Do science and money go together? The case of the french biotech industry

Strategic Management Journal

Volumn 29, Issue 12, 2008, Pages 1281-1299

  Durand, Rodolphe ^a   Bruyaka, Olga ^b   Mangematin, Vincent ^c  

^a HEC PARIS   (France)

^b VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE AND STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c GRENOBLE ECOLE DE MANAGEMENT   (France)

Author keywords

Rent appropriation; Rent generation; Value drivers: biotech industry

Indexed keywords

BIOTECH FIRMS; BIOTECH INDUSTRIES; BIOTECHNOLOGY INDUSTRIES; RENT APPROPRIATION; RENT GENERATION; RENT GENERATIONS; STRATEGIC ORIENTATIONS; TECHNOLOGICAL APPLICATIONS; VALUE DRIVERS: BIOTECH INDUSTRY;

BIOTECHNOLOGY;

EID: 56549115073     PISSN: 01432095     EISSN: 10970266     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/smj.707     Document Type: Article

References (66)

1. Afuah A. 2000. How much do your co-opetitors' capabilities matter in the face of technological change? Strategic Management Journal, March Special Issue 21: 397-404.
2. Allansdottir A, Bonaccorsi A, Gambardella A, Mariani M, Orsenigo L, Pammolli F, Riccaboni M. 2002. Innovation and Competitivness in European Biotechnology. European Commission Enterprise Directorate General: Brussels, Belgium.
3. Almeida P, Kogut B. 1999. Localization of knowledge and the mobility of engineers in regional networks. Management Science 45(7): 905-918.
4. Alvarez SA, Barney JB. 2001. How entrepreneurial firms can benefit from alliances with large partners. Academy of Management Executive 15(1): 139-148.
5. Alvarez SA, Barney JB. 2004. Organizing rent generation and appropriation: toward a theory of the entrepreneurial firm. Journal of Business Venturing 19: 621-635.
6. Arundel A. 2001. The relative effectiveness of patents and secrecy for appropriation. Research Policy 30(4): 611-624.
7. Bae J, Gargiulo M. 2004. Partner substitutability, alliance network structure, and firm profitability in telecommunications industry. Academy of Management Journal 47: 860-875.
8. Barney J. 1991. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management 17(1): 99-120.
9. Baum JAC, Calabrese T, Silverman BS. 2000. Don't go it alone: alliance network composition and startups' performance in Canadian biotechnology. Strategic Management Journal, March Special Issue 21: 267-294.
10. Baum JAC, Silverman, B.S. 2004. Picking winners or building them? Alliance, intellectual, and human capital as selection criteria in venture financing and performance of biotechnology startups. Journal of Business Venturing 19(3): 411-436.
11. Carroll G-R. 1985. Concentration and specialization: dynamics of niche width in populations of organizations. The American Journal of Sociology 90(6): 1262-1283.
12. Coff RW. 1999. When competitive advantage doesn't lead to performance: resource-based theory and stakeholder bargaining power. Organization Science 10(2): 119-133.
13. Coff RW, Lee PM. 2003. Insider trading as a vehicle to appropriate rent from R&D. Strategic Management Journal 24(2): 183-190.
14. Deberdt D. 2005. The cost of a European patent. Actuality Proceedings. INPI: Paris.
15. Deeds DL, Hill CWL. 1996. Strategic alliances and the rate of new product development: an empirical study of entrepreneurial biotechnology firms. Journal of Business Venturing 11(1): 41-55.
16. Dhanaraj C, Parkhe A. 2006. Orchestrating innovation networks. Academy of Management Review 31(3): 659-669.
17. Durand R, Coeurderoy R. 2001. Age, order of entry, strategic orientation, and organizational performance. Journal of Business Venturing 16(5): 471-494.
18. Ernst & Young. 2001. Life Sciences in France - 2001. Where Creativity Meets Business. Ernst Young International: Paris.
19. Franklin JJ, Johnston R. 1988. Co-citation bibliometrics as a tool of S&T and R&D management: issues, applications, and developments. In The Handbook of Quantitative Studies of Science and Technologies, Van Raan A (ed). North-Holland: Amsterdam, The Netherlands; 325-389.
20. Gittelman M, Kogut B. 2003. Does good science lead to valuable knowledge? Biotechnology firms and the evolutionary logic of citation patterns. Management Science 49(4): 366-382.
21. Greene WH. 2005. Econometric Analysis. Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
22. Gulati R, Higgins MC. 2003. Which ties matter when? The contingent effects of interorganizational partnerships on IPO success. Strategic Management Journal 24(2): 127-144.
23. Gulati R, Nohria N, Zaheer A. 2000. Strategic networks. Strategic Management Journal, March Special Issue 21: 203-215.
24. Healy P, Rothman H, Hock PK. 1986. An experiment in science mapping for research planning. Research Policy 15(5): 233-252.
25. Hunter JE, Schmidt FL. 1990. Methods of Meta-Analysis: Connecting Error and Bias in Research Findings. Sage: Newbury Park, CA.
26. Lane HW, Lubatkin M. 1998. Relative absorptive capacity and interorganizational learning. Strategic Management Journal 19(5): 461-477.
27. Lavie D. 2006. The competitive advantage of interconnected firms: an extension of the resource-based view. Academy of Management Review 31(3): 638-658.
28. Lerner J. 1994. The importance of patent scope: an empirical analysis. Rand Journal of Economics 25(2): 319-333.
29. Levinthal DA. 1997. Adaptation on rugged landscapes. Management Science 43(7): 934-950.
30. Levinthal DA, March JG. 1993. The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal, Winter Special Issue 14: 95-112.
31. Mangematin V, Lemarie S, Boissin JP, Catherine D, Corolleur F, Coronini R, Trommetter M. 2003. Development of SMEs and heterogeneity of trajectories: the case of biotechnology in France. Research Policy 32(4): 621-638.
32. McNamara P, Baden-Fuller C. 2007. Shareholder returns and the exploration-exploitation dilemma: R&D announcements by biotechnology firms. Research Policy 36(4): 548-565.
33. Meyer-Krahmer F, Schmoch U. 1998. Science-based technologies: university-industry interactions in four fields. Research Policy 27(8): 835-851.
34. Moran P, Ghoshal S. 1999. Markets, firms, and the process of economic development. Academy of Management Review 24(3): 390-412.
35. Morrison SW. 1998. Biotech 99: Bridging the Gap: Ernst & Young's 13th Biotechnology Industry Annual Report. Ernst & Young LLP: New York.
36. Morrow JL, Sirmon DG, Hitt MA, Holcomb TR. 2007. Creating value in the face of declining performance: firm strategies and organizational recovery. Strategic Management Journal 28(3): 271-283.
37. Nesta L, Saviotti P. 2005. Coherence of the knowledge base and the firm's innovative performance: evidence from the U.S. pharmaceutical industry. Journal of Industrial Economics 53(1): 123-142.
38. Niosi J. 2003. Alliances are not enough explaining rapid growth in biotechnology firms. Research Policy 32(5): 737-750.
39. O'Reilly III CA, Tushman ML. 2004. The ambidextrous organization. Harvard Business Review 82: (April): 74-81.
40. Owen-Smith J, Powell WW. 2001. To patent or not: faculty decisions and institutional success at technology transfer. Journal of Technology Transfer 26(1-2): 99-114.
41. Penrose ET. 1959. The Theory of the Growth of the Firm. Wiley: New York.
42. Peteraf M. 1993. The cornerstones of competitive advantage: a resource-based view. Strategic Management Journal 14(3): 179-191.
43. Powell WW, Koput KK, Smith-Doerr L. 1996. Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: networks of learning in biotechnology. Administrative Science Quarterly 41(1): 116-145.
44. Powell WW, White DR, Koput KW, Owen-Smith J. 2005. Network dynamics and field evolution: the growth of interorganizational collaboration in the life sciences. American Journal of Sociology 110(4): 1132-1205.
45. Reiss T, Hinze S, Domingues-Lacasa I. 2004. Performance of European member states in biotechnology. Science and Public Policy 15: 344-358.
46. Rosenkopf L, Nerkar A. 2001. Beyond local search: boundary-spanning, exploration, and impact in the optical disk industry. Strategic Management Journal 22(4): 287-306.
47. Rothaermel FT. 2001. Incumbent's advantage through exploiting complementary assets via interfirm cooperation. Strategic Management Journal, June-July Special Issue 22: 687-699.
48. Rothaermel FT, Deeds DL. 2004. Exploration and exploitation alliances in biotechnology: a system of new product development. Strategic Management Journal 25(3): 201-221.
49. Rothaermel FT, Deeds DL. 2006. Alliance type, alliance experience and alliance management capability in high-technology ventures. Journal of Business Venturing 21(4): 429-460.
50. Sampson RC. 2007. R&D alliances and firm performance: the impact of technological diversity and alliance organization on innovation. Academy of Management Journal 50(2): 364-386.
51. Sarkar MB, Echambadi R, Harrison JS. 2001. Alliance entrepreneurship and firm market performance. Strategic Management Journal, June-July Special Issue 22: 701-711.
52. Shan W, Walker G, Kogut B. 1994. Interfirm cooperation and startup innovation in the biotechnology industry. Strategic Management Journal 15(5): 387-394.
53. Shane S. 2001. Technology regimes and new firm formation. Management Science 47(9): 1173-1190.
54. Sirmon DG, Hitt MA, Ireland RD. 2007. Managing firm resources in dynamic environments to create value: looking inside the black box. Academy of Management Review 32(1): 273-292.
55. Soh PH, Mahmood OP, Mitchell W. 2004. Dynamic inducements in R&D investment: market signals and network locations. Academy of Management Journal 47(6): 907-917.
56. Somaya D. 2003. Strategic determinants of decisions not to settle patent litigation. Strategic Management Journal 24(1): 17-38.
57. Stuart TE. 2000. Interorganizational alliances and the performance of firms: a study of growth and innovation rates in a high-technology industry. Strategic Management Journal 21(8): 791-811.
58. Stuart TE, Hoang H, Hybels RC. 1999. Interorganizational endorsements and the performance of entrepreneurial ventures. Administrative Science Quarterly 44(2): 315-349.
59. Stuart TE, Ozdemir SZ, Ding WW. 2007. Vertical alliance networks: the case of university-biotechnology-pharmaceutical alliance chains. Research Policy 36(4): 477-498.
60. Teece DJ, Pisano G, Shuen A. 1997. Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal 18(7): 509-533.
61. Tijssen R. 2004. Is the commercialization of scientific research affecting the production of public knowledge? Global trends in the output of corporate research articles. Research Policy 33(5): 709-733.
62. van Beuzekom B, Arundel A. 2006. OECD Biotechnology Statistics. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development: Paris.
63. Williamson OE. 1985. The Economic Institutions of Capitalism. Free Press: New York.
64. Winter S. 1995. Four Rs of probability: rents, resources, routines and replication. In Resource-Based and Evolutionary Theories of the Firm: Towards a Synthesis, Montgomery CA (ed). Kluwer Academic Publishers: Boston, MA; 147-178.
65. Zucker LG, Darby MR, Armstrong JS. 2002. Commercializing knowledge: university science, knowledge capture, and firm performance in biotechnology. Management Science 48(1): 138-153.
66. Zucker LG, Darby MR, Brewer B. 1998. Intellectual human capital and the birth of U.S. biotechnology enterprises. American Economic Review 88(1): 290-306.