Schumpeter revisited: Explaining the emergence of the biotech industry

Bu makale, küresel biyoteknoloji endüstrisinin ortaya çıkışını Schumpeterci bakış açısı ile değerlendirmektedir. Özellikle, büyük firmalara karşı küçük firmaların öneminin değişmesi ile biyoteknoloji sektöründe rekabetten işbirliğine sıçrama yaratıcı yıkıcılık sürecinin tipik bir manifestosu olarak ele alınmaktadır. Neo-liberal ekonomik açıdan bioteknoloji incelendikten sonra Schumpeterin teknolojik değişim yaklaşımının, icat (invention), yenilik (innovation) ve yayılma (diffusion) yı içeren üç aşamalı sürecini izleyerek, böylesi bir kavramsallaştırmanın uzun dönem endüstriyel evrim (evolution) üzerindeki etkilerine bakılmıştır. Sonuç olarak biyoteknoloji endüstrisinin daha çok Schumpeterin görüşlerine uygun bir davranış göstererek evrildiği gözlenmistir. Geleceğe ilişkin olarak, Schumpeterci bir çerçeve olgunluk aşamasında bulunan bir endüstri için önemli değişiklikler önermektedir. Yükselen yeni endüstri sektörü için teknolojik kesintinin (discontinuities) önemi geç 20. yüzyılda biyoteknoloji endüstrisi vaka çalışması olarak gösterilmiştir.

Schumpetere yeniden bakmak: Biyoteknoloji endüstrisi üzerine bir açıklama

This paper examines the emergence of the global biotechnology industry from the Schumpeterian perspective. Specifically, the changing importance of small versus large firms, as well as the shift from competition to cooperation within the biotechnology sector, is taken as typical manifestations of a process of creative destruction. Following an explanation of biotechnology from the neo-liberal economic view, an outline of Schumpeters views on technological change as a three-stage process involving invention, innovation and diffusion, the implications of such a conceptualization for long-term industrial evolution, are examined as the key explanation. It is therefore concluded that the biotechnology industry has thus far evolved in a manner mostly consistent with Schumpeterian views. Extrapolating into the future, a Schumpeterian framework suggests important challenges for an industry at that stage of maturity. The importance of technological discontinuities for the emergence of novel industrial sectors is illustrated by a case study of the biotechnology industry in the late 20th century.

PDF

___

Arora, A. and A. Gambardella. Complementarily and external linkages: The strategies of the large firms in biotechnology, Journal of Industrial Economics, Vol. 38, Year 1990, pp. 361-379.
Barley, S. R., J. Freeman and R. C. Hybels. Strategic alliances in commercial biotechnology, (eds) N. Nohria and R. G. Eccles, Networks and Organizations: Structure, Forms and Action, Harvard Business School Press, Boston (MA), 1992, pp. 311-347.
Barry, T. Zapatas Revenge: Free Trade and the Farm Crises in Mexico, Brown and Co., Boston, 1995.
Braunerhjelm, P. and R. Svensson. The Inventors Role: Was Schumpeter Right?, Paper presented at The Oslo Research Workshop 2006 on Entrepreneurship, Innovation and Innovation Policy, Norwegian School of Management, Oslo, 2006.
Bronwyn, B. and R. M. Ziedonis. The patent paradox revidited: an empirical study of patenting in the US semiconductor industry, Rand Journal Of Economics, Vol. 32, 2001, pp. 1001-128.
Cantwell, J. A. and A. Bachman. Changing Pattern in Technological Leadership- evidence from Pharmaceutical Industry, International Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 21, Year 1998, pp. 45-77.
Coriat, B., F. Orsi and O. Weinstein. Does Biotech Reflect a New Science Based Innovation Regime?, Industry and Innovation, Vol. 10, Year 2003, pp. 231-253.
Ernst & Young. Beyond Borders; Global Biotechnology Report 2011, UK.
Fransman, M. Biotechnology, Generation, Diffusion and Policy in Technology and Innovation in the International Economy,(ed.) C. Cooper, United Nations University Institute for New Technology, United Nations University Press, 1994.
Hagedoorn, J. and N. Roijakkers. Small Enterpreneurial Firms and Large Companies in Inter-firm R&D Networks-The International Biotechnology Industry, Discussion Paper, MERIT, University of Maastricht, The Netherlands, 2000.
Hagedoorn, J. "Innovation and enterpreneurship: Schumpeter revisited", Industrial and Corporate Change, Vol. 5, Year 1996, pp. 883-896.
Hansen, A. and J. L. Pedersen. The Politicization of Technology Policy: Between big Business and Public Movements, paper presented at the 7th International ISASS Conference, 2000.
Hine, D. and J. Kapeleris. İnnovation and Entrepreneurship in Biotechnology, An International Perspective; Concepts, Theories and Cases, Edward Elgar, UK, 2006.
Kenney, M. Biotechnology and the creation of a new economic space, in Private Science, Biotechnology and the Rise of the Molecular Sciences, (eds.) A. Thackrey, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadephia, 1995.
Lane, M. F. Land-Speed Trials: Winners and Losers in the Biotechnology Race, Working Paper, Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, 1997.
Lukerman, O. A. and J. P. Liebeskind. Three levels of networking for sourcing intellectual capital in biotechnology: implications for studying interorganizationalnetworks1, International Studies of Management and Organization, Vol. 27, Year 1997, pp. 76-103.
Malerba, F. Sectoral Systems of Innovation: A Framework for Linking Innovation to the Knowledge Base, Structure and Dynamics of Sectors, Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Vol. 14, No. 1-2, Year 2005, pp. 63-82.
Malerba, F. and L. Orsenigo. Technology Regimes and Firm Behaviour, Industrial and Corporate Change, Vol. 2, Year 1993, pp. 45-71.
Michaelides, P. G. and J. G. Milios. Joseph Schumpeter and the German Historical School, Cambridge Journal of Economic, Vol. 33, Year 2009, pp. 495-516.
Oehmke, J., C. Wolf, D. Weatherspoon, A. Maseem, M. Maredia, K. Raper and A. Hightower. Cyclical Concentration and Consolidation in Biotech R&D: A Neo-Schumpeterian Model, Dept of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University, Michigan, 1999.
Orsenigo, L. The Emergence of Biotechnology, Institutions and Markets in Industrial Innovation, Pinter Publishers, London, 1989.
Orsenigo, L., F. Pammoli and M. Riccaboni. Technological Change and Network Dynamics: Lessons from the Pharmaceutical, Research Policy, 30, 2001, pp. 485-508.
Powell, W. W. Interorganizational collaboration in the biotechnology industry, Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, 152, 1996, pp. 197-215.
Powell, W. W., K. W. Koput and L. Smith-Doerr. Interorganizational collaboration and the focus of innovation: networks of learning in biotechnology, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 41, Year 1996, pp. 116-145.
Prendergast, R. Schumpeter, Hegel and the vision of development, Cambridge Journal of Economics, Vol. 30, No. 2, Year 2006, pp. 253275.
Santarelli, E. and E. Perciarelli. The emergence of a vision: the development of Schumpeters theory of entrepreneurship, History of Political Economy, Vol. 22, Year 1990, pp. 677-696.
Schumpeter, J. A. The Theory of Economic Development, Oxford University Press, London, 1934.
Schumpeter, J. A. Business Cycles: A Theoretical Historical and Statistical Analysis of the Capitalist Process, abridged by R. Fels, McGraw-Hill, New York,1939.
Schumpeter, J. A. Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, Harper and Row, New York, 1942.
Schumpeter, J. A. "Capitalism", reprinted in R. W. Clemence (ed.), Essays of a J. A. Schumpeter, Cambridge, Massacheeussetts: Adison-Wesley, 1946, pp. 184-205.
Shan, W., G. Walker and B. Kogut. Interfirm cooperation and startup innovation in the biotechnology industry, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 15, Year 1994, pp. 387-394.
Stokvis, R. Knowledge and the Nature of Capitalism: Some Schumpeterian Observations, Discussion Paper, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2001.
Taylor, L. and U. Pieper. Reconciling Economic Reform and Sustainable Development: Social Consequences of Neo-Liberalism, Office of Development Studies, Discussion Paper Series, No 2, United Nations Development Programme, New York, 1996.
Webber, D. J. Biotechnology: Assessing Social Impacts and Policy Implications, Greenwood Press, Westport, CT, 1990.