Main Article Content
Coconut trees can grow in nearly all parts of tropical countries, because it does not require any special requirements for growth. In particular, value-added products by processing coconut, among others: coco chemical, coco fibre, coconut oil, desiccated coconut, Nata de coco, activated charcoal, etc. In the Philippines, the significant coconut squanders incorporate coconut shell (12%), coconut husks (35%) and coconut coir dust. This study aims to understand the productivity condition and innovation system in coconut industrial cluster as part of sectoral innovation system. Study is carried out by identifying and analysing interaction between coconut industry actors and landscape of coconut industry policies and provide recommendation for better improvement on interaction model for the coconut industry in the Philippines. This research outputs are identification of actors and its interaction in the Philippines coconut industry, its constraints and challenges, conclusion to the case and proposed model for better off coconut productivity and innovation and further recommendation. This research identified the Philippines coconut industry actors, from the Government actors (PCA) and its program, strategies and policies, Business actors (Davao based firms) and Civil societyy and Academia actors, analyse its interactions and proposed better model in helices of interaction of actors (Academic, Business, Government, and Civil Society) of the Philippines coconut industry.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
(1) Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
(2) Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
(3) Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
2. Asheim, B., Coenen, L., and M. Svensson-Henning. (2003) Nordic SMEs and regional innovation systems. Oslo: Nordisk Industri fond.
3. Breschi S. & Malerba F. (1997) Sectoral innovation systems: technological regimes, schumpeterian dynamics, and spatial boundaries. In C. Edquist (ed). Systems of innovation: technologies, institutions, and organisations. London: Pinter
4. Carayannis, E. G., & Campbell, D. F. J. (2010) Triple helix, quadruple helix and quintuple helix and how do knowledge, innovation, and environment relate to each other? International Journal of Social Ecology and Sustainable Development, 1(1), 41–69.
5. Carayannis E.G., Campbell D.F.J. (2017) Quadruple and Quintuple Helix innovation systems and mode 3 knowledge production. In: Carayannis E., Campbell D., Efthymiopoulos M. (eds) Handbook of Cyber-Development, Cyber-Democracy, and Cyber-Defense. Springer, Cham.
6. Cavallini, S., Soldi, R., Friedl, J., & Volpe, M. (2016) Using the quadruple helix approach to accelerate the transfer of research and innovation results to regional growth. European Union Committee of the Regions.
7. Chesbrough, H. W. (2003) Open Innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
8. Chung. S. (2002) Building a national innovation system through regional innovation systems. Technovation 22 (2002) 485–491
9. Cooke, P. (1998) The role of innovation in regional competitiveness. Paper presented at the 5th Nordic-Baltic Conference in Regional Science "Global-Local Interplay in the Baltic Sea Region" held in Pärnu 1-4th October, 1998.
10. De Bruijn, P & Lagendijk, A (2005) Regional innovation systems in the lisbon strategy. European Planning Studies 13:1, 153-172
11. Doloreux, D and S. Parto. (2004) Regional innovation systems: A critical synthesis, UNU-INTECH Discussion Papers no. 2004-17
12. Edquist, C. (1997) Systems of innovation: Technologies, institutions and organizations. London: Pinter.
13. Edquist, C. (2001) Innovation policy-a systemic approach. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
14. Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (1995) The triple helix—university-industry-government relations: a laboratory for knowledge-based economic development. EASST Review, 14, 14–19.
15. Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (2000) The dynamics of innovation: from national systems and “Mode 2” to a triple helix of university-industry-government relations. Research Policy, 29(22), 109–123.
16. Freeman, C. (1987) Technology policy and economic performance: Lessons from Japan, London, Pinter Publishers.
17. Freeman, C., (1995) The national system of innovation in historical perspective. Cambridge Journal of Economics 19, 5-24.
18. Geel, F.W. Hekkert, M.P. & Jacobsson.S. (2008) The dynamics of sustainable innovation journeys. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 20(5), 521-536
19. Holbrook, A. And Wolfe, D. (eds). (2002) Knowledge, clusters and regional innovation. McGill-Queen’s, Montreal and Kingston
20. Jang, Jae-H. (2005) Regional innovation policy and balanced regional development, KIET.
21. Leydesdorff, L. & Etzkowitz, H. (1998) The triple helix as a model for innovation studies.
Conference Report. “Science & Public Policy.” Vol. 25(3), p. 195-203. 1998.
22. Leydesdorff, L. (2012) The knowledge-based economy and the triple helix model. University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam School of Communications.
23. Leydesdorff, L., Ivanova, I. (2013) “Open innovation” and “triple helix” models of innovation: can synergy in innovation systems be measured? J. open innov. 2, 11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40852-016-0039-7
24. Lundvall, Bengt-Åke (ed.). (1992) National innovation systems: Towards a theory of innovation and interactive learning. London. Pinter Publishers.
25. Malerba, F. (2002) Sectoral systems of innovation and production. Research Policy 31(2), pp. 247–264.
26. Malerba, F. (2004). Sectoral systems of innovation: Concepts, issues and analyses of six major sectors in Europe. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
27. Nelson, R., (ed). (1993) National innovation systems: A comparative analysis. New York (NY): Oxford University Press.
28. OECD. (1999) Managing national innovation systems. Organisation for economic co-operation and development (OECD). 1999.
29. Saad, M.; Zawdie, G., eds. (2011) Theory and practice of the triple helix model in developing countries. Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203838211.
30. Schutz, F., Heidingsfelder, M.L, & Schraudner, M. (2019) Co-shaping the future in quadruple helix innovation systems: Uncovering public preferences toward participatory research and innovation, she ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation, Volume 5, Issue 2, 128-146
31. Sternberg, R. (2000) Innovation networks and regional development – evidence from the European Regional Innovation Survey (ERIS). European Planning Studies, 8 (4): 389-407.
32. Tödtling, F., Kaufmann, A. (2001) The role of the region for innovation activities of SMEs. European urban and regional studies, 8 (3): 203-215.
33. Wolfe, D. (2003) Clusters old and new: The transition to a knowledge economy in Canada's regions. Kingston: Queen's School of Policy Studies.