Rethinking the public sector: Idiosyncrasies of biotechnology commercialization as motors of national R&D reform in Germany and Japan

Research Policy

Volumn 33, Issue 6-7, 2004, Pages 921-938

  Lehrer, Mark ^a   Asakawa, Kazuhiro ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF RHODE ISLAND   (United States)

^b KEIO UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

Author keywords

Biotechnology commercialization; National R D policy; Private public sector linkages

Indexed keywords

COMMERCE; COST ACCOUNTING; ENTERPRISE RESOURCE PLANNING; INDUSTRY; PRIVATIZATION; PUBLIC POLICY; RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT; SOCIETIES AND INSTITUTIONS;

BIOTECHNOLOGY COMMERCIALIZATION; IDIOSYNCRASIES; NATIONAL R AND D POLICY; PRIVATE-PUBLIC SECTOR LINKAGES;

BIOTECHNOLOGY;

EID: 3242885341     PISSN: 00487333     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2004.01.011     Document Type: Article

References (68)

1. Abramson, H.N., Encarnaçao, J., Reid, P.R., Schmoch, U. (Eds.), 1997. Technology Transfer Systems in the United States and Germany. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
2. Arrow, K.J., 1983. Innovation in Large and Small Firms. In: Ronen, J. (Ed.), Entrepreneurship. D.C. Heath, Lexington, MA, pp. 15-28.
3. Ben-David, J., 1971. The Scientist's Role in Society. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
4. BMBF, 1996. Bundesbericht Forschung. BMBF, Bonn.
5. Buechtemann, C.F., Vogler-Ludwig, K., 1996. The "German Model" under pressure: human capital investment and economic performance in Germany. Report #E96-05, CRIS.
6. Casper S. Institutional adaptiveness, technology policy, and the diffusion of new business models: the case of German biotechnology. Organization Studies. 21(5):2000;887-914.
7. Casper S., Kettler H. National institutional frameworks and the hybridization of entrepreneurial business models: the German and UK biotechnology sectors. Industry and Innovation. 8(1):2001;5-30.
8. Casper S., Lehrer M., Soskice D. Can high-technology industries prosper in Germany? institutional frameworks and the evolution of the German software and biotechnology industries. Industry and Innovation. 6(1):1999;5-24.
9. Casper, S., Whitley, R., 2004. Managing competences in entrepreneurial technology firms: a comparative institutional analysis of Germany, Sweden and the UK. Research Policy 33, 89-106.
10. Cuhls, K., Breiner, S., Grupp, H., 1995. Delphi-Bericht 1995 zur Entwicklung von Wissenschaft und Technik. BMBF, Bonn.
11. Cummings, W.M., 1991. Japan's science and engineering pipeline: structure, policies, and trends. In: Beauchamp, E.R. (Ed.), Windows on Japanese Education. Greenwood Press, Westport, CT.
12. Cummings, W.K., Amano, I., Kitamura, K., 1979. Changes in the Japanese University: A Comparative Perspective. Praeger, New York.
13. Dohse D. Technology policy and the regions: the case of the BioRegio context. Research Policy. 29:2000;1111-1133.
14. Ernst and Young, 2000. Evolution: European Life Sciences Report. Ernst & Young, London.
15. Ernst and Young, 2002. Beyond Borders: The Global Biotechnology Report. Ernst & Young, London.
16. Gambardella, A., 1995. Science and Innovation: The US Pharmaceutical Industry During the 1980s. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
17. George G., Zahra S.A., Wheatley K.K., Khan R. The effects of alliance portfolio characteristics and absorptive capacity on performance: a study of biotechnology firms. Journal of High Technology Management Research. 12:2001;205-226.
18. Government of Japan, 2001. The Science and Technology Basic Plan (2001-2005). Tokyo.
19. Haiducek, N.J., 1991. Japanese Education: Made in the USA. Praeger, New York.
20. Hall, P., Soskice, D. (Eds.), 2001. Varieties of Capitalism: The Institutional Foundations of Comparative Advantage. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
21. Henderson, R.M., Orsenigo, L., Pisano, G.P., 1999. The pharmaceutical industry and the revolution in molecular biology. In: Mowery, D.C., Nelson, R.R. (Eds.), Sources of Industrial Leadership: Studies of Seven Countries. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 267-311.
22. Interministerial Agreement, 1999. Biotechnology sangyo no Sozo ni Muketa Kihon Hoshin. Document, Japanese Government.
23. Japan Bioindustry Association, 2003. Statistical Analysis of Japanese Bioventures. Japan Bioindustry Letters, 20 (1-3): http://www.jba.or.jp.
24. JBIF, 1999. Bio Sangyo Gijutsu Senryaku. Report, Japan Biotechnology Industry Forum.
25. Jolivet, M., 1985. L'université au service de l'économie japonaise. Economica, Paris.
26. JPO, 2000. Biotechnology no Patent ni Tsuite. Report, Japanese Patent Office.
27. Kitamura, K., 1985. New implications for the educational function of the Japanese university. In: Research Institute for Higher Education (Ed.), The Changing Function of Higher Education. Hiroshima University: Hiroshima, pp. 3-12.
28. Kneller, R. 2000. University-industry cooperation in biomedicine. Presentation, Tokyo, Japan.
29. Kneller R. University-industry cooperation and technology transfer in Japan compared with the United States: another reason for Japan's economic malaise? University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Economic Law. 24(2):2003a;329-449.
30. Kneller, R., 2003b. Autarkic drug discovery in Japanese pharmaceutical companies: insights into national differences in industrial innovation, Research Policy 32, 1805-1827.
31. Kocka, J., 1999. Industrial Culture and Bourgeois Society. Berghahn Books, New York.
32. Krugman, P.R., 1996. Pop Internationalism. MIT Press, Cambridge.
33. Kulicke, M., 1997. The promotion of new technology-based firms in Germany, In: K. Koschatzky (Ed.), Technology-Based Firms in the Innovation Process. Physica-Verlag, Heidelberg, pp. 107-124.
34. Lazonick W., O'Sullivan M. Organization, finance, and international competition. Industrial and Corporate Change. 5(1):1996;1-49.
35. Lehrer M. Has Germany finally fixed its high-tech problem? the recent boom in German technology-based entrepreneurship. California Management Review. 42(4):2000;89-107.
36. Malerba F., Orsenigo L. Technological regimes and sectoral patterns of innovative activities. Industrial and Corporate Change. 6(1):1997;83-117.
37. Marshall, B.K., 1992. Academic Freedom and the Japanese Imperial University. University of California Press, Berkeley.
38. McMillan G.S., Narin F., Deeds D.L. An analysis of the critical role of public science in innovation: the case of biotechnology. Research Policy. 29:2000;1-8.
39. Mowery, D.C., Rosenberg, N., 1998. Paths of Innovation: Technological Change in 20th-century America. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
40. Murray F. Innovation as co-evolution of scientific and technological networks: exploring tissue engineering. Research Policy. 31:2002;1389-1403.
41. Nakazawa, Y. 2000. Genome Soyaku to Kongo no Iyakuhin Gyakai. Report, Tokyo Mitsubishi Securities.
42. Nelson, R., 1959. The simple economics of basic scientific research. Journal of Political Economy 67 (3), 297-306.
43. Olson, M., 1982. The Rise and Decline of Nations. Yale U. Press, New Haven.
44. Orsenigo, L., 1989. The Emergence of Biotechnology: Institutions and Markets in Industrial Innovation. St. Martin's Press, New York.
45. Patel P., Pavitt K. Uneven (and divergent) technological accumulation among advanced countries: Evidence and a framework of explanation. Industrial and Corporate Change. 3(3):1994;759-787.
46. Pavitt K. Public policies to support basic research: What can the rest of the world learn from US theory and practice? (and what they should not learn). Industrial and Corporate Change. 10(3):2001;761-779.
47. Pisano G.P. Learning-before-doing in the development of new process technology. Research Policy. 25:1996;1097-1119.
48. Porter, M.E., 1992. Capital choices: changing the way America invests in industry. Report, Council on Competitiveness.
49. Powell W.W., Koput K.W., Smith-Doerr L. Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: networks of learning in biotechnology. Administrative Science Quarterly. 41:1996;116-145.
50. Reister, H., 1995. Paradigmenwechsel: Entwicklungen und Kontroversen zur deutschen Technologiepolitik in den 90er Jahren, In: Martinsen, R., Simonis, G. (Eds.), Paradigmenwechsel in der Technologiepolitik? Leske and Budrich, Opladen, pp. 97-119.
51. Ringer, F.K., 1983. The Decline of the German Mandarins: The German Academic Community, 1890-1933. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
52. Sharp, M., 1989. European countries in science-based competition: The case of biotechnology. Working Paper, SPRU.
53. Shimbori, M., 1979. The productivity of the Japanese scholar. In: Cummings, W.K., Amano, I., Kitamura, K. (Eds.), Changes in the Japanese University: A Comparative Perspective. Praeger, New York, pp. 149-165.
54. Soskice, D., 1994. Germany and Japan: Industry-coordinated versus group-coordinated market economy. Working Paper, Social Science Center, Berlin.
55. Streeck, W., 2001. Introduction: explorations into the origins of nonliberal capitalism in Germany and Japan. In: Streeck, W., Yamamura, K. (Eds.), The Origins of Nonliberal Capitalism: Germany and Japan in Comparison. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, pp. 1-38.
56. Streeck, W., Yamamura, K. (Eds.), 2001. The Origins of Nonliberal Capitalism: Germany and Japan in Comparison. Cornell University Press, Ithaca.
57. Stucke, A. 1993. Institutionalisierung der Forschungspolitik: Entstehung, Entwicklung und Steuerungsprobleme des Bundesforschungsministerium. Campus Verlag, Frankfurt.
58. Swann P., Prevezer M. A comparison of the dynamics of industrial clustering in computing and biotechnology. Research Policy. 25:1996;1139-1157.
59. Swinbanks D. University-industry ties: Japan vs. US. Research Technology Management. 38(1):1995;4-6.
60. Takada, H., 2000. Bio Bunya no Sankagu Renkei. Paper Presented at the Center for Advanced Science and Technology Incubation, Tokyo.
61. Teichler, U., 1996. Higher education in Japan, In: Burgen, A. (Ed.), Goals and Purposes of Higher Education in the 21st Century. Jessica Kingsley, London, pp. 192-212.
62. Thomas III, L.G., 2001. The Japanese Pharmaceutical Industry. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
63. Whitley R. Competition and pluralism in the public sciences: the impact of institutional frameworks on the organization of academic science. Research Policy. 32:2003;1015-1029.
64. Wilson D., Souitaris V. Do Germany's federal and land governments (still) co-ordinate their innovation policies? Research Policy. 31:2002;1123-1140.
65. Wupperfeld, U., 1997. The venture capital market in Germany, In: Koschatzky, K. (Ed.), Technology-Based Firms in the Innovation Process. Physica-Verlag, Heidelberg, pp. 149-174.
66. Ziegler, J.N., 1997. Governing Ideas: Strategies for Innovation in France and Germany. Cornell University Press, Ithaca.
67. Zucker L.G., Darby M.R., Brewer M.B. Intellectual human capital and the birth of US biotechnology enterprises. American Economic Review. 88(1):1998;290-306.
68. Zysman, J., 1983. Governments, Markets and Growth: Financial Systems and the Politics of Industrial Change. Martin Roberts, Oxford.