The evolution of collaborative relationships among firms in biotechnology

International Journal of Biotechnology

Volumn 1, Issue 1, 1999, Pages 10-29

  Barbanti, Paolo ^a   Gambardella, Alfonso ^a   Orsenigo, Luigi ^a  

^a BOCCONI UNIVERSITY   (Italy)

Author keywords

collaborative relationships; Technological change; theoretical considerations; vertical integration

Indexed keywords

COMPETITION; CONTRACTS; ENGINEERING RESEARCH; INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH; INDUSTRY; INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION; MANAGEMENT; TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER;

COLLABORATIVE RELATIONSHIPS; FIRMS; HIERARCHICAL NETWORK; PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENTS; SPECIALIZATION; TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE; VERTICAL INTEGRATION;

BIOTECHNOLOGY;

EID: 0033363747     PISSN: 09636048     EISSN: 17415020     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1504/IJBT.1999.004474     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Mowery D. (ed.) (1988) International Collaborative Ventures in US Manufacturing, Ballinger Publishers, Cambridge MA.
2. Teece, D. (1986) ‘Profiting from technological innovation’, Research Policy
3. Arora, A. and Gambardella, A. (1992), ‘New trends in technological change: towards an innovative division of labour’, The John Heinz III School of Public Policy and Management Carnegie Mellon University Working Paper Series, 92–37, Pittsburgh PA.
4. Kline, S.J. and Rosenberg, N. (1986) ‘An overview of innovation’, in Landau, R. and Rosenberg, N. (eds.), The Positive Sum Strategy, Washington, D.C., National Academy Press.
5. Teece, D., Pisano, G. and Shan, W. (1988) ‘Joint ventures and collaboration in the biotechnology industry’, in Mowery (1988).
6. Cohen, W.M. and Levinthal, D.A. (1989) ‘Innovation and learning: the two faces of R&D’ The Economic Journal..
7. Arrow, K. (1983), ‘Innovation in large and small firms’, in Ronen (1983) [39].
8. Holland J., Holyoak, K. Nisbett, R. and Thagard, P. (1986) Induction: Processes of Inference, Learning and Discovery, MIT Press, Cambridge MA.
9. Nelson, R.R. and Winter, S. (1982) An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change, Cambridge, Mass., The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
10. Arthur, W.B. (1989), ‘The dynamics of allocation under increasing returns’, Economic Journal.
11. Dosi, G. and Egidi, M. (1991) ‘Substantive and procedural rationality: an exploration of economic behaviour in complex and changing environments’, Journal of Evolutionary Economics.
12. Marengo, L. (1992) Structure, Competence and Learning in an Adaptive Model of the Firm, SPRU, University of Sussex, Brighton, mimeo.
13. A technological regime can be defined in terms of opportunity conditions, regimes of appropriability, degree of cumulativeness and properties of the knowledge base [14,15]. For a more detailed definition and a discussion of how technological regimes influence firm’s strategies and organization, see Malerba and Orsenigo [15]. Similar considerations can be found also in Dosi, Teece and Winter [16] and Teece, Pisano and Shuen [17].
14. Winter S. (1984) ‘Schumpeterian competition in alternative technological regimes’, Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organization.
15. Malerba, F. and Orsenigo, L. (1993) ‘Technological regimes and firm behaviour’, Industrial and Corporate Change, forthcoming.
16. Dosi, G., Teece, D. and Winter, S. (1992) ‘Towards a theory of corporate coherence’, in Dosi et.al (1992) [40].
17. Teece, D., Pisano, G. and Shuen, W. (1990) ‘Firm capabilities, resources and the concept of strategy’, CCC Working Paper No. 90–8, Berkeley, University of California at Berkeley.
18. For formal analyses of these kind of phenomena, see Arthur [10], Arthur and Lane [19], David [20].
19. Arthur and Lane (1993) ‘Information contagion’, Economic Dynamics and Structural Change, 4, pp.81–104.
20. David, P. (1991) ‘Path-dependence: putting the past into the future of economics’, Journal of Economic Literature.
21. Office of Technology Assessment (OTA), (1984) Commercial Biotechnology: an International Assessment, Washington D.C., US Government Printing Office
22. Daly, P. (1985) The Biotechnology Business, London, Pinter Publishers.
23. Sharp, M. (1985) The New Biotechnology: European Governments in Search of a Strategy, Sussex European Papers, Brighton, University of Sussex.
24. Orsenigo, L. (1991) The Emergence of Biotechnology. Institutions and Markets in Industrial Innovation, London, Pinter Publishers.
25. Arora, A. and Gambardella, A. (1990), ‘Complementarity and external linkage: the strategies of the large firms in biotechnology’, Stanford, Journal of Industrial Economics.
26. Pisano, G. (1991) ‘The governance of innovation: vertical integration and collaborative arrangements in the biotechnology industry’, Research Policy.
27. Kenney, M. (1986) Biotechnology: The University-Industrial Complex, New Haven, Yale University Press.
28. Orsenigo, L. (1989) ‘The case of biotechnology in Italy’, Monitor-FAST Programme, Prospective Dossier N. 1: Science, Technology and Economic Cohesion in the Community’, Vol. 20, Archipelago Europe, FOP 243.
29. Financial Times (1992) ‘Of Mice, men and money’, June 3. p. 12.
30. Cohen, M. (1991) ‘Individual learning and organizational routine: emerging connections’, Organization Science.
31. Stigler, G. (1956) ‘Industrial organization and economic progress’, in White (1956) [41].
32. Young, A. (1928) ‘Increasing returns and economic progress’, Economic Journal..
33. Vertical integration into manufacturing in the therapeutics area has been spurred also by the regulations which make it costly to switch manufacturers after conducting Stage III clinical trials. In general, for the empirical evidence and for an excellent discussion of the trend towards vertical integration in biotechnology, see Pisano [26].
34. Ernst and Young (1992) Biotech '92: Promise to Reality. An Industry Annual Report, Mary Ann Liebrt, Inc. New York.
35. For an overview of the evolution of innovative activities in biotechnology in Italy, see Orsenigo [28] and, with more specific reference to collaborative relationships, Orsenigo [24].
36. Bioscan (1992) The Biotechnology Corporate Directory Service, Oryx Press, Phoenix AZ.
37. It must also be remarked that there are big differences among the European countries. In particular, the Swiss corporations (and above all Hoffman-La Roche) show an extremely high and fast growing propensity to collaborate: the average number of agreements per firm soared from 4.3 in 1983 to 11.0 in the last period, a value close to the US levels and much higher than that of the Japanese companies. The other European countries show a lower and (except France, where it has been growing) stable propensity (4.0 in Germany and France, 4.5 in the UK.
38. Notice that these results provide a further indirect support to the hypothesis of the relevance of path-dependent processes in the evolution of the forms of organization. For instance, the very existence of the NBFs has been probably a factor pushing the legislation on property rights towards a stronger stance.
39. Ronen J. (Ed.) (1983) Entrepreneurship, Lexington Books, Lexington.
40. Dosi, G., Giannetti, R. and Toninelli, P. (1992), Technology and the Enterprise in a Historical Perspective, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
41. White, L. (Ed.) (1956) The State of Social Sciences, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.