STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT OF THE TRIPLE HELIX MODEL: WHAT UZBEKISTAN CAN LEARN FROM THE USA’S EXPERIENCE
Keywords:
Key Words: Triple Helix, strategic management, innovation, commercialization, absorptive capacity, university-industry-government, USA experience, economic growth, integration, strategy, institutional, transition.Abstract
Abstract. The study investigates the strategic management of university-
industry-government relationships within the framework of the Triple Helix model,
aiming to explore the transition mechanisms for the Republic of Uzbekistan. By
utilizing comparative institutional analysis and qualitative assessment of strategic
management policies, the analysis reveals a significant gap in the commercialization
of academic knowledge, but exposes a “Triple Helix productivity paradox” in
transitioning economies. The high concentration of state-funded higher education is
negatively correlated with industrial innovation in all development tiers, reflecting the
dominance of isolated academic practices. Besides, institutional landscapes revealed a
deficit in “absorptive capacity” for technology transfer. To meet “Digital Uzbekistan -
2030” strategy targets, there is a necessity of improving the quality of legislative
frameworks, extracting crucial lessons from the USA’s experience, specifically the
Bayh-Dole Act.
References
7. References:
[1] H. Etzkowitz and L. Leydesdorff, "The dynamics of innovation: from
National Systems and “Mode 2” to a Triple Helix of university–industry–government
relations," Research Policy, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 109-123, 2000.
[2] L. Leydesdorff and M. Meyer, "The Triple Helix of university-industry-
government relations," Scientometrics, vol. 58, no. 2, pp. 191-203, 2003.
[3] H. Etzkowitz, "Innovation in Innovation: The Triple Helix of University-
Industry-Government Relations," Social Science Information, vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 293-
337, 2003.
[4] lex.uz, "Decree of the President of the Republic of Uzbekistan," 5 October
2020. [Online]. Available: https://lex.uz/ru/docs/5031048. [Accessed 1 June 2026].
[5] J. McMillan and C. Woodruff, "The Central Role of Entrepreneurs in
Transition Economies," Journal of Economic Perspectives, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 153-170,
2002.
[6] H. Etzkowitz, The Triple Helix: University-Industry-Government Innovation
in Action. London: Routledge, 2008.
[7] D. Audretsch, "The Entrepreneurial University," Foundations and Trends in
Entrepreneurship, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 301-355, 2014.
[8] D. Smallbone and F. Welter, "The distinctiveness of entrepreneurship in
transition economies," Small Business Economics, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 249-262, 2001.
[9] W. M. Cohen and D. A. Levinthal, "Absorptive Capacity: A New Perspective
on Learning and Innovation," Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 128-
152, 1990.
[10] J. Barney, "Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage,"
Journal of Management, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 33-120, 1991.
[11] M. Ranga and H. Etzkowitz, "Triple Helix Systems: An Analytical
Framework for Innovation Policy and Practice in the Knowledge Economy," Industry
and Higher Education, vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 237-262, 2013.
[12] L. Leydesdorff, "The Triple Helix: An Evolutionary Model of Innovations,"
Research Policy, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 243-255, 2000.
[13] D. B. Audretsch and A. N. Link, "Entrepreneurship and Innovation: Public
Policy Frameworks," Journal of Technology Transfer, vol. 44, pp. 1-10, 2019.
[14] R. K. Yin, Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Thousand Oaks:
Sage Publications, 2014.
[15] D. C. Mowery, R. R. Nelson, B. N. Sampat, and A. A. Ziedonis, "The
growth of patenting and licensing by US universities: an assessment of the effects of
the Bayh–Dole act of 1980," Research Policy, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 99-119, 2001.
[16] Z. J. Acs, S. Estrin, T. Mickiewicz and L. Szerb, "Entrepreneurship,
institutional economics, and economic growth: an ecosystem perspective," Small
Business Economics, vol. 51, no. 2, pp. 501-514, 2018.
