IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/wzbece/fsi99307.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

High technology governance and institutional adaptiveness: do technology policies usefully promote commercial innovation within the German biotechnology industry?

Author

Listed:
  • Casper, Steven

Abstract

The German economy has widely been seen as failing to develop commercial innovation competencies necessary to compete in biotechnology, information technology, and other emerging new industries. Starting in the mid-1990s the German government has instituted a series of new technology policies designed to orchestrate the development of small entrepreneurial technology firms. These policies have fostered several hundred new entrepreneurial start-ups in Germany, many of which have adopted strategies that differ dramatically from those commonly associated with small and medium sized German firms. Developments in Germany represent an interesting challenge to prevailing institutional theory as applied to the study of advanced industrial economies, which tends to view the characteristics of organizations as strongly constrained by the orientation of a number of key national institutional frameworks. Focusing on biotechnology, this article examines the relative importance of national institutional frameworks as opposed to sector-specific policies that are presently pervasive in Germany. Analysis of the new firms demonstrates that Germany's new technology policies have facilitated important extensions within the business system that have, for the first time, allowed the systematic promotion of entrepreneurial technology companies. However, the dominant strategies of market specialization and company organizational patterns found within these companies have been strongly influenced by incentives and constraints created by long-established national institutional structures.

Suggested Citation

  • Casper, Steven, 1999. "High technology governance and institutional adaptiveness: do technology policies usefully promote commercial innovation within the German biotechnology industry?," Discussion Papers, Research Unit: Economic Change and Employment FS I 99-307, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:wzbece:fsi99307
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/44119/1/301160546.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Steven Casper & Mark Lehrer & David Soskice, 1999. "Can High-technology Industries Prosper in Germany? Institutional Frameworks and the Evolution of the German Software and Biotechnology Industries," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 6(1), pages 5-24.
    2. David J. TEECE, 2008. "Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: The Transfer And Licensing Of Know-How And Intellectual Property Understanding the Multinational Enterprise in the Modern World, chapter 5, pages 67-87, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    3. 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.
    4. Vitols, Sigurt, 1995. "Corporate governance versus economic governance: banks and industrial restructuring in the US and Germany," Discussion Papers, Research Unit: Economic Change and Employment FS I 95-310, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    5. Mark Lehrer, 1997. "German Industrial Strategy in Turbulence: Corporate Governance and Managerial Hierarchies in Lufthansa," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 4(1), pages 115-140.
    6. Miller,Gary J., 1992. "Managerial Dilemmas," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521372817.
    7. Edwards,Jeremy & Fischer,Klaus, 1996. "Banks, Finance and Investment in Germany," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521566087.
    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. Nooteboom, B. & Gilsing, V.A., 2004. "Density And Strength Of Ties In Innovation Networks: A Competence And Governance View," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2004-005-ORG, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    2. Gilsing, V. & Nooteboom, B., 2004. "Density and strength of ties in innovation networks: an analysis of multimedia and biotechnology," Working Papers 04.16, Eindhoven Center for Innovation Studies.
    3. Gilsing, V.A. & Nooteboom, B., 2004. "Co-evolution in innovation systems: the case of pharmaceutical biotechnology," Working Papers 04.09, Eindhoven Center for Innovation Studies.

    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. Casper, Steven & Whitley, Richard, 2004. "Managing competences in entrepreneurial technology firms: a comparative institutional analysis of Germany, Sweden and the UK," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 89-106, January.
    2. Casper, Steven & Matraves, Catherine, 2003. "Institutional frameworks and innovation in the German and UK pharmaceutical industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(10), pages 1865-1879, December.
    3. Casper, Steven, 1999. "National institutional frameworks and high-technology innovation in Germany: the case of biotechnology," Discussion Papers, Research Unit: Economic Change and Employment FS I 99-306, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    4. Steven Casper & Catherine Matraves, 1997. "Corporate Governance and Firm Strategy in the Pharmaceutical Industry," CIG Working Papers FS IV 97-20, Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin (WZB), Research Unit: Competition and Innovation (CIG).
    5. Steven Casper & Richard Whitley, 2002. "Managing competences in entrepreneurial technology firms: a comparative institutional analysis of Germany, Sweden and the UK," Working Papers wp230, Centre for Business Research, University of Cambridge.
    6. Steven Casper;Hannah Kettler, 2000. "The Road to Sustainability in the UK and German Biotechnology Industries," Monograph 000466, Office of Health Economics.
    7. Vitols, Sigurt, 2004. "Changes in Germany's bank-based financial system: A varieties of capitalism perspective," Discussion Papers, Research Unit: Institutions, States, Markets SP II 2004-03, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    8. Klaus Brockhoff, 2006. "Technologischer Wandel und Corporate Governance," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 58(54), pages 7-31, January.
    9. Gilsing, Victor & Nooteboom, Bart, 2006. "Exploration and exploitation in innovation systems: The case of pharmaceutical biotechnology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 1-23, February.
    10. Kafouros, Mario & Wang, Chengqi & Piperopoulos, Panagiotis & Zhang, Mingshen, 2015. "Academic collaborations and firm innovation performance in China: The role of region-specific institutions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(3), pages 803-817.
    11. Hopkins, Michael M. & Nightingale, Paul, 2006. "Strategic risk management using complementary assets: Organizational capabilities and the commercialization of human genetic testing in the UK," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 355-374, April.
    12. Mahoney, Joseph T., 2012. "Towards a Stakeholder Theory of Strategic Management," Working Papers 12-0100, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, College of Business.
    13. J. P. Eggers & Sarah Kaplan, 2009. "Cognition and Renewal: Comparing CEO and Organizational Effects on Incumbent Adaptation to Technical Change," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(2), pages 461-477, April.
    14. Rothaermel, Frank T., 2001. "Complementary assets, strategic alliances, and the incumbent's advantage: an empirical study of industry and firm effects in the biopharmaceutical industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(8), pages 1235-1251, October.
    15. Kim, Jongwook & Mahoney, Joseph T., 2005. "Appropriating Economic Rents from Resources: An Integrative Property Rights and Resource-Based Approach," Working Papers 05-0123, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, College of Business.
    16. Jaideep Anand & Raffaele Oriani & Roberto S. Vassolo, 2010. "Alliance Activity as a Dynamic Capability in the Face of a Discontinuous Technological Change," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(6), pages 1213-1232, December.
    17. Maryam Zehtabchi, 2019. "Measuring Innovation in the Autonomous Vehicle Technology," WIPO Economic Research Working Papers 60, World Intellectual Property Organization - Economics and Statistics Division.
    18. Jongwook Kim & Joseph T. Mahoney, 2002. "Resource-based and property rights perspectives on value creation: the case of oil field unitization," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 23(4-5), pages 225-245.
    19. S. Arunachalam & Sridhar N. Ramaswami & Pol Herrmann & Doug Walker, 2018. "Innovation pathway to profitability: the role of entrepreneurial orientation and marketing capabilities," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 46(4), pages 744-766, July.
    20. Krickx, Guido A., 1995. "Vertical integration in the computer mainframe industry: A transaction cost interpretation," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 75-91, January.

    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:zbw:wzbece:fsi99307. 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/wzbbbde.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.