IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/tik/inowpp/20070607.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Biotechnology business in Norway: Peripheral advantage, or just periphery?

Author

Listed:
  • Terje Grønning

    (Department of educational research, University of Oslo)

Abstract

Research on biotechnology related firms has long been associated with the agglomeration of “dedicated biotechnology firms” and partners such as large corporations, research institutes and venture capital firms. At the same time it is acknowledged that such agglomeration trends may be most closely associated with medical biotechnology. This paper shows that there are more than 130 firms which may be classified as biotechnology related firms in Norway. Furthermore they are spread out throughout the country, albeit with more than half being located in the Eastern part. While there is indeed a great preoccupation with medical biotechnology also in Norway, the survey shows that two other distinct traits are present: a concentration of firms being focused on diagnostics and drug delivery rather than on therapeutics, and a focus on marine biotechnology (more than one third of the firms) within nutrition related products rather than or in addition to medical products. In addition to contributing these descriptive findings the paper thus opens up the agglomeration discussion, and suggests that foci on such niches as those which are prevalent in Norway may function with geographical distribution patterns different from those prevalent within the current medical biotechnology focused literature.

Suggested Citation

  • Terje Grønning, 2007. "Biotechnology business in Norway: Peripheral advantage, or just periphery?," Working Papers on Innovation Studies 20070607, Centre for Technology, Innovation and Culture, University of Oslo.
    • Handle: RePEc:tik:inowpp:20070607
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.tik.uio.no/InnoWP/Final_Bio_7%20WPready.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Susan Bartholomew, 1997. "National Systems of Biotechnology Innovation: Complex Interdependence in the Global System," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 28(2), pages 241-266, June.
    2. Gunnar Eliasson, 2000. "Industrial policy, competence blocs and the role of science in economic development," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 10(1), pages 217-241.
    3. Goldfarb, Brent & Henrekson, Magnus & Rosenberg, Nathan, 2001. "Demand vs. Supply Driven Innovations: US and Swedish Experiences in Academic Entrepreneurship," SSE/EFI Working Paper Series in Economics and Finance 0436, Stockholm School of Economics.
    4. Günseli Baygan, 2003. "Venture Capital Policy Review: Norway," OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers 2003/17, OECD Publishing.
    5. Niosi, Jorge, 2003. "Alliances are not enough explaining rapid growth in biotechnology firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(5), pages 737-750, May.
    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. Jorge Niosi, 2009. "Bridging Canadian Technology SMEs Over the Valley of Death," International Productivity Monitor, Centre for the Study of Living Standards, vol. 18, pages 80-84, Spring.
    2. Wipo, 2011. "World Intellectual Property Report 2011- The Changing Face of Innovation," WIPO Economics & Statistics Series, World Intellectual Property Organization - Economics and Statistics Division, number 2011:944, April.
    3. Białek-Jaworska Anna & Dobroszek Justyna, 2019. "R&D Expenditure and the Role of Scientists," Financial Sciences. Nauki o Finansach, Sciendo, vol. 24(2), pages 1-16, June.
    4. Mh Bala Subrahmanya, 2017. "HOW DID BANGALORE EMERGE AS A GLOBAL HUB OF TECH START-UPs IN INDIA? ENTREPRENEURIAL ECOSYSTEM — EVOLUTION, STRUCTURE AND ROLE," Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship (JDE), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 22(01), pages 1-22, March.
    5. Niklas Elert & Magnus Henrekson, 2019. "The collaborative innovation bloc: A new mission for Austrian economics," The Review of Austrian Economics, Springer;Society for the Development of Austrian Economics, vol. 32(4), pages 295-320, December.
    6. Mayer-Haug, Katrin & Read, Stuart & Brinckmann, Jan & Dew, Nicholas & Grichnik, Dietmar, 2013. "Entrepreneurial talent and venture performance: A meta-analytic investigation of SMEs," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(6), pages 1251-1273.
    7. Alessia Pisoni & Alberto Onetti & Luciano Fratocchi & Marco Talaia, 2010. "Managing R&D activities in the Italian red biotech industry. A comparison between Italian independent firms and multinational companies," Economics and Quantitative Methods qf1003, Department of Economics, University of Insubria.
    8. Demont, Matty & Tollens, Eric, 1999. "The Economics Of Agricultural Biotechnology: Historical And Analytical Framework," Working Papers 31845, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Centre for Agricultural and Food Economics.
    9. Luukkonen, Terttu, 2003. "Variability in Forms of Organisation in Biotechnology Firms," Discussion Papers 872, The Research Institute of the Finnish Economy.
    10. Dan Johansson, 2010. "The theory of the experimentally organized economy and competence blocs: an introduction," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 20(2), pages 185-201, April.
    11. Fabio Sorrentino & Francesco Garraffo, 2012. "Explaining performing R&D through alliances: Implications for the business model of Italian dedicated biotech firms," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 16(3), pages 449-475, August.
    12. Heide Fier & Andreas Pyka, 2014. "Against the one-way-street: analyzing knowledge transfer from industry to science," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 39(2), pages 219-246, April.
    13. Vrontis, Demetris & Christofi, Michael, 2021. "R&D internationalization and innovation: A systematic review, integrative framework and future research directions," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 812-823.
    14. Elert, Niklas & Henrekson, Magnus, 2021. "Innovative Entrepreneurship as a Collaborative Effort: An Institutional Framework," Foundations and Trends(R) in Entrepreneurship, now publishers, vol. 17(4), pages 330-435, June.
    15. Gurneeta Vasudeva & Jennifer W. Spencer & Hildy J. Teegen, 2013. "Bringing the Institutional Context Back In: A Cross-National Comparison of Alliance Partner Selection and Knowledge Acquisition," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(2), pages 319-338, April.
    16. Johan Wiklund & Dean A. Shepherd, 2009. "The Effectiveness of Alliances and Acquisitions: The Role of Resource Combination Activities," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 33(1), pages 193-212, January.
    17. Madhok, Anoop & Liu, Carl, 2006. "A coevolutionary theory of the multinational firm," Journal of International Management, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 1-21, March.
    18. Lee, Eun Su & Liu, Wei & Yang, Jing Yu, 2023. "Neither developed nor emerging: Dual paths for outward FDI and home country innovation in emerged market MNCs," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 32(2).
    19. Schøtt, Thomas & Jensen, Kent Wickstrøm, 2016. "Firms’ innovation benefiting from networking and institutional support: A global analysis of national and firm effects," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(6), pages 1233-1246.
    20. Rajaram Veliyath & Rakesh B. Sambharya, 2011. "R&D Investments of Multinational Corporations," Management International Review, Springer, vol. 51(3), pages 407-428, June.

    More about this item

    Lists

    This item is featured on the following reading lists, Wikipedia, or ReplicationWiki pages:
    1. Technology Assessment

    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:tik:inowpp:20070607. 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: H&kon Normann (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/tkuiono.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.