Has Germany finally fixed its high-tech problem? The recent boom in German technology-based entrepreneurship

California Management Review

Volumn , Issue 4, 2000, Pages 89-107

  Lehrer, Mark ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0034395752     PISSN: 00081256     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2307/41166055     Document Type: Review

References (62)

1. B. Nussbaum, The World after Oil: The Shifting Axis of Power and Wealth (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1983), pp. 82-4.
2. This is shown clearly in a government-sponsored study by a group of economic research institutes on Germany's comparative technological performance. See: Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF), Zur technologischen Leistungsfähigkeit Deutschlands: Zusammenfassender Endbericht 1998, Bonn: BMBF, 1999. See also S. Casper, M. Lehrer, and D. Soskice, "Can High-Technology Industries Prosper in Germany? Institutional Frameworks and the Evolution of the German Software and Biotechnology Industries," Industry and Innovation, 6/1 (1998): 5-24.
3. This is shown clearly in a government-sponsored study by a group of economic research institutes on Germany's comparative technological performance. See: Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF), Zur technologischen Leistungsfähigkeit Deutschlands: Zusammenfassender Endbericht 1998, Bonn: BMBF, 1999. See also S. Casper, M. Lehrer, and D. Soskice, "Can High-Technology Industries Prosper in Germany? Institutional Frameworks and the Evolution of the German Software and Biotechnology Industries," Industry and Innovation, 6/1 (1998): 5-24.
4. U. Schmoch, "Internationale Wettbewerbsfähigkeit Deutschlands am Beispiel der Patentmeldungen," in R. Boch, ed., Patentschutz und Innovation in Geschichte und Gegenwart, (Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1999), pp. 19-24.
5. See: W. Streeck, Social Institutions and Economic Performance: Studies on Industrial Relations in Advanced European Capitalist Countries (London: Sage, 1992).
6. D. Tsichritzis, Technologische Innovation und neue Arbeitsplätze. Report for the Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, Bonn 1998.
7. C.F. Buechtemann and K. Vogler-Ludwig, "The 'German Model' under Pressure: Human Capital Investment and Economic Performance in Germany," report #E96-05, Center for Research on Innovation and Society (CRIS), Berlin 1996, p. 36.
8. See: H. Ergas, "Does Technology Policy Matter?" in B.R.G. Brooks, ed., Technologies and Global Industry: Companies and Nations in the World Economy (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1987), pp. 191-246, esp. p. 213.
9. A. Stucke, Institutionalisierung der Forschungspolitik: Entstehung, Entwicklung und Steuerungsprobleme des Bundesforschungsministerium (Frankfurt: Campus, 1993), p. 161. For those who read German, Stucke's book represents the definitive history of the Federal Research Ministry. The actual name and policy portfolio of the ministry (BMwF, BMBT, BMBF) varied over time for political reasons.
10. Centralized technological dirigisme reached its apogee in the 1970s, with the BMBT public mission defined according to lofty goals: 1) To expand and deepen scientific knowledge, 2) To maintain and enlarge the performance and competitiveness of our economy, 3) To economize on natural resources and maintain nature's basic living conditions, 4) To improve the quality of human life and work, 5) To monitor the effects and context of technological developments, to discuss and weigh their opportunities and risks, and to articulate the basis of decisions concerning the use of technologies. Cited from: Federal Ministry of Research and Technology (BMFT), Bundesbericht Forschung VI (Bonn: BMBT, 1979), p. 8. In formulating such ambitious goals, the central government clearly over-extended itself in the technology area. These goals reflected in part attempts by the Social-Democratic government at the time to placate a German population increasingly concerned about the effects of technology.
11. H.-W. Hohn and U. Schimank, Konflikte und Gleichgewichte im Forschungssystem: Akteurkonstellationen und Entwicklungspfade in der staatlich finanzierten auβeruniversitären Forschung (Frankfurt: Campus, 1990), Chapter 7.
12. M. Beise and H. Stahl, "Public Research and Industrial Innovation in Germany," Research Policy, 28 (1999): 397-422, p. 408.
13. Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF), Faktenbericht 1998 zum Bundesbericht Forschung, Bonn: BMBF, 1998, p. 41. This is not at all to say, however, that all federally sponsored innovation programs have been failures. Federal programs to facilitate incremental innovation and the incorporation of new technologies into traditional industries like machine tools have met with considerable success. On Germany's greater success at organizing incremental innovation through the decentralized diffusion of technologies than at organizing centrally administered radical innovation, see J.N. Ziegler, Governing Ideas: Strategies for Innovation in France and Germany. (Ithaca, Cornell University Press, 1997).
14. Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF), Faktenbericht 1998 zum Bundesbericht Forschung, Bonn: BMBF, 1998, p. 41. This is not at all to say, however, that all federally sponsored innovation programs have been failures. Federal programs to facilitate incremental innovation and the incorporation of new technologies into traditional industries like machine tools have met with considerable success. On Germany's greater success at organizing incremental innovation through the decentralized diffusion of technologies than at organizing centrally administered radical innovation, see J.N. Ziegler, Governing Ideas: Strategies for Innovation in France and Germany. (Ithaca, Cornell University Press, 1997).
15. See Casper, Lehrer, and Soskice (1999), op. cit.
16. For example, a series of articles on German high-tech deficits in 1992 issues of Manager-Magazin and a widely read book by the diplomat Konrad Seitz, The Japanese-American Challenge (1990) which was consciously styled after Servan-Schreiber's classic The American Challenge (1968). German title: K. Seitz, Die japanisch-amerikanische Herausforderung: Deutschlands Hochtechnologie-Industrien kämpfen ums Überleben (Munich: Verlag Bonn Aktuell), 1990.
17. For example, a series of articles on German high-tech deficits in 1992 issues of Manager-Magazin and a widely read book by the diplomat Konrad Seitz, The Japanese-American Challenge (1990) which was consciously styled after Servan-Schreiber's classic The American Challenge (1968). German title: K. Seitz, Die japanisch-amerikanische Herausforderung: Deutschlands Hochtechnologie-Industrien kämpfen ums Überleben (Munich: Verlag Bonn Aktuell), 1990.
18. For example, a series of articles on German high-tech deficits in 1992 issues of Manager-Magazin and a widely read book by the diplomat Konrad Seitz, The Japanese-American Challenge (1990) which was consciously styled after Servan-Schreiber's classic The American Challenge (1968). German title: K. Seitz, Die japanisch-amerikanische Herausforderung: Deutschlands Hochtechnologie-Industrien kämpfen ums Überleben (Munich: Verlag Bonn Aktuell), 1990.
19. Sachverständigenrat zur Begutachtung der gesamtwirtschaftlichen Entwicklung, Vor weitreichenden Entscheidungen: Jahresgutachten 1998/99 (Stuttgart: Metzler-Poeschel, 1998), pp. 263-4.
20. For example, Ergas (1987), op. cit.
21. See Ziegler (1997), op. cit.
22. H. Reister, "Paradigmenwechsel: Entwicklungen und Kontroversen zur deutschen Technologiepolitik in den 90er Jahren," in R. Martinsen and G. Simonis, eds., Paradigmenwechsel in der Technologiepolitik? (Opladen: Leske and Budrich, 1995), pp. 97-119.
23. Originally developed by the Rand Corporation in the 1950s, then picked up by the Japanese in the 1960s, Delphi studies survey the opinions of experts in various areas of science and industry to make predictions about the development of technology and society over a 20-30-year time-span.
24. Federal Ministry for Education Research (BMBF), Delphi-Bericht zur Entwicklung von Wissenschaft und Technik (Bonn: BMBF, 1993). Subsequent surveys in 1995 and 1998 were more fine-tuned to the German situation and way of thinking. See: Fraunhofer Institut für Systemtechnik und Innovationsforschung (ISI), Delphi '98. Umfrage. Studie zur Entwicklung von Wissenschaft und Technik (Karlsruhe: ISI, 1998).
25. Federal Ministry for Education Research (BMBF), Delphi-Bericht zur Entwicklung von Wissenschaft und Technik (Bonn: BMBF, 1993). Subsequent surveys in 1995 and 1998 were more fine-tuned to the German situation and way of thinking. See: Fraunhofer Institut für Systemtechnik und Innovationsforschung (ISI), Delphi '98. Umfrage. Studie zur Entwicklung von Wissenschaft und Technik (Karlsruhe: ISI, 1998).
26. Seitz (1990), op. cit. Seitz argued that Germany (and Europe generally) needed not just an equivalent to MITI in Bonn and Brussels, but an intense information exchange concerning future technologies at the broad political and societal level needed to promote the transition to a high-tech-based society.
27. On technology and incubation centers in Germany, see: F. Pleschak, "Technology and Incubator Centers as an Instrument of Regional Economic Promotion," in K. Koschatzky, ed., Technology-Based Firms in the Innovation Process (Heidelberg: Physica-Verlag, 1997), pp. 225-243. There are today about 180 such centers in Germany, a third of them in the former East Germany, p. 225.
28. See G. Herrigel, Industrial Constructions: Reconceptualizing the Sources of German Industrial Power (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996).
29. R.G. Sternberg, "Government R&D Expenditure and Space: Empirical Evidence from Five Industrialized Countries," Research Policy 25 (1996), 741-758.
30. J. Welsch, "MITI-sierung der Länderstrukturpolitik? - Entwicklungstendenzen des strukturpolitischen Interventionismus der Bundesländer," WSI-Mitteilungen 40/9 (1987): 551-559.
31. W. Streeck, "Productive Constraints: On the Institutional Conditions of Diversified Quality Production," in W. Streeck (1992), op. cit., pp. 1-40.
32. Welsch (1987), op. cit., p. 558.
33. See Ergas (1987), op. cit. and G. Junne, "Competitiveness and the Impact of Change: Applications of 'High Technologies'," in P. Katzenstein, ed., Industry and Politics in West Germany: Toward the Third Republic (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1989), pp. 249-74. Both Junne and the aforementioned BMBF-sponsored report (1999), op. cit., underline Germany's specialty as a fast-follower adopter of innovations.
34. See Ergas (1987), op. cit. and G. Junne, "Competitiveness and the Impact of Change: Applications of 'High Technologies'," in P. Katzenstein, ed., Industry and Politics in West Germany: Toward the Third Republic (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1989), pp. 249-74. Both Junne and the aforementioned BMBF-sponsored report (1999), op. cit., underline Germany's specialty as a fast-follower adopter of innovations.
35. H.N. Abramson, J. Encarnacao, P. Reid, and U. Schmoch, Technology Transfer Systems in the United States and Germany (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1997).
36. Computerwoche, November 6, 1998, p. 9.
37. Ibid.
38. M. Kulicke, "The Promotion of New Technology-Based Firms in Germany," in Koschatzky (1997), op. cit., pp. 107-124.
39. F.F. Strascheg, "Wagnisfinanzierung von innovativen Existenzgründern und Exit über die Börse," in: Wege zur Stärkung der Eigenkapitalbasis (Munich: Bavarian Ministry for Economy, Transport, and Technology, 1996), p. 85.
40. See H. Bahrami and S. Evans, "Flexible Re-Cycling and High-Technology Entrepreneurship," California Management Review 37/3 (Spring 1995): 62-89.
41. F. Strascheg, "Policies to Strengthen Innovative Start-ups and SMEs in Global Competition," in F. Meyer-Krahmer, ed., Globalization of R&D and Technology Markets: Consequences for National Innovation Policies (Heidelberg, Physica-Verlag, 1999), pp. 173-180.
42. Offensive Zukunft Bayern, Government Declarations by the Bavarian Premier Dr. Edmund Stoiber of 21 July 1994 and 23 May 1996, (Munich: Bayrische Staatskanzlei, 1998).
43. See H. Simon, "Lessons from Germany's Midsize Giants," Harvard Business Review (March-April 1992): 115-123.
44. See Tsichritzis (1998), op. cit., p. 19.
45. See: P.D. Reynolds, M. Hay, and S.M. Camp, Global Entrepreneurship Monitor: 1999 Executive Report.
46. Strascheg (1996), op. cit., p. 86.
47. Speech at the Social Science Center Berlin (WZB), March 7, 1996.
48. Ernst and Young, European Life Sciences (London: Ernst and Young, 1998). See also: BMBF (1998), op. cit., p. 155.
49. Ernst and Young, European Life Sciences (London: Ernst and Young, 1998). See also: BMBF (1998), op. cit., p. 155.
50. G. C. Murray, "The Second Equity Gap: Exit Problems for Seed & Early Stage Venture Capitalists and Their Investee Companies," International Small Business Journal 12/4 (1994): 59-76.
51. Marianne Kulicke and her colleagues at the Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research (FhG-ISI) in Karlsruhe have continually monitored and evaluated these schemes since their inception in 1983, thus allowing for accumulated learning and external assessment.
52. Its so-called TOU pilot scheme (1983-88) provided about DM 240 million of subsidies to 319 NTBFs as well as another DM 98 million in loan guarantees. See: Kulicke (1997), op. cit., p. 113. After reunification, the TOU scheme was extended to the East German region starting in 1990.
53. Kulicke (1997), p. 118.
54. See the article "Booming Frankfurt," Business Week, September 13, 1999, pp. 63-70.
55. V. Lessat, T.H. Eckerle, et al., Beteiligungskapital und technologieorientierte Unternehmensgründungen: Markt - Finanzierung - Rahmenbedingungen (Wiesbaden: Gabler, 1999), p. 249.
56. Lessat, Eckerle, et al. (1999), op. cit., p. 80.
57. W. Streeck, "German Capitalism: Does it Exist? Can it Survive?" Working Paper, Max-Planck-Institute for Social Research, Cologne 1995.
58. For example, in: Die Zeit, 5 September 1997.
59. See Schmoch (1999), op. cit. and BMBF (1999), op. cit.
60. See Schmoch (1999), op. cit. and BMBF (1999), op. cit.
61. Source: TBG web site, www.tbgbonn.de
62. Source: Neuer Markt web site, www.neuermarkt.de