Measuring synergy within a Triple Helix innovation system using game theory: cases of some developed and emerging countries

Abstract

Synergy within a Triple Helix innovation system has been measured in relevant literature using mutual information and transmission power, all based on Shannon's information theory. However, as a complex system, Triple Helix relationships may also be analysed with various techniques and tools from other disciplines among which game theory. Thus, the synergy may be measured with indicators like the core, the Shapley value and the nucleolus. The core measures the extent of the synergy, the Shapley value indicates an actor's strength to lead to and create synergy and the nucleolus determines an actor's strength to maintain synergy. The Triple Helix innovation systems of eight countries among which four developed-USA, UK, Germany and France-and four emerging-Russia, India, Brazil and China-were analysed based on their scientific output using game theory. It appears that the biggest Triple Helix science producer has more power to lead to and create synergy; government shows solidarity to maintain synergy within the innovation system. The level of synergy is higher in developing countries (led by France, 1.7-2%) than in emerging ones (led by Brazil, less than or equal to 1%), operating a division of selected countries according to their level of development. The study shows that state intervention in the economy influences the position of the core on a ternary diagram.

Triple Helix Model of Innovation: From Boundaries to Frontiers

“…Besides measuring Triple Helix efficiency, the frontiers of operationalizing Triple Helix interactions also consist of quantitative analysis of the intersection of the helices from the social network perspective (Virkkala & Mariussen, 2021) and measuring synergies of Triple Helix interactions using game theory triple helix 9 (2022) 107-117 (Mêgnigbêto, 2018). Since the relations between different actors in innovation processes are becoming increasingly complex, the measurement of Triple interactions might be limited by traditional social science methods, and new technics, such as machine learning, are expected to be applied (Cai & Etzkowitz, 2020;Cai et al, 2019).…”

The National Innovation System in a catching-up country: empirical evidence based on micro data of a Triple Helix in Poland

“…This is due to the fact that the absorption, creation and use of knowledge is related to the systemic Triple Helix maturity (Peixoto et al, 2021, 92-110). High-income category countries are more effective in taking advantage of the opportunities offered by the Triple Helix (Mêgnigbêto, 2018a). They show better cooperation between universities and industry in the field of R&D and innovation activity in general (Aldabbas et al, 2020, pp.…”

Synergy within the West African Triple Helix innovation systems as measured with game theory

“…As he wrote, it was a "first attempt to formalize the concept of the Triple Helix of university-government-industry interactions in innovation activities with game theory" (Dubina, 2015a, p. 33, b, p. 40). Recently, game theory indicators were used to study some countries or regions innovation system, mainly South Korean and the West African region (Mêgnigbêto, 2018a) on the one hand, four developing countries (USA, UK, Germany and France) and four emerging ones (Russia, India, Brazil and China) on the other hand (Mêgnigbêto, 2018b). The main findings of the two papers are: the biggest Triple Helix sphere science producer has more power to convince partners to join him for the creation of the synergy; government and its partners show solidarity to maintain the synergy; the bilateral partnership between university and government has more interest in the game; contribution of actors to the core of the game ranks university or government first then industry in third position; the contribution of industry is always limited due to the share of that actor to the total output; note that the unit of analysis (publication count) may have affected this result; and the position of the core on the ternary diagram reflects the state intervention in the economy.…”

“…The difference between university and government contribution is less than 0.5 in the majority of countries and around 2 per cent in Sierra Leone. According to Mêgnigbêto (2018b), academic and governmental contribution to the formation of the core determine the core length while that of industry determines the core's width. Therefore, we conclude that contribution to the core does not take into account the actor dominating the output.…”

“…In comparison, in USA, UK, Germany and France, the industrial share varies from 1 to 8 per cent; in India, Brazil, Russia and China, it varies from 0.23 to 4 per cent (cf. Mêgnigbêto, 2018b). This low performance of industry in science production in this part of the World is explained by hindrances (African Development Bank, 2011, pp.…”