The Triple Helix paradigm in Korea: A test for new forms of capital

The Triple Helix paradigm – a construct addressing the research-based links between government, universities, and firms – is lacking in formal tests. This study attempts to alleviate this deficiency by conducting an empirical analysis of the effects of relationship-based forms of capital, which has been identified by theorists as an attribute of Triple Helix-based R&D. OLS results utilising a unique dataset (KORTAI R&D) comprised of 108 questionnaire responses of Korean directors and project leaders reveal that new forms of capital are especially significant for firms and universities while less so for government research institutes (GRIs). The effects for universities, however, are delayed and indicate a spillover effect. Introduction The Triple Helix paradigm has not been extensively applied to the Korean case as persuasive studies of R&D in Korea have traditionally been conducted in terms of the National Innovation System approach.1 While both methods provide important perspectives of how R&D is conducted, the Triple Helix model presents a particular emphasis on public–private R&D collaboration. This form of collaboration has become increasingly necessary in Korea, given the complexity of new technologies. Such advancements typically require interdisciplinary skills, large financial investments, testing, and experimental and production facilities (Yusuf 2003). This paper considers whether key aspects of the Triple Helix model are true for the Korean case, offering lessons for other countries approaching a similar level of technological capacity. This is, thus, a call to move beyond an understanding of Korea’s industrial success based on underlying, nation-level differences, as (Westphal 1990) states, and address more recent policies promulgating a Triple Helix structure. Specifically, to what extent does the Triple Helix structure generate new forms of capital in Korea? If capital does increase as an externality of public–private R&D collaboration, there are obvious implications for policymakers, who are responsible for maximising social returns to R&D. Theoretical and empirical contributions are offered here, while responding to the general research question. Theoretically, the linkages between the government, universities, and private firms offer little in terms