Spontaneous vs. policy-driven: The origin and evolution of the biotechnology cluster

Su, Yu; Hung, Ling Chun

doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2008.08.008

Cited by 85 publications

(80 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…During its emergence, most new biotech entrants were start-ups founded by scientists from universities and laboratories (Ebers and Powell, 2007) engaged in bridging upstream academic research, venture capital and large firms (Rothaermel, 2001a). Young entrepreneurial companies also tended to cluster geographically, locating themselves near to universities and other research centers (Su and Hung, 2009;van Geenhuizen and Reyes-Gonzalez, 2007). Alliances and partnerships became essential ways for the large companies to access young entrants' innovations, and for the innovators, in turn, to access markets (Bianchi et al, 2011;Bradfield and ElSayed, 2009;Mittra, 2007;Rothaermel, 2000).…”

Section: The Drug Industry's Dominant Logic: Expert Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

When technological discontinuities and disruptive business models challenge dominant industry logics: Insights from the drugs industry

Sabatier

Craig-Kennard²,

Mangematin

2012

Technological Forecasting and Social Change

134

109

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: The Drug Industry's Dominant Logic: Expert Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

When technological discontinuities and disruptive business models challenge dominant industry logics: Insights from the drugs industry

Sabatier

Craig-Kennard²,

Mangematin

2012

Technological Forecasting and Social Change

134

109

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Recurrent themes in recent theory have therefore focussed on the evolution of the triple helix model of innovation in developing countries, particularly those in East Asia, regarded as having developed institutional infrastructure and appropriate technologies to support innovation and production hubs [13][14][15]. This interest has also been extended to the exploration of the potential of triple helix in contribution to technology commercialization, new venture creation, and its consequences for policy initiatives in transition economies [16][17][18][19].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Organizing practices of university, industry and government that facilitate (or impede) the transition to a hybrid triple helix model of innovation

Sarpong

Razak

Alexander

et al. 2017

Technological Forecasting and Social Change

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

2015)Organizing practices of university, industry and government that facilitate (or impede) the transition to a hybrid triple helix model of innovation. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. ISSN 0040-1625 Available from: http://eprints.uwe.ac.uk/27643We recommend you cite the published version. The publisher's URL is: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2015.11.032Refereed: Yes (no note) Disclaimer UWE has obtained warranties from all depositors as to their title in the material deposited and as to their right to deposit such material. UWE makes no representation or warranties of commercial utility, title, or fitness for a particular purpose or any other warranty, express or implied in respect of any material deposited.UWE makes no representation that the use of the materials will not infringe any patent, copyright, trademark or other property or proprietary rights. UWE accepts no liability for any infringement of intellectual property rights in any material deposited but will remove such material from public view pending investigation in the event of an allegation of any such infringement. PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR TEXT. Organizing practices of university, industry and government that facilitate (or impede) the transition to a hybrid triple helix model of innovation Abstract Drawing on the contemporary turn to discursive practices we examine how the organizing practices of industry, university and government facilitate (or impede) developing countries transition to a hybrid triple helix model of innovation. Placing emphasis on the everyday situated practices of institutional agents, their interactions, and collaborative relationships, we identified three domains of practices (advanced research capabilities and external partnerships, the quantification of scientific knowledge and outputs, and collective entrepreneurship) that constitutively facilitate (or impede) partnership and in turn the successful transition to a hybrid triple helix model. Our study also highlights the contextual influence of differential schemata of interpretations on how to organize innovation by the three institutional actors in developing countries.

show abstract

“…Here, we assume that clusters can be classified into two types according to their basic conditions. Some studies distinguish between top-down and bottom-up clusters [23,36] or spontaneous and policy-driven clusters [24]. Bottom-up or spontaneous clusters are initiated, driven, and financed mainly by local firms seeking to benefit from positive externalities, whereas top-down or policy-driven clusters are publicly initiated and funded, driven mostly by policymakers [26].…”

Section: Research Question and Analytical Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Some studies distinguish between top-down and bottom-up clusters [23], spontaneous and policy-driven clusters [24], or research-driven and industry-driven clusters [25]. Jungwirth and Müller [26] argue that governance regimes, which differ between top-down and bottom-up clusters, should conform to cluster managers' tasks.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Local Management of National Cluster Policies: Comparative Case Studies of Japanese, German, and French Biotechnology Clusters

Okamuro

Nishimura

2015

Administrative Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cluster policies have attracted increasing attention worldwide, but only a few studies have focused on their management by local cluster organizations. We investigate the relationship between national cluster policies and their management by local cluster organizations from a comparative perspective. For this purpose, we provide a detailed comparison of national cluster policies in Japan, Germany, and France as well as six prominent biotechnology clusters in these countries. Information on the focal clusters and on the management of cluster policies was obtained using semi-structured interviews with cluster managers. We find that national cluster policies considerably differ among these countries according to basic conditions of clusters and that the patterns of national cluster policy are closely related to those of local cluster management, despite some differences between clusters in the same country caused by various regional characteristics.

show abstract

Spontaneous vs. policy-driven: The origin and evolution of the biotechnology cluster

Cited by 85 publications

References 17 publications

When technological discontinuities and disruptive business models challenge dominant industry logics: Insights from the drugs industry

When technological discontinuities and disruptive business models challenge dominant industry logics: Insights from the drugs industry

Organizing practices of university, industry and government that facilitate (or impede) the transition to a hybrid triple helix model of innovation

Local Management of National Cluster Policies: Comparative Case Studies of Japanese, German, and French Biotechnology Clusters

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About