Organizing knowledge spillovers when basic and applied research are interdependent: German biotechnology policy in historical perspective

Journal of Technology Transfer

Volumn 32, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 277-296

  Lehrer, Mark ^a  

^a SUFFOLK UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Biotechnology industry; German universities; Germany; Knowledge spillovers; National systems of innovation

Indexed keywords

BIOTECHNOLOGY INDUSTRY; GERMAN UNIVERSITIES; GERMANY; KNOWLEDGE SPILLOVERS; NATIONAL SYSTEMS OF INNOVATIONS;

PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT; RESEARCH; SOCIETIES AND INSTITUTIONS;

BIOTECHNOLOGY;

EID: 34047155745     PISSN: 08929912     EISSN: 15737047     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10961-006-9017-8     Document Type: Article

References (70)

1. Abramson, H. N., Encarnaçao, J., Reid, P. R., & Schmoch, U. (Eds.), (1997). Technology transfer systems in the United States and Germany. Washington, D.C: National Academy Press.
2. Adelberger, K. (1999). A developmental German state? Explaining growth in German biotechnology and venture capital. Working Paper 134, BRIE.
3. Andreasen, L. E., Coriat, B., den Hertog, F., & Kaplinsky, R. (Eds.), (1995). Europe's next step: Organizational innovation, competition and employment. Ilford: Frank Cass.
4. Audretsch, D. B., & Feldman, M. P. (2004). Knowledge spillovers and the geography of innovation. In J. V. Henderson, & J. -F. Thisse (Eds.), Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics (pp. 2713-2739). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
5. Baumgarten, M. (1997). Professoren und Universitäten im 19 Jahrhundert. Göttingen: Vanderhoeck & Ruprecht.
6. Beer, J. J. (1959). The emergence of the German dye industry. PhD Dissertation, University of Illinois.
7. Beise, M., & Stahl, H. (1999). Public research and industrial innovation in Germany. Research Policy, 28, 397-422.
8. Ben-David, J. (1971). The scientist's role in society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
9. Best, M. (1990). The new competition: Institutions of industrial restructuring. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
10. BMBF, (1996). Bundesbericht Forschung 1996. Bonn: BMBF.
11. Casper, S., & Kettler, H. (2001). National institutional frameworks and the hybridization of entrepreneurial business models: The German and UK biotechnology sectors. Industry and Innovation, 8 (1), 5-30.
12. Casper, S., Lehrer, M., & Soskice, D. (1999). Can high-technology industries prosper in Germany? Institutional frameworks and the evolution of the German software and biotechnology industries. Industry and Innovation, 6 (1), 5-24.
13. Chesbrough, H. (2003). Open Innovation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Press.
14. Chesbrough, H., & Teece, D. (1996). When is virtual virtuous? Organizing for innovation. Harvard Business Review, 74 (1), 65-73.
15. Clark, B. R. (1998). Creating entrepreneurial universities: Organizational pathways of transformation. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
16. Cohen, E. (1992). Le colbertisme "high-tech", économie des Télécom et du Grand Projet. Paris: Hachette.
17. Cooke, P. (2006). Global bioregions: Knowledge domains, capabilities and innovation system networks. Industry and Innovation, 13 (4), forthcoming.
18. David, P. A. (2004). Understanding the emergence of "open science" institutions: Functionalist economics in historical context. Industrial and Corporate Change, 13 (4), 571-589.
19. Dohse, D. (2000). Technology policy and the regions: The case of the BioRegio contest. Research Policy, 29, 1111-1133.
20. Ellwein, T. (1992). Die deutsche Universität: Vom Mittelalter bis zur Gegenwart. Frankfurt am Main: Hain.
21. Ernst & Young (2000). Evolution: European life sciences report 2000. London: Ernst & Young.
22. Ernst & Young (2005). Kräfte der Evolution: Deutscher Biotechnologie-Report 2005. Mannheim: Ernst & Young.
23. Etzkowitz, H. (2002). MIT and the rise of entrepreneurial science. London: Routledge.
24. Etzkowitz, H. (2003). Research groups as 'quasi-firms': The invention of the entrepreneurial university. Research Policy, 32, 109-121.
25. Fier, A., & Heneric, O. 2005. Public R&D policy: The right turns of the wrong screw? The case of the German biotechnology industry. Discussion Paper 05-60, ZEW.
26. Freeman, C. (1987). Technology policy and economic performance: Lessons from Japan. London: Pinter Publishers.
27. Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowetny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trou, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage.
28. Gittelman, M. (2006). National institutions, public-private knowledge flows, and innovation performance: A comparative study of the biotechnology industry in the US and France. Research Policy, 35, 1052-1068.
29. Haber, L. F. (1958). The chemical industry during the nineteenth century. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
30. Hall, P., & D. Soskice (Eds.), (2001). Varieties of capitalism: The institutional foundations of comparative advantage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
31. Hobsbawm, E. J. (1969). Industry and empire. Penguin: Harmondsworth.
32. Hódl, E., & Zegelin, W. (1999). Hochschulreform und Hochschulmanagement: Eine kritische Bestandsaufnahme der aktuellen Diskussion. Marburg: Metropolis Verlag.
33. Hoffacker, W. (2000). Die Universitá des 21. Jahrhunderts: Dienstleistungsunternehmen oder öffentliche Einrichtung? Neuwied: Luchterhand.
34. Hohn, H. -W., & Schimank, U. (1990). Konflikte und Gleichgewichte im Forschungssystem: Akteurkonstellationen und Entwicklungspfade in der staatlich finanzierten außeruniversitären Forschung. Frankfurt: Campus Verlag.
35. Jasanoff, S. (1985). Technological innovation in a corporatist state: The case of biotechnology in the Federal Republic of Germany. Research Policy, 14, 23-38.
36. Keck, O. (1993). The national system for technical innovation in Germany. In R.R. Nelson (Ed.), National innovation systems: A comparative analysis (pp. 115-157). London: Oxford U Press.
37. Kenney, M. (1986). Biotechnology: The university-industrial complex. New Haven: Yale University Press.
38. Kneller, R. (2003). 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), 329-449.
39. Kulicke, M. (1997). The promotion of new technology-based firms in Germany. In K. Koschatzky (Ed.), Technology-based firms in the innovation process (pp. 107-124). Heidelberg: Physica-Verlag.
40. Langlois, R. N., & Robertson, P. L. (1995). Firms, markets and economic change: A dynamic theory of business institutions. London: Routledge.
41. Lehrer, M. (2000). Has Germany finally fixed its high-tech problem? The recent boom in German technology-based entrepreneurship. California Management Review, 42 (4), 89-107.
42. Lehrer, M., & Asakawa, K. (2004a). Pushing scientists into the marketplace: Promoting science entrepreneurship. California Management Journal, 46 (3), 55-76.
43. Lehrer, M., & Asakawa, K. (2004b). Rethinking the public sector: Recent German and Japanese biotechnology policies as motors of institutional reform. Research Policy, 33 (6/7), 921-938.
44. Lenoir, T. (1988). A magic bullet: Research for profit and the growth of knowledge in Germany around 1900. Minerva, 26, 66-88.
45. Lenoir, T. (1998). Revolution from above: The role of the state in creating the German research system, 1810-1910. American Economic Review 26/2 (Paper and Proceedings), 22-27.
46. Lundvall, B.-A. (Ed.), (1992). National systems of innovation: Towards a theory of innovation and interactive learning. London: Pinter.
47. Lux, A. (1993). Die Wettbewerbsposition Deutschlands in der Neuen Biotechnologie. Wirtschaftsdienst, 73 (7), 369-374.
48. Malik T. (2006). Paradigmatic globalization: Strategic alliances in biotechnology industry. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Academy of International Business, Beijing, June 24, 2006.
49. Meusel, E.-J. (1996). Max-Planck-Gesellschaft. In C. Flämig et al. (Eds.), Handbuch des Wissenschaftsrechts (pp. 1293-1300). Berlin: Springer.
50. Meyer auf der Heyde, A., 2003. Biotechnology: Recent developments in Germany. Working Paper, Diebold Institute.
51. Morkel, A. (2000). Die Universität muß sich wehren: Ein Plädoyer für ihre Erneuerung. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
52. Murmann, J. P. (2003). Knowledge and competitive advantage: The coevolution of firms, technology, and national institutions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
53. Murray, F. (2004). The role of academic inventors in entrepreneurial firms: Sharing the laboratory life. Research Policy, 33, 1389-1403.
54. Nelson, R. R. (Ed.), (1993). National innovation systems: A comparative analysis. London: Oxford U. Press.
55. Nelson, R. R. (2004). The market economy and the scientific commons. Research Policy, 33, 455-471.
56. Oliver, A. L. (2004). Biotechnology entrepreneurial scientists and their collaborations. Research Policy, 33, 583-597.
57. Pisano, G. S. (2002). Pharmaceutical biotechnology. In B. Steil, D. G. Victor, & R. R. Nelson (Eds.), Technological innovation and economic performance (pp. 347-366). Princeton: Princeton University Press.
58. Porter, M. (1990). The competitive advantage of nations. London: MacMillan.
59. Powell, W. W., & Brantley, P. (1992). Competitive cooperation in biotechnology: Learning through networks? In: N. Nohria, & R. G. Eccles (Eds.), Networks and organizations: Structure, form, and action (pp. 366-390). Boston: Harvard University Press.
60. Ringer, F. K. (1983). The decline of the German mandarins: The German academic community 1890-1933. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
61. Rothaermel, F. T., & Deeds, D. L. (2004). Exploration and exploitation alliances in biotechnology: A system of new product development. Strategic Management Journal, 25, 201-221.
62. Siebert, H., & Stolpe, M. (2002). Germany. In B. Steil, D. G. Victor, & R. R. Nelson (Eds.), Technological innovation and economic performance (pp. 112-147). Princeton: Princeton University Press.
63. Spencer, J. W., Murtha, T. P., Lenway, S. A., (2005). How governments matter to new industry creation. Academy of Management Review, 30 (2), 321-337.
64. Streeck, W. (1992). Social institutions and economic performance: Studies on industrial relations in advanced European capitalist countries. London: Sage.
65. Stucke, A. (1993). Institutionalisierung der Forschungspolitik: Entstehung, Entwicklung und Steuerungsprobleme des Bundesforschungsministerium. Frankfurt: Campus Verlag.
66. Szöllösi-Janze, M. (1996). Geschichte der außeruniversitären Forschung in Deutschland. In C. Flämig et al. (Ed.), Handbuch des Wissenschaftsrechts (pp. 1187-1218). Berlin: Springer.
67. Titze, H. (1990). Der Akademikerzyklus: Historische Untersuchungen über die Wiederkehr von Überfüllung und Mangel in akademischen Karrieren. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
68. Vereeck, L. (2001). Das deutsche Wissenschaftswunder: Eine ökonomische Analyse des Systems Althoff (1882-1907). Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.
69. Vieraus, R., & Vom Brucke, R. (Eds.), (1990). Forschung im Spannungsfeld von Politik und Gesellschaft: Geschichte und Struktur der Kaiser-Wilhelm-/Max-Planck-Gesellschaft. Stuttgart: Deutscher Verlags-Anstalt.
70. vom Brocke, B. (1994). Die Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gesellschaft im Kaiserreich: Vorgeschichte, Gründung und Entwicklung bis zum Ausbruch des Ersten Weltkrieges. In B. vom Brocke, & P. Krüger (Eds.), Forschung im Spannungsfeld von Politik und Gesellschaft: Geschichte und Struktur der Kaiser-Wilhelm-/Max-Planck-Gesellschaft (pp. 17-162). Stuttgart: Deutscher Verlags-Anstalt.