IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/sru/ssewps/114.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Dynamics of Innovation Networks

Author

Listed:

Abstract

We analyse the changing contribution of networks to the innovative performance of 30 pharmaceutical companies from 1989 to 1997. Count data models show that collaborations with universities and biotechnology companies are important determinants of the firms' innovative performance, but their respective contributions diverge when industry matures. Larger firms enjoy a significant size advantage and in-house research activities are highly significant. Returns to scale in research are decreasing over time while the size advantage is increasing. The changing contribution of networks to knowledge production suggests that these are phase-specific, which has substantial managerial and policy implications.

Suggested Citation

  • Lionel Nesta & Vincent Mangematin, 2004. "The Dynamics of Innovation Networks," SPRU Working Paper Series 114, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    • Handle: RePEc:sru:ssewps:114
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/documents/sewp114.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Joel A. C. Baum & Tony Calabrese & Brian S. Silverman, 2000. "Don't go it alone: alliance network composition and startups' performance in Canadian biotechnology," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(3), pages 267-294, March.
    2. Boisot, Max H., 1995. "Is your firm a creative destroyer? Competitive learning and knowledge flows in the technological strategies of firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(4), pages 489-506, July.
    3. Dosi, Giovanni, 1993. "Technological paradigms and technological trajectories : A suggested interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 102-103, April.
    4. Ufuah, Allan N & Utterback, James M, 1997. "Responding to Structural Industry Changes: A Technological Evolution Perspective," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 6(1), pages 183-202.
    5. Zucker, Lynne G & Darby, Michael R & Armstrong, Jeff, 1998. "Geographically Localized Knowledge: Spillovers or Markets?," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 36(1), pages 65-86, January.
    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. Jane Marceau, 2007. "Bringing science to life in Australia: the need for a new approach in human health biotechnology policy," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 32(4), pages 303-327, August.
    2. Birgit Aschhoff & Tobias Schmidt, 2008. "Empirical Evidence on the Success of R&D Cooperation—Happy Together?," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 33(1), pages 41-62, August.
    3. Evert-Jan Visser, 2009. "The Complementary Dynamic Effects of Clusters and Networks," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(2), pages 167-195.
    4. Isabel Cavalli & Charlie Joyez, 2021. "The Dynamics of French Universities in Patent Collaboration Networks," GREDEG Working Papers 2021-38, Groupe de REcherche en Droit, Economie, Gestion (GREDEG CNRS), Université Côte d'Azur, France.

    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. Boeker, Warren & Howard, Michael D. & Basu, Sandip & Sahaym, Arvin, 2021. "Interpersonal relationships, digital technologies, and innovation in entrepreneurial ventures," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 495-507.
    2. Lionel Nesta & Vincent Mangematin, 2002. "Industry Life Cycle, Knowledge Generation and Technological Networks," Grenoble Ecole de Management (Post-Print) hal-03398092, HAL.
    3. Mariia Shkolnykova & Muhamed Kudic, 2022. "Who benefits from SMEs’ radical innovations?—empirical evidence from German biotechnology," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 58(2), pages 1157-1185, February.
    4. Bruce Rasmussen, 2010. "Innovation and Commercialisation in the Biopharmaceutical Industry," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 13680, March.
    5. Castro, Ignacio & Casanueva, Cristóbal & Galán, José Luis, 2014. "Dynamic evolution of alliance portfolios," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 423-433.
    6. van Rijnsoever, Frank J. & van den Berg, Jesse & Koch, Joost & Hekkert, Marko P., 2015. "Smart innovation policy: How network position and project composition affect the diversity of an emerging technology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(5), pages 1094-1107.
    7. Haessler, Philipp & Giones, Ferran & Brem, Alexander, 2023. "The who and how of commercializing emerging technologies: A technology-focused review," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 121(C).
    8. Rinaldo Evangelista & Valentina Meliciani & Antonio Vezzani, 2015. "The Specialisation of EU Regions in Fast Growing and Key Enabling Technologies," JRC Research Reports JRC98111, Joint Research Centre.
    9. Bozeman, Barry & Laredo, Philippe & Mangematin, Vincent, 2007. "Understanding the emergence and deployment of "nano" S&T," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(6), pages 807-812, July.
    10. Avenel, E. & Corolleur, F. & Gauthier, C. & Rieu, C., 2005. "Start-ups, firm growth and the consolidation of the French biotech industry," Working Papers 200503, Grenoble Applied Economics Laboratory (GAEL).
    11. Roman Fudickar & Hanna Hottenrott, 2019. "Public research and the innovation performance of new technology based firms," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 44(2), pages 326-358, April.
    12. Daniela Baglieri & Maria Cristina Cinici & Vincent Mangematin, 2012. "Rejuvenating Nanoclusters With 'Sleeping Anchors': Pre-Adaptation And Life Cycle," Grenoble Ecole de Management (Post-Print) hal-00536195, HAL.
    13. Aharonson, Barak S. & Baum, Joel A.C. & Plunket, Anne, 2008. "Inventive and uninventive clusters: The case of Canadian biotechnology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(6-7), pages 1108-1131, July.
    14. Christos Kolympiris & Nicholas Kalaitzandonakes, 2013. "Geographic scope of proximity effects among small life sciences firms," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 40(4), pages 1059-1086, May.
    15. Kudic, Muhamed & Bönisch, Peter & Dominguez Lacasa, Iciar, 2010. "Analyzing Innovation Drivers in the German Laser Industry: the Role of Positioning in the Social and Geographical Space," IWH Discussion Papers 22/2010, Halle Institute for Economic Research (IWH).
    16. Jessica Birkholz & Jarina Kühn & Mariia Shkolnykova, 2022. "Exploration or Exploitation: Innovation Behavior of SMEs and Large Firms during the COVID-19 Crisis," Bremen Papers on Economics & Innovation 2203, University of Bremen, Faculty of Business Studies and Economics.
    17. Jia Zhou & Aifang Guo & Yutao Chen & Jin Chen, 2022. "Original Innovation through Inter-Organizational Collaboration: Empirical Evidence from University-Focused Alliance Portfolio in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(10), pages 1-18, May.
    18. Miao, Chao & Coombs, Joseph E. & Qian, Shanshan & Sirmon, David G., 2017. "The mediating role of entrepreneurial orientation: A meta-analysis of resource orchestration and cultural contingencies," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 68-80.
    19. Coombs, Joseph E. & Mudambi, Ram & Deeds, David L., 2006. "An examination of the investments in U.S. biotechnology firms by foreign and domestic corporate partners," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 21(4), pages 405-428, July.
    20. Meijer, Ineke S.M. & Hekkert, Marko P. & Koppenjan, Joop F.M., 2007. "The influence of perceived uncertainty on entrepreneurial action in emerging renewable energy technology; biomass gasification projects in the Netherlands," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(11), pages 5836-5854, November.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    pharmaceutical industry; biotechnology; innovative processes; networks;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • O31 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives
    • D85 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Network Formation

    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:sru:ssewps:114. 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: University of Sussex Business School Communications Team (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/spessuk.html .

    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.