Almaty Management University, Almaty, Kazakhstan:

Myrzakhmet M., Professor, Candidate of Physical and Mathematical Sciences, myrzakh@gmail.com

L. N. Gumilyov Eurasian National University, Astana, Kazakhstan:

Myrzakhmet Zh., Associate Professor, PhD in Economics

Universal Design Technological Bureau LLP, Almaty, Kazakhstan:

Duisebayev B., Scientific Director, Doctor of Technical Sciences

This article studies activity and collaboration of universities, business and government in the Almaty Region of the Republic of Kazakhstan. The research is carried out by the webometric method. Large universities show more collaboration in the field of education, and small universities are focused on the local market are more active. In addition to the direct benefits due to increased flow of innovative content from universities in favor of industrial functioning, business can gain greatly from the creation of a special academic cultural environment at housing communities of miners. There is also a potential for the gradual transformation of the most prepared single-industry towns situated at mineral deposits into science cities with the help of regional universities. Actually, this means a certain confluence of a mining company and a university. The smart use of technologies coupled with more robust assessment can make a big difference in this environment. Even without major structural shifts, small modifications can lead to efficiency gains that bring large economic improvements. Eliminating bottlenecks inherent in individual mining companies within a territorial cluster with backing provided by a regional university can produce high marginal profits with relatively small additional investments. Integrating universities to mining activities and accompanying processes can significantly change the image and role of the mining industry. The expected economic effect from the closer collaboration between universities and mining companies can be illustrated by the performance of JSC Kazatomprom. Investments in the uranium science in the amount of 1% of revenue has provided the increase in the Company’s in income by 3000% in 10 years. By assuming a rather conservative estimate of investment in university collaboration as 0.1% of the region’s income, judged from the effectiveness of science and based on the above example, we get a growth of the gross regional product at least by 3% per year, even taking into account the fact that only every 10th project is successful.

1. Laukkanen M. Exploring academic entrepreneurship: Drivers and tensions of university-based business. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development. 2003. Vol. 10(4). pp. 372–382.
2. Freeman C. Technology policy and Economic Performance: Lessons from Japan. London, New-York : Printer Publishers, 1987. 155 p.
3. Etzkowitz H. Enterprises from science: The origins of science-based regional economic development. Minerva. 1993. Vol. 31. No. 3. pp. 326–360.
4. Etzkowitz H., Leydesdorff L. The Triple Helix - -University-Industry-Government Relations: A Laboratory for Knowledge Based Economic Deve lopment. Glycoconjugate Journal. 1995. Vol. 14(1). pp. 14–19.
5. Dzisah J., Etzkowitz H. Triple helix circulation: the heart of innovation and development. International Journal of Technology Management and Sustainable Development. 2008. Vol. 7(2). pp. 101–115.
6. Meyer J. W. World society, institutional theories, and the actor. Annual Review of Sociolog. 2010. Vol. 36(1). DOI: 10.1146/annurev.soc.012809.102506
7. Hladchenko M., Pinheiro R. Implementing the Triple Helix Model: Means-Ends Decoupling at the State Level? Minerva. 2019. Vol. 57(5). DOI: 10.1007/s11024-018-9355-3
8. Nyman G. S. University–business–government collaboration: from institutes to platforms and ecosystems. Triple Helix. 2015. Vol. 2(1). DOI: 10.1186/s40604-014-0014-x
9. Abramo G., D’Angelo C. A., Solazzi M. A bibliometric tool to assess the regional dimension of university-industry research collaborations. Scientometrics. 2012. Vol. 91(3). pp. 955–975.
10. Rybnicek R., Königsgruber R. What makes industry–university collaboration succeed? A systematic review of the literature. Journal of Business Economics. 2019. Vol. 89(2). DOI: 10.1007/s11573-018-0916-6
11. Clauss T., Kesting T. How businesses should govern knowledgeintensive collaborations with universities: An empirical investigation of university professors. Industrial Marketing Management. 2017. Vol. 62. pp. 185–198.
12. Sarpong D., Razak A. A., Alexander E. et al. Organizing practices of university, industry and government that facilitate (or impede) the transition to a hybrid triple helix model of innovation. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 2017. Vol. 123(3). DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2015.11.032
13. Vick T. E., Robertson M. A systematic literature review of UK universityindustry collaboration for knowledge transfer: A future research agenda. Science and Public Policy. 2018. Vol. 45(4). pp. 579–590.
14. Myrzakhmet M. K., Begimbay K. M., Idrisova A. R. et al. Science, industry and education interaction at universities in Kazakhstan. Economic Series of the Bulletin of the L.N. Gumilyov ENU. 2018. No. 1. pp. 8–18.
15. Smaller triple helix — Science, business and education partnership at universities : R&D report. KRMU, Aktobe, Kazakhstan. 2018. 35 p.
16. Myrzakhmet M. K. University ranking procedure based on innovation potential.Patent RK 566. Published: 16.11.2018.
17. List of subsoil users by regions in the Republic of Kazakhstan. Open data of the Electronic Government. Available at: https://data.egov.kz/ (accessed: 21.01.2022).
18. Depository of financial data reporting. Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Kazakhstan. Available at: https://opi.dfo.kz/ (accessed: 21.01.2022).
19. Kabakov R. I. R in action. Data analysis and visualization. Moscow : DMK Press, 2014. 588 p.
20. Runge I. C. Mining Economics and Technology. Proceedings of 25^th International Mining Congress and Exhibition of Turkey. Red Hook : Curran Associates Inc, 2017. pp. 2–11.