Page 15 - ISC PROCEEDINGS 21.4

particularly important in high-tech sectors where research capability and market
deployment must be tightly connected.
Second, PPP facilitates risk-sharing. Innovation projects typically involve uncertain
outcomes, long development periods, and a significant probability of failure. Firms may
hesitate to engage in such projects if they must bear the entire burden of financing and
uncertainty. Public-private collaboration can reduce this barrier by sharing research costs,
tolerating partial failure, and aligning expected returns with risk exposure. O’Neill and
Williams (2019) argue that PPP has become increasingly necessary in contexts where
research organizations are expected to generate socio-economic impact while firms
require public support to participate in early-stage commercialization. The example of the
Ontario Institute for Cancer Research and the FACIT foundation, where relatively modest
public funding leveraged much larger private investment, illustrates how PPP can unlock
financing while also retaining domestic value from intellectual assets.
Third, PPP can improve the alignment between research and market demand.
Traditional public R&D systems often suffer from a gap between laboratory outputs and
practical application. PPP can reduce this gap by involving firms from the outset in project
selection, co-financing, product testing, and commercialization. This makes it more likely
that research will address real needs and that outputs will be translated into useful
technologies, products, or services.
Fourth, PPP may strengthen broader innovation ecosystems. By linking universities,
research institutes, enterprises, public agencies, investors, and intermediary organizations,
PPP can help build a more connected and dynamic innovation environment. In this sense,
it is compatible with the Triple Helix model, which emphasizes interaction between
government, academia, and industry in knowledge-based development.
At the same time, the literature also makes clear that PPP is not automatically
effective. Its success depends on institutional design, governance quality, and
implementation capacity. Phan The Cong, at el(2025) argue that PPP effectiveness
requires transparent legal rules, clear public-private role division, reasonable risk-sharing,
and professional project management. These conditions become even more important in
innovation because project outputs are less predictable and contractual rigidity can be
particularly harmful. Roumboutsos and Saussier (2014) show that innovation outcomes
are strongly influenced by contract design: flexible, incentive-compatible, and gain-
sharing arrangements are more likely to encourage private initiative than rigid contracts
focused only on compliance.
Overall, the theoretical literature suggests that PPP can generate three core
benefits in high-tech innovation: mobilization of complementary resources, sharing of risk
and cost, and stronger commercialization linkages. However, these benefits depend on
governance arrangements suited to the distinctive characteristics of innovation, especially
uncertainty, flexibility, and the central role of intangible assets. This is particularly
relevant for Vietnam, where PPP in innovation is still emerging and where institutional
adaptation remains incomplete.
2.3. International and Vietnamese literature review
International scholarship on PPP and innovation has developed across several
strands. One strand examines PPP as a tool for cluster development and strategic
industrial upgrading. Ablaev and Akhmetshina (2016), for example, emphasize the
importance of state support, legal improvement, and risk assumption in enabling
innovation clusters to develop. Another strand focuses on governance and contract

14