Authors : Võ Thị Thu Hồng; Nguyễn Vũ Hiếu Trung; Pham Thị Luyến

Volume/Issue : Volume 10 - 2025, Issue 8 - August

Google Scholar : https://tinyurl.com/4sz2rpsy

Scribd : https://tinyurl.com/43tsmzex

DOI : https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt/25aug1367

Note : A published paper may take 4-5 working days from the publication date to appear in PlumX Metrics, Semantic Scholar, and ResearchGate.

Note : Google Scholar may take 30 to 40 days to display the article.

Abstract : In the context of the knowledge economy and the Fourth Industrial Revolution, the Triple Helix model—linking universities, industry, and government—is recognized as an effective framework for promoting innovation, enhancing competitiveness, and fostering sustainable development. This paper analyzes the implementation of the Triple Helix model in global innovation hubs such as Kendall Square (USA), Fraunhofer (Germany), Yozma (Israel), one-north (Singapore), Catapult (UK), Brainport Eindhoven (Netherlands), and Shenzhen (China). Based on qualitative analysis, the study evaluates the current state of Triple Helix collaboration in Ho Chi Minh City (HCMC) and identifies its strengths and limitations. Findings indicate that although HCMC possesses strong infrastructure, human resources, and an emerging startup ecosystem, challenges remain in governance, financing mechanisms, intellectual property frameworks, and sustained collaboration. The study proposes four policy pillars for 2025–2030: (1) establishing a central orchestrator for coordination, (2) reforming financial mechanisms and policy support, (3) developing innovation infrastructure and shared spaces, and (4) improving legal frameworks, KPIs, and international linkages. Academically, the paper extends Triple Helix theory to the context of an emerging metropolitan economy; practically, it offers concrete policy recommendations for HCMC to become a leading innovation hub in Southeast Asia.

Keywords : Triple Helix, Innovation, University–Industry–Government Collaboration, Ho Chi Minh City, International Experience, Innovation Policy.

References :

1. Arnold, E., Clark, J., & Muscio, A. (2010). What the evaluation record tells us about European research and technology organisations. Science and Public Policy, 37(9), 713–725. https://doi.org/10.3152/030234210X12865068573609
2. Avnimelech, G., & Teubal, M. (2004). Venture capital–start-up co-evolution and the emergence & development of Israel’s new high tech cluster. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 13(1), 33–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/1043859042000201913
3. Carayannis, E. G., & Campbell, D. F. J. (2009). ‘Mode 3’ and ‘Quadruple Helix’: Toward a 21st century fractal innovation ecosystem. International Journal of Technology Management, 46(3–4), 201–234. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTM.2009.023374
4. Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128–152. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393553
5. Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (1995). The Triple Helix – University–Industry–Government relations: A laboratory for knowledge-based economic development. EASST Review, 14(1), 14–19.
6. Etzkowitz, H., & Zhou, C. (2017). The Triple Helix: University–Industry–Government innovation and entrepreneurship. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315620183
7. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2019). Multivariate data analysis (8th ed.). Cengage.
8. Hewitt-Dundas, N., Roper, S., & Shapira, P. (2019). Innovation ecosystems, absorptive capacity and the contribution of universities. Research Policy, 48(1), 103–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.08.007.
9. Katz, B., & Wagner, J. (2014). The rise of innovation districts: A new geography of innovation in America. Brookings Institution.https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-rise-of-innovation-districts-a-new-geography-of-innovation-in-america/Lindtner, S. (2014). Hackerspaces and the Internet of Things in China: How makers are reinventing industrial production, innovation, and the self. China Information, 28(2), 145–167. https://doi.org/10.1177/0920203X14529881
10. Ng, B. K., & Thiruchelvam, K. (2012). Triple Helix approach in Malaysia: Collaboration initiatives between universities–industry–government. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 56, 231–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.09.649
11. Ranga, M., & Etzkowitz, H. (2013). Triple Helix systems: An analytical framework for innovation policy and practice in the Knowledge Society. Industry and Higher Education, 27(3), 237–262. https://doi.org/10.5367/ihe.2013.0165
12. Sturgeon, T. J. (2003). How Silicon Valley came to be. In M. Kenney (Ed.), Understanding Silicon Valley: The anatomy of an entrepreneurial region (pp. 15–47). Stanford University Press.Van Geenhuizen, M., & Soetanto, D. P. (2012). Science parks: What they are and how they need to be evaluated. International Journal of Foresight and Innovation Policy, 8(1), 90–111. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJFIP.2012.046653
13. Wong, P. K., Ho, Y. P., & Singh, A. (2009). Towards an “entrepreneurial university” model to support knowledge-based economic development: The case of the National University of Singapore. World Development, 35(6), 941–958. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2007.09.012
14. Zaheer, A., McEvily, B., & Perrone, V. (1998). Does trust matter? Exploring the effects of interorganizational and interpersonal trust on performance. Organization Science, 9(2), 141–159. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.9.2.141
15. HCMC People’s Committee. (2024). Report on HCMC’s socio-economic performance in 2023.
16. Ministry of Science and Technology. (2023). Local Innovation Index (iDX Index) 2023.