2.2.1. The Policy Effect of the IEDB on IAU
The construction of the IEDB is a typical policy showing government support, and much research has been conducted on the influence of government support on IAU, based on the triple-helix theoretical framework [
13,
14]. Since 2016, two versions of the Chinese Government’s “Implementation Opinions on Building Mass Entrepreneurship and Innovation Demonstration Bases” have been proposed, to support the construction of the IEDB in areas with a good foundation for innovation and entrepreneurship, such as universities and research institutes. There has been rich research on the impact of government support on IAU. Some studies have focused on theoretical analysis, and core achievements are reflected in the proposal and development of the triple-helix theory. The triple-helix model was originally proposed by Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff [
13], emphasizing that in the innovation process, the three main bodies, namely, the university, government, and industry form a collaborative model of innovation through mutual collaboration, thereby promoting a spiral progress of the innovation process. Among these entities, universities play the role of realizing innovation through knowledge and talent production, while the government maintains social order and supports innovation by establishing reasonable contractual relationships and policies [
15,
16,
17]. With the continuous evolution of the social environment, the quadruple-helix theory, which includes the role of the citizens, and the five-helix theory, which includes the role of the natural environment (based on the triple-helix theory), have been proposed, successively. These proposals aim to evaluate the impact of various elements on innovation and development from a more systematic perspective [
18,
19,
20].
Other studies have discussed the role of the government in promoting innovation in universities by looking at actual innovation policies in various regions. For example, Mowery explored the impact of the Bayh–Dole Act in the United States, and found that its passage allowed federal agencies to grant patents to small businesses and universities, resulting in a significant increase in the number of university patents [
21]. Bloom et al. analyzed the U.S. government’s promotion of university innovation by improving the education system and focusing on promoting students’ development in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. This support comes in the form of student funding and financial support [
22] and the establishment of the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Education to strengthen innovation and research in breakthrough technologies [
14]. Fleming et al. [
23] found that government funding increased innovation. Taking the United States as an example, nearly one-third of patents at this stage directly rely on federal-funding support. Universities and enterprises, being two of the most important entities in terms of innovation output, are also highly reliant on federal funding.
China’s university innovation is also affected by government support policies, and, compared with other countries, it has a higher proportion of public universities which are highly dependent on government financial support [
24,
25]. Specifically, in emerging papers, scholars have found that the impact of the Chinese Government support on IAU is mainly reflected in their financial investment. For example, it has been found that the allocation of innovation resources such as R&D investment by governments can positively affect universities’ university–industry-collaboration innovation [
2]. The government needs to create a good external-innovation environment by increasing financial investment in universities, to improve their innovation ability [
26]. Some studies also analyze the effect of policy support on IAU in the context of macro regulation. For instance, the researchers find that the implementation of “Project 211” policy can further improve the innovative system of universities and optimize the allocation of innovation resources to enhance scientific and technological innovation-efficiency [
27]. In other words, the government can play the role of financial supporters and policy designers, to help universities implement scientific and technological innovation-activities and improve their innovation abilities [
28].
Therefore, the government’s implementation of the pilot policy of the IEDB can be used as the basis for the planning and the macro regulation of the innovation-ability enhancement of universities. Moreover, it can help universities obtain more R&D funding for science and technology innovation-activities, stimulating innovation vitality, alleviating innovation risk, and promoting their innovation ability [
2,
29].
Therefore, based on the above theoretical analysis, we propose the first hypothesis:
H1: The pilot policy of the IEDB is significantly correlated with the innovation ability of universities.
2.2.2. The Mediating Effect of the Intensity of University–Industry Cooperation
In this section, we (1) analyze how the pilot policy of the IEDB affects UIC, and (2) review the literature on the impact of UIC intensity on IAU. UIC refers to the cooperation between universities, scientific research institutions, and enterprises. It is an effective organizational form commonly used by countries to realize the complementary advantages of R&D resources of enterprises and universities, and to enhance the economic and social benefits of enterprises, regions, or countries. Initiating university–industry collaboration often requires government support [
30,
31]. The pilot policy of the IEDB may lead to further decentralization and simplification of the government, greatly enhancing the enthusiasm of subjects involved in the innovation and entrepreneurship initiatives in the regional demonstration zones [
5]. Specifically, the corresponding government usually provides enterprises with special financial support for innovation development. It can help to enhance the overall innovation and entrepreneurship level of the region, eliminate the negative externality of financing constraints on enterprise innovation, and promote the innovation activities of enterprises [
32]. In this context, universities, as the main actors of scientific and technological innovation-achievements, are important partners of enterprises in innovation [
33]. Therefore, along with the pilot policy of the IEDB, UIC has become key for enterprises to implement innovative activities [
34,
35]. In addition, once universities become the pilot location for IEDB, the transformation of their scientific and technological innovation and achievement will receive significant attention and support from local governments, attracting enterprises to seek innovation cooperation [
32,
36]. In other words, the construction of IEDB may have a positive impact on the UIC intensity.
It is important to evaluate the influence of UIC on IAU. However, the relationship between the two is currently debated. Most scholars believe that UIC promotes IAU because it may provide universities with financial and innovative environmental support [
33]. UIC intensity is a driving force for resource integration between the two partners, further enhancing IAU [
34]. It may provide financial support for universities and encourage participation of university researchers [
35]. Lee found that UIC helps scholars gain new insights into their own research by observing the practical application of their theories. In addition, UIC is beneficial for the universities’ internal cultivation of talent [
37]. It may also promote knowledge-flow in universities [
38].
However, some scholars believe that UIC has a negative effect on IAU. First, it reduces the time for academic research activities [
39]. Second, corporate commercial interests may limit journal publications. In fact, Toole and Czarnitzki found evidence of scenarios where publications were delayed or prohibited, in [
40]. Finally, it affects the choice of research topics and methods. Trajtenberg et al. pointed out that university research usually focuses on basic scientific issues, while industrial research aims to solve commercial problems to meet market needs. These objectives do not align at all times [
41]. In addition, other scholars present both negative and positive effects. For example, Aguiar et al. posit that UIC is beneficial to scientific production to a certain extent, and when the critical point is reached, patent output and academic output will substitute each other [
42]. Through empirical research, Gao et al. found a significant inverted U-shaped relationship between the strength of university–industry connections and the efficiency of innovation in universities [
43]. Under the premise of not exceeding a certain threshold, the strength of university–industry connections can enhance the efficiency of scientific and technological innovation in universities.
Although research on the influence of UIC on IAU has not yet reached a unanimous conclusion, the mainstream view is that UIC can effectively promote IAU. Therefore, synthesized with the theoretical analysis that the construction of the IEDB may have a positive impact on the UIC intensity, we propose the second hypothesis:
H2: The intensity of university–industry cooperation plays a mediating role in the relationship between the pilot policy of IEDB and IAU.
Based on the above theoretical analysis, the research framework of this paper is shown in
Figure 1.