IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-00424183.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

French Biotech Start-Ups and Biotech Clusters in France. The Importance of Geographic Proximity

Author

Listed:
  • Frédéric Corolleur

    (GAEL - Laboratoire d'Economie Appliquée = Grenoble Applied Economics Laboratory - UPMF - Université Pierre Mendès France - Grenoble 2 - INRA - Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique)

  • Vincent Mangematin

    (GAEL - Laboratoire d'Economie Appliquée = Grenoble Applied Economics Laboratory - UPMF - Université Pierre Mendès France - Grenoble 2 - INRA - Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, MTS - Management Technologique et Strategique - EESC-GEM Grenoble Ecole de Management)

  • A. Torre

    (SADAPT - Systèmes Agraires Développement : Activités, Produits, Territoires - INRA - Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique - INA P-G - Institut National Agronomique Paris-Grignon)

Abstract

Based on a survey of the French Biotech SMEs (see annex 1), this article examines localisation effects in the biotechnology sector. It consists of two strands of analysis. The first presents a detailed statistical survey of the French biotechnology sector. Among other things, the survey shows that a) localisation effects within France are strong, and b) French firms can be grouped into four general types of firm, ranging from ‘type 1' growth-oriented product firms, to ‘type 2' niche market players, ‘type 3' subsidiaries of larger firms, and ‘type 4' firms that have been acquired. Localisation effects differ across these firms, especially across type 1 (international) and type 2 (very localised) firms. The second strand of analysis consists of a review of the localisation and related cluster literature, with implications identified for localisation and knowledge spillovers within biotech clusters. The relative effects of the proximity of scientific centres compared to public policy on start-ups is examined.

Suggested Citation

  • Frédéric Corolleur & Vincent Mangematin & A. Torre, 2003. "French Biotech Start-Ups and Biotech Clusters in France. The Importance of Geographic Proximity," Post-Print hal-00424183, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-00424183
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: http://hal.grenoble-em.com/hal-00424183
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hal.grenoble-em.com/hal-00424183/document
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Raffaele Paci & Stefano Usai, 2000. "Technological Enclaves and Industrial Districts: An Analysis of the Regional Distribution of Innovative Activity in Europe," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 34(2), pages 97-114.
    2. Vincent Mangematin, 2000. "Competing business models in the french biotech industry," Grenoble Ecole de Management (Post-Print) hal-00422476, HAL.
    3. Sylvie Chalaye & Nadine Massard, 2012. "Géographie de l'innovation en Europe," Post-Print halshs-00756480, HAL.
    4. Stéphane Lemarié & Marie-Angèle de Looze & Vincent Mangematin, 2000. "Strategies of European SMEs in Biotechnology: The Role of Size, Technology and Market," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 47(3), pages 541-560, March.
    5. Zucker, Lynne G. & Darby, Michael R., 1997. "Present at the biotechnological revolution: transformation of technological identity for a large incumbent pharmaceutical firm," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(4-5), pages 429-446, December.
    6. Autant-Bernard, Corinne, 2001. "Science and knowledge flows: evidence from the French case," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(7), pages 1069-1078, August.
    7. Mansfield, Edwin, 1995. "Academic Research Underlying Industrial Innovations:," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 77(1), pages 55-65, February.
    8. Naomi R. Lamoreaux & Kenneth L. Sokoloff, 1997. "Location and Technological Change in the American Glass Industry During the Late Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries," NBER Working Papers 5938, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    9. Nathan ROSENBERG, 2009. "Why do firms do basic research (with their own money)?," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Studies On Science And The Innovation Process Selected Works of Nathan Rosenberg, chapter 11, pages 225-234, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Claus Michelsen & Harald Wolf & Michael Schwartz, 2013. "Regional Entrepreneurial Opportunities in the Biotech Industry: Exploring the Transition from Award-Winning Nascent Entrepreneurs to Real Start-Ups," European Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(11), pages 1708-1734, November.

    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. Leten, Bart & Landoni, Paolo & Van Looy, Bart, 2014. "Science or graduates: How do firms benefit from the proximity of universities?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(8), pages 1398-1412.
    2. Stephan, Paula E., 2010. "The Economics of Science," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 217-273, Elsevier.
    3. Michael Fritsch & Stefan Krabel, 2012. "Ready to leave the ivory tower?: Academic scientists’ appeal to work in the private sector," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 37(3), pages 271-296, June.
    4. Nobuya Fukugawa, 2016. "Knowledge creation and dissemination by Kosetsushi in sectoral innovation systems: insights from patent data," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(3), pages 2303-2327, December.
    5. Ufuk Akcigit & Douglas Hanley & Nicolas Serrano-Velarde, 2021. "Back to Basics: Basic Research Spillovers, Innovation Policy, and Growth," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 88(1), pages 1-43.
    6. Maria Rosaria Carillo & Erasmo Papagni, 2004. "Academic Research, Social Interactions And Economic Growth," Working Papers 10_2004, D.E.S. (Department of Economic Studies), University of Naples "Parthenope", Italy.
    7. Hanne Peeters & Julie Callaert & Bart Looy, 2020. "Do firms profit from involving academics when developing technology?," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 45(2), pages 494-521, April.
    8. Jong, Simcha & Slavova, Kremena, 2014. "When publications lead to products: The open science conundrum in new product development," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(4), pages 645-654.
    9. Frank T. Rothaermel & Andrew M. Hess, 2007. "Building Dynamic Capabilities: Innovation Driven by Individual-, Firm-, and Network-Level Effects," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(6), pages 898-921, December.
    10. Mila Davids & Koen Frenken, 2015. "Proximity, knowledge base and the innovation process: The case of Unilever’s Becel diet margarine," Papers in Evolutionary Economic Geography (PEEG) 1504, Utrecht University, Department of Human Geography and Spatial Planning, Group Economic Geography, revised Feb 2015.
    11. Nicolas Serrano-Velarde & Douglas Hanley & Ufuk Akcigit, 2011. "Back to Basics: Private and Public Investment in Basic R&D and Macroeconomic Growth," 2011 Meeting Papers 1196, Society for Economic Dynamics.
    12. Pavitt, Keith, 1998. "The social shaping of the national science base," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(8), pages 793-805, December.
    13. Antonelli, Cristiano & David, Paul, 2015. "Knowledge, Institutions and Economic Policy: An Introduction," Department of Economics and Statistics Cognetti de Martiis. Working Papers 201541, University of Turin.
    14. McMillan, G. Steven & Narin, Francis & Deeds, David L., 2000. "An analysis of the critical role of public science in innovation: the case of biotechnology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 1-8, January.
    15. Gersbach, Hans & Schneider, Maik & Schetter, Ulrich, 2015. "How Much Science? The 5 Ws (and 1 H) of Investing in Basic Research," CEPR Discussion Papers 10482, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    16. Paola Cardamone & Valeria Pupo & Fernanda Ricotta, 2012. "University And Firm Performance In The Italian Manufacturing Sector," Working Papers 201207, Università della Calabria, Dipartimento di Economia, Statistica e Finanza "Giovanni Anania" - DESF.
    17. Rene Belderbos & Bart Leten & Shinya Suzuki, 2009. "Does Excellence in Academic Research Attract Foreign R&D?," Global COE Hi-Stat Discussion Paper Series gd09-079, Institute of Economic Research, Hitotsubashi University.
    18. Tommaso Agasisti & Cristian Barra & Roberto Zotti, 2019. "Research, knowledge transfer, and innovation: The effect of Italian universities’ efficiency on local economic development 2006−2012," Journal of Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(5), pages 819-849, November.
    19. Larsen, Maria Theresa, 2011. "The implications of academic enterprise for public science: An overview of the empirical evidence," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 6-19, February.
    20. Heidrun C. Hoppe & Wilhelm Pfähler, 2001. "Ökonomie der Grundlagenforschung und Wissenschaftspolitik," Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik, Verein für Socialpolitik, vol. 2(2), pages 125-144, May.

    More about this item

    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:hal:journl:hal-00424183. 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: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.