National institutions, public-private knowledge flows, and innovation performance: A comparative study of the biotechnology industry in the US and France

Research Policy

Volumn 35, Issue 7, 2006, Pages 1052-1068

  Gittelman, Michelle ^a  

^a NEW YORK UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Biotechnology; Innovation; Institution

Indexed keywords

INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; INTERNATIONAL TRADE; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; PARAMETER ESTIMATION; RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT; SOCIETIES AND INSTITUTIONS;

COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT; INNOVATION; INSTITUTION; PROFESSIONAL IDENTITY;

BIOTECHNOLOGY;

EID: 33747182182     PISSN: 00487333     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2006.05.005     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Almeida P., and Kogut B. Localization of knowledge and the mobility of engineers in regional networks. Management Science 45 (1999) 905-918
2. Audretsch D., and Stephan P. Company-scientist locational links: the case of biotechnology. American Economic Review 86 (1996) 641-652
3. Bartholomew S. National systems of biotechnology innovation: complex interdependence in the global system. Journal of International Business Studies 28 (1997) 241-267
4. Ben-David J. The Scientist's Role in Society (1971), Prentice-Hall, New Jersey
5. Callon M. Introduction. In: Michel Callon (Ed). In Laws of the Market (1998), Blackwell
6. Cameron C., and Trivedi P. Regression Analysis of Count Data (1998), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
7. Casper S., and Kettler H. National institutional frameworks and the hybridization of entrepreneurial business models: the German and UK biotechnology sectors. Industry and Innovation 8 (2001) 5-31
8. Casper S.M., Lehrer D., and Soskice. Can high-technology industries prosper in Germany? Institutional frameworks and the evolution of the German software and biotechnology industries. Industry and Innovation 6 (1999) 5-25
9. Casper S., and Whitley R. Managing competences in entrepreneurial technology firms: a comparative institutional analysis of Germany, Sweden and the UK. Research Policy 33 (2004) 89
10. Chesnais F. The French national system of innovation. In: Nelson R. (Ed). National Innovation Systems (1993), Oxford University Press, New York
11. DiGregorio, and Shane S. Why do some universities generate more start-ups than others?. Research Policy 32 (2003) 209
12. Ernst, and Young. Biotechnology: An Industry Annual Report (1995), Ernst & Young, San Francisco
13. Etzkowitz H. The norms of entrepreneurial science: cognitive effects of the new university-industry linkages. Research Policy 27 (1998) 823-833
14. Gilpin R. Science, technology, and French independence. In: Long T.D., and Wright C. (Eds). Science Policies of Industrial Nations: Case Studies of he United States (1975), Praeger, Soviet Union
15. Gittelman M., and Kogut B. Does good science lead to valuable knowledge? Biotechnology firms and the evolutionary logic of citation patterns. Management Science 49 (2003) 366-382
16. Hall, B., Jaffe, A., Trajtenberg, M., 2000. Market value and patent citations: a first look. NBER Working Paper 7741.
17. Henderson R., Pisano G., and Orsenigo L. The pharmaceutical industry and the revolution in molecular biology. In: Mowery D., and Nelson R. (Eds). Sources of Industrial Leadership (1999), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
18. Hoke F. Corporate research: best labs combine virtues of both academia and industry. The Scientist 7 11 (1993) 1
19. Kenney M. Biotechnology: The University-Industrial Complex (1986), Yale University Press, New Haven
20. Kogut B. Country capabilities and the permeability of borders. Strategic Management Journal 12 (1991) 33-47
21. Latour B., and Woolgar S. Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts (1979), Princeton University Press, Princeton
22. Michel J., and Bettels B. Patent citation analysis: a closer look at the basic input data from patent search reports. Scientometrics 51 (2001) 185-201
23. Mowery D., Nelson R., Sampat B., and Ziedonis A. The growth of patenting and licensing by US universities: an assessment of the effects of the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980. Research Policy 30 (2001) 99
24. Mowery D., and Rosenberg N. The U.S. National Innovation System. In: Nelson R. (Ed). National Innovation Systems: A Comparative Analysis (1993), Oxford University Press, New York
25. Mowery D., and Shane S. Special issue on university entrepreneurship and technology transfer. Management Science 48 (2002) iv-v
26. Mustar P. How French academics create hi-tech companies: the conditions for success or failure. Science and Public Policy 24 (1997) 37-43
27. Owen-Smith J., and Powell W. Careers and contradictions: faculty responses to the transformation of knowledge and its uses in the life sciences. Research in the Sociology of Work 10 (2002) 109-140
28. Owen-Smith J., Riccaboni M., Pammolli F., and Powell W. US and European university-industry relationship in the life sciences. Management Science 48 (2002) 24-43
29. Powell W., Koput K., and Smith-Doerr L. Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: networks of learning in biotechnology. Administrative Sciences Quarterly 41 (1996) 116-145
30. Rabinow P. Making PCR (1996), University of Chicago Press, Chicago
31. Rabinow P. French DNA (1999), University of Chicago Press, Chicago
32. Rosenberg N., and Nelson R. American universities and technical advance in industry. Research Policy 23 (1994) 323-348
33. Saxenien A. Regional Advantage (1996), Harvard University Press, Cambridge
34. Stuart, Toby, Waverly Ding, 2002. Academic entrepreneurs: an empirical analysis of university scientists' participation in commercial ventures. Working paper.
35. Walker G.B., Kogut B., and Shan W. Social capital, structural holes and the formation of an industry network. Organization Science 8 (1997) 109-125
36. Zucker L., Darby M., and Brewer M. Intellectual capital and the birth of US biotechnology enterprises. American Economic Review 88 (1998) 290-306