IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/wiw/wiwrsa/ersa03p282.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The technological, economic and institutional aspects behind the development of biotechnology industry in Turku region, Finland

Author

Listed:
  • Kimmo Viljamaa

Abstract

This paper examines the recent development of biotechnology related industry in the Finnish city of Turku, where especially pharmaceutical industry has adopted the use of post-1970s molecular biology breakthroughs in ?biotechnology?. Finland is now listed in numbers of biotech firms as the 10th largest in Europe and Turku is the only Finnish city mentioned in the European Commission report among the 20 most significant European biotech centres (2000). The interest of study is to scrutinise the dynamics behind the development as a combination of technological, institutional and economic factors. The main objective of this study is to focus on the link between technology and institutions but also on the role of different organisations in the process of building capability to produce new innovations and new industrial activity. This paper claims that the rapid development of the biotechnology industry in the 1990s in Turku arises from a much older story, with historical capabilities been gradually built up especially within pharmaceuticals over decades both in industry and university research. The interaction between universities and companies has been primarily driven and institutionalised by larger pharmaceutical and diagnostic companies in the past, and more recently by smaller start-ups and spin-offs. The latter do not have large corporate R&D capabilities and must thus depend to a greater extent on external research links. From the university point of view, the interaction has been more based on resource constraints than a dedicated strategy for developing co-operation in the field of biotechnology. From the policy standpoint, the development of the innovation system in Turku to support a new technology area has been different from many other Finnish cities, in a way that public sector has not played a very active role in the beginning. For a long time, the mobilising of local resources and the successful attempts to influence national S&T policy have mainly been a result of a network of individuals working in the industry and in the universities rather than a general strategy of the universities or the local government. More recently, the City of Turku has been much more active and even instrumental in building new institutions and infrastructure to support the growth of the new industry. Thus, the rise of Turku should be seen as building on older capabilities, recently driven forward by new institutions that have come about due to resource constraints, external economic shocks and fundamental changes in the global pharmaceutical industry. The new ?BioTurku? has arisen, therefore, more as a reconsolidation of expertise across sectors under a new banner of ?biotech?, which has in turn, allowed new configurations of innovative actors to link up and create new technological services and products as well. As a result, a variety of earlier unrelated sectors in food, pharmaceuticals and materials sciences, have now been pulled together with a common technological base. This development has also made it easier for the policy makers to formulate a focused strategy for local innovation policy.

Suggested Citation

  • Kimmo Viljamaa, 2003. "The technological, economic and institutional aspects behind the development of biotechnology industry in Turku region, Finland," ERSA conference papers ersa03p282, European Regional Science Association.
  • Handle: RePEc:wiw:wiwrsa:ersa03p282
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www-sre.wu.ac.at/ersa/ersaconfs/ersa03/cdrom/papers/282.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Adam B. Jaffe & Manuel Trajtenberg & Rebecca Henderson, 1993. "Geographic Localization of Knowledge Spillovers as Evidenced by Patent Citations," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 108(3), pages 577-598.
    2. Orsenigo, L. & Pammolli, F. & Riccaboni, Massimo, 2001. "Technological change and network dynamics: Lessons from the pharmaceutical industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 485-508, March.
    3. Markku Sotarauta, 2003. "Dynamic Capacities in Promotion of Economic Development of City-regions," ERSA conference papers ersa03p427, European Regional Science Association.
    4. Frank Moulaert & Farid Sekia, 2003. "Territorial Innovation Models: A Critical Survey," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 37(3), pages 289-302.
    5. Harald Bathelt & Andersand Malmberg & Peter Maskell, 2002. "Clusters and Knowledge Local Buzz, Global Pipelines and the Process of Knowledge Creation," DRUID Working Papers 02-12, DRUID, Copenhagen Business School, Department of Industrial Economics and Strategy/Aalborg University, Department of Business Studies.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Iammarino, Simona & McCann, Philip, 2006. "The structure and evolution of industrial clusters: Transactions, technology and knowledge spillovers," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(7), pages 1018-1036, September.
    2. Max-Peter Menzel, 2008. "Dynamic Proximities – Changing Relations by Creating and Bridging Distances," Papers in Evolutionary Economic Geography (PEEG) 0816, Utrecht University, Department of Human Geography and Spatial Planning, Group Economic Geography, revised Oct 2008.
    3. Jos� Lobo & Charlotta Mellander & Kevin Stolarick & Deborah Strumsky, 2014. "The Inventive, the Educated and the Creative: How Do They Affect Metropolitan Productivity?," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(2), pages 155-177, February.
    4. Andrés Rodríguez-Pose & Riccardo Crescenzi, 2008. "Mountains in a flat world: why proximity still matters for the location of economic activity," Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 1(3), pages 371-388.
    5. Franz Tödtling & Michaela Trippl, 2013. "Innovation and Knowledge Links in Metropolitan Regions: The Case of Vienna," Advances in Spatial Science, in: Johan Klaesson & Börje Johansson & Charlie Karlsson (ed.), Metropolitan Regions, edition 127, chapter 0, pages 451-472, Springer.
    6. Ferretti, Marco & Guerini, Massimiliano & Panetti, Eva & Parmentola, Adele, 2022. "The partner next door? The effect of micro-geographical proximity on intra-cluster inter-organizational relationships," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    7. Lobo, José & Strumsky, Deborah, 2008. "Metropolitan patenting, inventor agglomeration and social networks: A tale of two effects," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(3), pages 871-884, May.
    8. Franz Toedtling & Patrick Lehner, 2006. "Do Different Types of Innovation Require Specific Kinds of Knowledge Links?," ERSA conference papers ersa06p513, European Regional Science Association.
    9. Rik Wenting & Oedzge Atzema & Koen Frenken, 2008. "Urban Amenities or Agglomeration Economies? Locational Behaviour and Entrepreneurial Success of Dutch Fashion Designers," Papers in Evolutionary Economic Geography (PEEG) 0803, Utrecht University, Department of Human Geography and Spatial Planning, Group Economic Geography, revised Jan 2008.
    10. Christophe Carrincazeaux & Frédéric Gaschet, 2006. "Knowledge and the diversity of innovation systems: a comparative analysis of European regions," Post-Print hal-00257384, HAL.
    11. Sjoerd Beugelsdijk, 2010. "Entrepreneurial Culture, Regional Innovativeness and Economic Growth," Springer Books, in: Andreas Freytag & Roy Thurik (ed.), Entrepreneurship and Culture, chapter 0, pages 129-154, Springer.
    12. Mirko Titze & Matthias Brachert & Hans-Ulrich Brautzsch, 2011. "Mapping Local and Regional Potentials for Inter-sectoral Technology Flows in Industrial Clusters – Empirical Results for Germany," ERSA conference papers ersa11p660, European Regional Science Association.
    13. Bettencourt, Luis M.A. & Lobo, Jose & Strumsky, Deborah, 2007. "Invention in the city: Increasing returns to patenting as a scaling function of metropolitan size," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 107-120, February.
    14. Margarida Fontes, 2005. "Distant networking: The knowledge acquisition strategies of 'out-cluster' biotechnology firms," European Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(6), pages 899-920, September.
    15. Maria Rosaria Della Peruta & Manlio Giudice & Rosa Lombardi & Pedro Soto-Acosta, 2018. "Open Innovation, Product Development, and Inter-Company Relationships Within Regional Knowledge Clusters," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 9(2), pages 680-693, June.
    16. Boutillier, Sophie & Laperche, Blandine & Lebert, Didier & Elouaer-Mrizak, Sana, 2023. "A systemic analysis of the technological trajectory at company level based on patent data: The case of Sanofi's vaccine technology," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 124(C).
    17. Michael Fritsch & Holger Graf, 2010. "How General Conditions Affect Regional Innovation Systems - The Case of the Two Germanys," Jena Economics Research Papers 2010-054, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    18. Tödtling, Franz & Lehner, Patrick & Trippl, Michaela, 2004. "Knowledge intensive industries, networks, and collective learning," SRE-Discussion Papers 2004/02, WU Vienna University of Economics and Business.
    19. Charlie Karlsson & Börje Johansson & Kiyoshi Kobayashi & Roger R. Stough, 2014. "Knowledge, innovation and space: introduction," Chapters, in: Charlie Karlsson & Börje Johansson & Kiyoshi Kobayashi & Roger R. Stough (ed.), Knowledge, Innovation and Space, chapter 1, pages 1-26, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    20. Fiorenza Belussi & Silvia R. Sedita, 2012. "Industrial Districts as Open Learning Systems: Combining Emergent and Deliberate Knowledge Structures," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 46(2), pages 165-184, April.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wiw:wiwrsa:ersa03p282. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Gunther Maier (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.ersa.org .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.