provincialsources in order to attain productive linkages with university/collegeresearchers. Overall, both higher education and local businessesunderstand the changes that must be implemented in order toimprove innovation in their economies. This type of agreement couldprovide a joint platform to lobby for greater funding.


Where to focus their innovation strategies?

This section of the questionnaire dealt with the respective foci of bothuniversities and colleges in their geographical areas. These institu-tions responses were used to tabulate the chart in Figure 2.

This graph demonstrates that universities believe that appliedsciences, natural resources, and physical sciences are the main play-ers. Looking at these results, there could be a link between the naturalresources, environment sciences and metals being part of a singleindustry, for example mining. The mathematical sciences seem to bethe weakest area of innovation foci in these non-metropolitanregions.

Figure 3 shows that the business community has identified themain foci to be the resource industry and, at a lesser level but all on apar, agriculture, drugs and medicine and biotechnology. Most oftheir regional economies are resource based economies. There seems

Reasons for:

Academic collaboration

with industry

Firms collaborating

with academics

To supplement funds for one’s own

academic research

To solve specific technical or

design problems

To test the practical application of

one’s own research and theory

To develop new products and

processes

To gain insights in the areas of

one’s own research

To conduct research leading to

new patents

To further the university’s

outreach mission

To improve product quality

To look for business opportunity To reorient R&D agenda

To gain knowledge about practical

problems useful for teaching

To have access to new research

(via seminars and workshops)

To create student internship and job

placement opportunities

To maintain an ongoing relationship

and network with the university

To secure funding for research

assistants and lab equipment

To conduct ‘‘blue sky’’ research

in search of new technology

To conduct fundamental research

with no specific application in mind

To recruit university graduates

Exhibit 3.


to be a slight difference in perspective in the regions’ innovationresearch emphasis. The business community seems to want morefocused research outputs that would help the local economy in the

TABLE II

Business/economic agencies

Questions Now occurring

(%)

Desirable

(%)

Difference

(%)

Joint university/college

partnerships to push R&D

through to commercialization

11 100 89

Non-proprietary R&D done

for industry/business groupings

13 100 87

Willingness of universities/colleges

to participate in R&D

25 100 75

Local business/industry interest

in out-sourcing research

33 100 67

Extent to which business/industry

is ready, and able, to act upon R&D

33 100 67

Backing ($) from a federal or

provincial governmental body

37 100 63

TABLE I

Tertiary education institutions

Questions Now occurring(%)

Desirable(%)

Difference(%)

Local business/industry interest in

out-sourcing research

30 94 64

Tax incentives/R&D tax credits 35 94 59

Extent to which business/industry

is ready, and able, to act upon R&D

50 100 50

Joint university/college partnerships

to push R&D through to

commercialization

44 94 50

Substantial proportion of R&D

done for SMEs

44 94 50

Non-proprietary R&D done

for industry/business groupings

52 100 48


short-term while the universities choose to pursue a broader andmore generic approach.

Discussion and Conclusion

Why are clusters and public research being emphasised? Clusters havebecome a prominent strategy for economic development because theyprovide knowledge that penetrates immediately into local firms in atargeted sector(s), and may provide spillover to neighbouring sectorsnot necessarily so central to the region. However, some uncertaintyexists regarding the formation of clusters because varying findingsabout their evolution have emerged. Wolfe (2004a) insist ‘‘The keyassets that determine the viability of the cluster are firm based.’’ Onthe other hand, Holbrook and Clayman (2003) emphasise that uni-versities play an important role in generating innovative skills andresearch. Fisher and Atkinson-Grosjean (2002) believe in theimportance of a Science and Technology policy that integrates thefollowing 3 forces: the commodification of knowledge, the accelera-tion of information and technology, and the globalisation of marketsand capital. In 2002, Canada funded $4.0 billion in public researchwith $2.2 billion directed to federal laboratories (Holbrook & Clay-

Figure 2. Tertiary education – innovation research foci.


man 2003). It is unknown whether the laboratory funding has pro-vided transferable knowledge for industry.

Some believe that a major corporate player is integral for thebeginning of a cluster, and specifically that there must be a leader tochampion the cause and unite all stakeholders. Others contend thatclusters have evolved over time. Looking at international literatureand past successes, one can conclude that a cluster has some verystriking dynamics that may have evolved naturally. It is prudent togather experts in specific knowledge areas to further the researchagenda. In most cases, it has been proven that universities play animportant role, perhaps or perhaps not a founding role. If the clusteris properly managed through the different stages, there is a goodchance that regional economic growth may be realised by theendeavor. This growth can be attributed to (Conference Board2004):

(1) the ability of companies to introduce new products, services orprocesses;

(2) the quality of new products and services;(3) the speed at which companies can take new products and ser-

vices to market;(4) the ability to keep up with competitors; and(5) the profitability or productivity of companies.

Figure 3. Business – innovation research foci.


In Canada, we have universities that have a strong pure/basicresearch base and community colleges similar to Fachhochschulendelivering the know-how (Fritsch & Schwirten 1999). The combina-tion of these skill sets could provide different and valuable results tobusinesses that are horizontally or vertically integrated within acommon industry. In non-metropolitan regions with limited financialand economic resources, and often ‘‘only one game in town’’ (i.e., onemajor industry), the players must unite to bring knowledge to localcompanies, mostly SMEs. At the same time, research has demon-strated that SMEs will concentrate on adopting technologies only ifthey are associated with risk levels that do not threaten their some-times fragile existence and embrace processes that are a proven suc-cess (Todtling & Kaufman 2002). This reality must be addressed inorder to achieve the improved competitiveness that can arise frombeing part of regional agglomerates of sector firms (Caniel & Romjin2003). To help in this respect, the provincial and federal governmentsmay aid by supporting the development of skilled labour, investing inregional knowledge infrastructure, using procurement to enablegrowth, marketing Canadian clusters, catalysing networking andresearch and gathering performance data (The Conference Board2004). Finally but not least, central governments must encouragelocal creativity and recognise that local leaders and decision makersare often a better solution source than committees dominated bylarge metropolitan ideas.

The role of the tertiary education sector assumes a very particularimportance in non-metropolitan regions because there are sometimesonly a few major firms that will adopt as well as generate new tech-nologies (Todling & Kaufman 2002). They often rely on out-sourcingof research, or on innovation(s) transferred from the parent com-pany. To aid SMEs in the same area, the provincial and federalgovernments may be willing to provide more funding to initiativessimilar to IRAP (Industrial Research Assistance Programs) andCentres of Excellence, in Ontario, that help in the implementationand research of new technologies directly into industry. Further,regional tertiary education players must continue to foster change intheir Research and Development policies by acknowledging thecurrent reality (Jankowski 1999) of new patterns of research funding,the trend toward multidisciplinary research activity within and acrosssectors, and the pressure to be more commercially oriented.

At a greater level of specificity, all regional innovation systemsshould, as stated by Chung (2002), include academia, other public


research centres, and industry. Policies to encourage collaborationhave become the foundation of innovation policies in many countries.For example, Sweden (Jacob et al. 2003) has been changing itsnational research policy to one of innovation, and as a result, itsuniversities have tried to become more entrepreneurial, embracinginnovation as a key institutional indicator. This type of interaction,especially between universities and SMEs, has been noted as animportant part of innovation in South Korea, Austria, the UnitedStates, Australia, Israel and many other countries (Audretsch 2003;Chung 2002; Milton-Smith 2001; Todtling & Kaufman 2002; Traj-tenberg 2001). The role of commercialisation, licensing, fabrication,patents and development of research findings is fast becoming aglobal requirement of tertiary education.

Canada’s Federal Government has announced plans to create 10internationally recognised clusters (Government of Canada 2002).Arguably, this count will in some measure include clusters in non-metropolitan regions. The relevant collaborations must be in place,with substantial onus on the tertiary education sector. Despitecaveats related to willingness and also to resources, we are guardedlyoptimistic that the necessary links will be forged.

References

ACCC. (2002b). Survey of College and Technical Institutes’ Applied Research andDevelopment Activity. Ottawa: The Association of Canadian Community Collegesand Industry Canada.

Audretsch, D.B. (2003). Standing on the Shoulders of Midgets: The U.S. Small

Business Innovation Research Program (SBIR), 20, 129–135.Caniel, M.C.J. & Romjin, H.A. (2003). SME Clusters, Acquisition of TechnologicalCapabilities and Development: Concepts, Practice and Policy Lessons, Journal of

Industry, Competition and Trade, 3, 187–210.Carson, A.S. (1999). Emberley on Hot Button Politics in Canada’s Universities: ACritique, The Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 29, 175–200.

Chung, S. (2002). Building a National Innovation System Through RegionalInnovation Systems, Technovation, 22, 485–491.

Clayman, B.P. & Holbrook, J.A. (2003). The Survival of University Spin-offs and

Their Relevance to Regional Development, Canadian Foundation for Innovation.Conference Board of Canada. (2003a). 5th Annnual Innovation Report 2003: Tradingin the Global Ideas Market.

Conference Board of Canada. (July 2003b). Solving Canada’s Innovation Conundrum

How Public Education Can Help.Conference Board of Canada. (August 2004). Clusters of Opportunity, Clusters ofRisk.


Feller, I., Ailes, P.C. & Roessner, J.D. (2002). Impacts of Research Universities on

Technological Innovation in Industry: Evidence from Engineering ResearchCenters, Research Policy, 31, 457–474.

Fisher, D. & Atkinson-Grosjean, J. (2002). Brokers on the Boundary: Academy –

Industry Liaison in Canadian Universities, Higher Education, 44, 449–467.Fritsch, M. & Schwirten, C. (1999). Enterprise–University Co-operation and theRole of Public Research Institutions in Regional Innovation Systems, Industry and

Innovation, 6, 69–83.Goldfarb, B. & Henrekson, M. (2003). Bottom-Up Versus Top-Down PoliciesTowards the Commercialization of University Intellectual Property, Research

Policy, 32, 639–658.Government of Canada (2002). Canada’s Innovation Strategy. New Ideas. NewOpportunities. Ottawa: Government of Canada: Industry Canada.

Gertler, Meric S., Wolfe, David, A. & Garkut, D. (2000). No Place Like Home? The

Embeddedness of Innovation in Regional Economy, Review of InternationalPolitical Economy, 7, 688–718.

Hayashi, T. (2003). Effects of R & D Programmes on the Formation of University–

Industry–Government Networks: Comparative Analysis of Japanese R & DProgrammes, Research Policy, 32, 1421–1442.

Henrekson, M. & Rosenberg, N. (2001). Designing Efficient Institutions for Science

– Based Entrepreneurship: Lesson from the US and Sweden, Journal ofTechnology Transfer, 26, 207–237.

Holbrook, J.A. & Clayman, B.P. (2003). Research Funding: Key to Clusters.

Canadian Foundation for Innovation.Hum, D. (2000). Reflections on Commercializing University Research, The CanadianJournal of Higher Education, 30, 113–126.

Jacob, M., Lundqvist, M. & Hellmark, H. (2003). Entrepreneurial Transformations

in Swedish University System: The Case of Chalmers University of Technology,Research Policy, 32, 1555–1568.

Jankowski, J.E. (1999). Trends and Academic Research Spending, Alliances, and

Commercialization, Journal of Technology Transfer, 24, 55–68.Kitagawa, F. (2004). Universities and the Learning Region: Creation of Knowledgeand Social Capital in the Learning Society, Hitotsubashi Journal of Social Studies,

36, 9–28.Kuhlman, S. (2001). Future Governance of Innovation Policy in Europe – ThreeScenarios, Research Policy, 30, 953–976.

Lee Yong, S. (2000). The Sustainability of University–Industry Research Collabo-

ration: An Empirical Assessment, Journal of Technology Transfer, 25, 111–133.Milton-Smith, J. (2001). The Role SMEs in Commercialising University Research &Development: TheAsia–Pacific Experience, Small Business Economics, 16, 141–148.

Mount, J. & Belanger, C. (2001). ‘Academic Inc’: The Perspective of UniversityPresidents, The Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 31, 135–166.

Park, W.G. (1994). Adoption, Diffusion, and Public R & D, Journal of Economics

and Finance, 18, 101–123.Porter, M. (1998). Clusters and the New Economics of Competition, HarvardBusiness Review, 76, 199.

Rae, P. (1996). New Directions: Privatization and Higher Education in Alberta, TheCanadian Journal of Higher Education, 16, 59–80.


Robinson, D. (2002). The Dog that Didn’t Bark. http://inord.laurentian.ca.

Sancton, A. & Young, R. (December 2003–January 2004). Paul Martin and Cities:Show us the Money. Policy Option, 29–34.

Stame, N. (1999). Small and Medium Enterprise Aid Programs: Intangible Effects

and Evaluation Practice, Evaluation and Program Planning, 22, 105–111.Todlting, F. & Kaufman, A. (2002). SMEs in Regional Innovation Systems and TheRole of Innovation Support – The Case of Upper Austria, Journal of Technology

Transfer, 27, 15–26.Trajtenberg, M. (2001). Government Support for Commercial R&D: Lesson from theIsrael Experience. NBER Conference on Innovation Policy and the Economy

(Washington, April).Wolfe, D.A. (2004a). Clusters from the Inside and Out Local Dynamics and GlobalLinkages. Centre for International Studies, University of Toronto.

Wolfe, D.A. (2004b). The Role of Universities in Regional Development and Cluster

Formation. Centre of International Studies, University of Toronto.

Charles Belanger,

Laurentian University,80 Juliana Rd,Ottawa, Ontario, K1M 1K3,CanadaE-mail: [email protected]


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Documents

clusters and Innovation.pdf