With this paper I discuss the importance of permeability among university—industry—government boundaries based on the experience of MIT and Boston, Stanford and Silicon Valley, the Research Triangle and North Carolina, and Newcastle University and Northeast UK. Encouraging permeability in university boundaries is a first step to creating an entrepreneurial university, the driving force of the most successful innovation regions. Underlying drivers of innovation are transferable and may be instituted by specif c policy initiatives addressing gaps in particular cases. These is no one-size-fits-all ‘best-practice’ mode but there are some common characteristics of innovation regimes such as ‘boundary permeability’ that can be positively influenced by explicit measures.
AdamsS BButlerO R, 1999Manufacturing the Future: A History of Western Electric (Cambridge University Press, New York)
2.
BatheltH, 2001, “Regional competence and economic recovery: Divergent growth paths in Boston's high technology economy”Entrepreneurship and Regional Development13287–314
BushV, 1970Pieces of the Action (William Morrow, New York)
5.
CasperS, 2007Creating Silicon Valley in Europe: Public Policy Towards New Technology Industries in Comparative Perspective (Oxford University Press, Oxford)
6.
CookeP, 2001, “Regional innovation systems, clusters, and the knowledge economy”Industrial and Corporate Change10945–974
7.
CookeP, 2006, “Global bioregions: Knowledge domains, capabilities and innovation system networks”Industry and Innovation13437–458
8.
DorfmanN, 1983, “Route 128: The development of a regional high technology economy”Research Policy12299–316
9.
DraperW, 2011The Startup Game: Inside the Partnership between Venture Capitalists and Entrepreneurs (Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, Hants)
10.
EstrinJ, 2008Closing the Innovation Gap: Reigniting the Spark of Creativity in a Global Economy (McGraw-Hill, New York)
11.
EtzkowitzH, 2002MIT and the Rise of Entrepreneurial Science (Routledge, London)
12.
EtzkowitzH, 2008The Triple Helix: University—Industry—Government Innovation in Action (Routledge, London)
13.
EtzkowitzH, 2012, “The paradox of success: Realizing”, Latent Entrepreneurial Potential Triple Helix Working Paper Series, http://www.triplehelixassociation.org
14.
EtzkowitzHDzisahJ, 2008a, “Professors of practice and the entrepreneurial university”International Higher Education4910–11
15.
EtzkowitzHDzisahJ, 2008b, “Unity and diversity in high-tech growth and renewal: Learning from Boston and Silicon Valley”European Planning Studies161009–1024
16.
EtzkowitzHKlofstenM, 2005, “The innovating region: Towards a theory of knowledge based regional development”R&D Management35243–255
17.
EtzkowitzHWebsterAGebhardtCTerraB, 2000, “The future of the university and the university of the future: The evolution of ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm”Research Policy29313–330
18.
GompersPLernerJ, 2001, “The venture capital revolution”The Journal of Economic Perspectives15145–168
19.
GierynT F, 1983, “Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: Strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists”American Sociological Review48781–795
20.
HamiltonW, 1966, “The Research Triangle of North Carolina: A study in leadership for the common weal”South Atlantic QuarterlyLXV254–278
21.
IKED, 2003Cluster Policy WhitebookInternational Organisation for Knowledge Economy and Enterprise Development, Malmö
JumaC, 2011The New Harvest: Agricultural Innovation in Africa (Oxford University Press, Oxford)
24.
KenneyMvon BurgU, 1999, “Technology, entrepreneurship and path dependence: Industrial clustering in Silicon Valley and Route 128”Industrial and Corporate Change867–103
25.
KoeppR, 2002Clusters of Creativity: Enduring Lessons on Innovation and Entrepreneurship from Silicon Valley and Europe's Silicon Fen (John Wiley, New York)
26.
LecuyerC, 2003Making Silicon Valley: Innovation and the Growth of High Tech, 1930–1970 (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA)
27.
LeeCMillerWHancockMRowenH (Eds), 2000The Silicon Valley Edge: A Habitat for Innovation and Entrepreneurship (University of California, Stanford, CA)
28.
LeslieS, 1993The Cold War and American Science (Columbia University Press, New York)
29.
LipartitoK, 1993, “Innovation, the firm, and society”Business and Economic History2292–104
30.
LowenR, 1997Creating the Cold War University: The Transformation of Stanford (University of California Press, Berkeley, CA)
31.
LugarM, 1994, “Science and technology in regional economic development: The role of policy in Europe, Japan and the United States”Technology in Society169–33
MarkusenA, 1996, “Sticky places in slippery space: Typology of industrial districts”Economic Geography72293–313
34.
MasseyDQuintasPWieldD, 1992High-tech Fantasies: Science Parks in Society, Science and Space (Routledge, London)
35.
MatthewsG, 2003Silicon Valley, Women, and the California Dream: Gender, Class, and Opportunity in the Twentieth Century (Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA)
36.
MooreGDavisK, 2004, “Learning the Silicon Valley way”, in Building High Tech Clusters: Silicon Valley and Beyond Eds BresnahanTGambardellaA (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge) pp 7–39
37.
MunroeTWesterlandM, 2009What Makes Silicon Valley Tick? The Ecology of Innovation at Work (Nova Vista Publishing, Herentals)
38.
NauwelaersCWintjesR, 2002, “Innovative SMEs and regions: The need for policy intelligence and interactive policies”Technology Analysis and Strategic Management14201–215
39.
O'MaraM, 2005Cities of Knowledge: Cold War Science and the Search for the Next Silicon Valley (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ)
RangaMDebackereKTunzelmanNon G, 2003, “Entrepreneurial universities and the dynamics of academic knowledge production: A case of basic vs. applied research in Belgium”Scientometrics58301–320
42.
RosegrantSLampeD, 1992Route 128: Lessons from Boston's High Tech Community (Basic Books, New York)
