IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/wai/econwp/00-01.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Fostering Innovation in a Small Open Economy: The Case of the New Zealand Biotechnology Sector

Author

Abstract

The New Zealand Biotechnology sector is worthy of study for several reasons. While there is a large and growing international literature on economic aspects of biotechnology innovation these studies concentrate on the United States and Europe. The New Zealand biotechnology sector may be expected to develop along a different trajectory as a consequence of a markedly different set of initial and framework conditions. Government has indicated a strong interest in fostering innovation and aims to concentrate on selected areas where New Zealand may be able to develop a new comparative advantage. One such area is biotechnology, which would build on New Zealand’s existing comparative advantage in the primary sector (dairy, forestry, meat, wool and horticulture). This paper describes the preliminary results of an ongoing study that aims to fill some of the gaps in our knowledge of innovation processes in New Zealand while using the international literature as a benchmark. The paper focuses on the drivers of innovation in the biotechnology sector; the role of networks and other linkages; the role of government and industry, the role of human and venture capital, and data from patenting.

Suggested Citation

  • Dan Marsh, 2000. "Fostering Innovation in a Small Open Economy: The Case of the New Zealand Biotechnology Sector," Working Papers in Economics 00/01, University of Waikato.
    • Handle: RePEc:wai:econwp:00/01
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://repec.its.waikato.ac.nz/wai/econwp/0001.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Stéphane Malo & Aldo Geuna, 2000. "Science-Technology Linkages in an Emerging Research Platform: The Case of Combinatorial Chemistry and Biology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 47(2), pages 303-321, February.
    2. repec:fth:harver:1473 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Jeremy Foltz & Bradford Barham & Kwansoo Kim, 2000. "Universities and agricultural biotechnology patent production," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(1), pages 82-95.
    4. 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.
    5. Hall, Bronwyn & Van Reenen, John, 2000. "How effective are fiscal incentives for R&D? A review of the evidence," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(4-5), pages 449-469, April.
    6. Patrick Massey, 1995. "New Zealand," Palgrave Macmillan Books, Palgrave Macmillan, number 978-1-349-23927-6, March.
    7. Joly, Pierre-Benoit & de Looze, Marie-Angele, 1996. "An analysis of innovation strategies and industrial differentiation through patent applications: the case of plant biotechnology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(7), pages 1027-1046, October.
    8. Pavitt, Keith, 1984. "Sectoral patterns of technical change: Towards a taxonomy and a theory," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 13(6), pages 343-373, December.
    9. Zvi Griliches, 1998. "Patent Statistics as Economic Indicators: A Survey," NBER Chapters, in: R&D and Productivity: The Econometric Evidence, pages 287-343, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    10. Barbara Simpson & John Craig, 1997. "A policy for science innovation: the New Zealand experience," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 24(2), pages 70-78, April.
    11. Peter Pockley, 1998. "New Zealand puts its science to profit," Nature, Nature, vol. 391(6666), pages 426-427, 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. Doyle, Eleanor & O’Connor, Fergal, 2013. "Innovation capacities in advanced economies: Relative performance of small open economies," Research in International Business and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 106-123.

    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. Dan Marsh, 2004. "Biotechnology in New Zealand," Working Papers in Economics 04/01, University of Waikato.
    2. Dan Marsh, 2002. "Does New Zealand have an Innovation System for Biotechnology?," Working Papers in Economics 02/03, University of Waikato.
    3. 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.
    4. Leten, Bart & Kelchtermans, Stijn & Belderbos, Ren, 2010. "Internal Basic Research, External Basic Research and the Technological Performance of Pharmaceutical Firms," Working Papers 2010/12, Hogeschool-Universiteit Brussel, Faculteit Economie en Management.
    5. da Motta e Albuquerque, Eduardo, 2000. "Domestic patents and developing countries: arguments for their study and data from Brazil (1980-1995)," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(9), pages 1047-1060, December.
    6. Stavins, Robert & Jaffe, Adam & Newell, Richard, 2000. "Technological Change and the Environment," Working Paper Series rwp00-002, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    7. Inchae Park & Yujin Jeong & Byungun Yoon, 2017. "Analyzing the value of technology based on the differences of patent citations between applicants and examiners," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(2), pages 665-691, May.
    8. Bekkers, Rudi & Bodas Freitas, Isabel Maria, 2008. "Analysing knowledge transfer channels between universities and industry: To what degree do sectors also matter?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(10), pages 1837-1853, December.
    9. Dhanora, Madan & Sharma, Ruchi & Khachoo, Qayoom, 2018. "Non-linear impact of product and process innovations on market power: A theoretical and empirical investigation," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 67-77.
    10. Roberta Piergiovanni & Enrico Santarelli, 2013. "The more you spend, the more you get? The effects of R&D and capital expenditures on the patenting activities of biotechnology firms," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 94(2), pages 497-521, February.
    11. Jan-Bart Vervenne & Julie Callaert & Machteld Hoskens & Bart Looy, 2022. "To what extent do SMEs contribute to Europe’s patent stock? A methodological outline for creating a Europe-wide SME technology indicator," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(6), pages 3049-3082, June.
    12. Estolatan, Eric & Geuna, Aldo, 2019. "Looking forward via the Past: An Investigation of the Evolution of the Knowledge Base of Robotics Firms," Department of Economics and Statistics Cognetti de Martiis LEI & BRICK - Laboratory of Economics of Innovation "Franco Momigliano", Bureau of Research in Innovation, Complexity and Knowledge, Collegio 201904, University of Turin.
    13. Gabriele Pellegrino & Mariacristina Piva & Marco Vivarelli, 2015. "How do new entrepreneurs innovate?," Economia e Politica Industriale: Journal of Industrial and Business Economics, Springer;Associazione Amici di Economia e Politica Industriale, vol. 42(3), pages 323-341, September.
    14. Costantini, Valeria & Crespi, Francesco & Palma, Alessandro, 2017. "Characterizing the policy mix and its impact on eco-innovation: A patent analysis of energy-efficient technologies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(4), pages 799-819.
    15. Pellegrino, Gabriele & Piva, Mariacristina & Vivarelli, Marco, 2009. "How Do Young Innovative Companies Innovate?," IZA Discussion Papers 4301, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    16. Fornahl, Dirk & Brenner, Thomas, 2009. "Geographic concentration of innovative activities in Germany," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 20(3), pages 163-182, September.
    17. Harabi, Najib, 1994. "Technischer Fortschritt in der Schweiz: Empirische Ergebnisse aus industrieökonomischer Sicht [Technischer Fortschritt in der Schweiz:Empirische Ergebnisse aus industrieökonomischer Sicht]," MPRA Paper 6725, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    18. Meyer, Martin, 2006. "Are patenting scientists the better scholars?: An exploratory comparison of inventor-authors with their non-inventing peers in nano-science and technology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(10), pages 1646-1662, December.
    19. Kornelius Kraft & Jörg Stank & Ralf Dewenter, 2011. "Co-determination and innovation," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 35(1), pages 145-172.
    20. Ugur, Mehmet & Trushin, Eshref & Solomon, Edna, 2015. "UK and EU subsidies and private R&D investment: Is there input additionality?," MPRA Paper 68009, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 16 Nov 2015.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    innovation; innovation system; biotechnology; patents; New Zealand;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • L65 - Industrial Organization - - Industry Studies: Manufacturing - - - Chemicals; Rubber; Drugs; Biotechnology; Plastics
    • L66 - Industrial Organization - - Industry Studies: Manufacturing - - - Food; Beverages; Cosmetics; Tobacco
    • O31 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives
    • O32 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Management of Technological Innovation and R&D
    • O38 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Government Policy

    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:wai:econwp:00/01. 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: Geua Boe-Gibson (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/dewaknz.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.