What is global and what is local in knowledge-generating interaction? The case of the biotech cluster in Uppsala, Sweden

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to describe the structure of the biotech cluster in Uppsala, Sweden, and to analyse how cluster knowledge dynamics result from processes and interactions unfolding at different spatial scales. The empirical basis for the analyses are derived from various sources: business registers, an internet-based survey of 106 firms, 23 in-depth interviews with key individuals, and a longitudinal database give data on the degree to which collaborations, rivalry, business transactions, capital sourcing and labour mobility take place in the local cluster. In addition to asking questions about which interactions are most localized and globalized, respectively, the paper also sets out to give an account of the ‘clusterness’ of the case in point. The paper shows that while the business relations of the biotech companies in Uppsala are strongly globalized, the sourcing of capital, the informal social networking and the labour market dynamics are much more regionalized/localized.

Keywords:

• clusters
• biotechnology
• knowledge
• labour mobility

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to Dominic Power for allowing us to use some arguments, which he was actively involved in first formulating. We are also grateful to Robin Teigland and Göran Lindqvist for allowing us to use both data and some text that were first produced in collaboration with them. An earlier version of this paper was presented at the DRUID summer conference in Copenhagen, Denmark, 27–29 June 2005. Constructive and encouraging comments from discussants and other participants at that event, as well as from the editor and anonymous referees of this journal, are gratefully acknowledged.

Notes

Notes

1.  Whether the cluster can be judged to be successful (innovative, competitive) in relation to other clusters remains indeterminate at this point. In this paper no standard measurements for knowledge generation – or innovativeness or competitiveness – have been used. This makes it difficult to concretely determine if the agglomeration and local interactions outlined in the paper do indeed lead to the creation of more innovations and if firms do in fact become more competitive. However, the purpose of this paper has been to identify relevant actors and study the interactions that stimulate the conditions for knowledge generation, innovation and competitiveness. Consequently, further studies of the actual competitive success of clusters, firms and/or products would add extra weight to the ideas about the importance of local milieux, relations and interactions this paper has rested upon.

2.  A more detailed discussion and presentation of the empirical data on the case in point is to be found especially in Waxell (2005) and in Teigland et al. (2004).

3.  In the beginning of the new millennium, and before Pfizer's acquisition of Pharmacia, the firm was ranked the ninth largest pharmaceutical firm in the world, employing around 60 000 persons worldwide.

4.  Pfizer is at the time of writing withdrawing their operations from Uppsala.

5.  The biotech industry is defined here to consist of firms involved in biotechnological drug development, diagnostics (and certain types of medical technology), bio production, biotech supply (including bioinformatics and chromatography), health food, agricultural biotechnology, environmental biotechnology, and miscellaneous. For a more detailed discussion on the definition and characteristics of the biotech industry see Waxell (2005).

6.  According to some estimates as much as 1.5 billion SEK a year (see Dagens Industri, 19 June 2001 and Dagens Nyheter, 1 January 2002).

7.  The linked firms represent 55 out of 121 limited companies (aktiebolag) in the Uppsala cluster in the year 2002. Excluded in the total number of firms is other organizations not judicially organized as limited companies, such as limited partnerships (kommanditbolag), foundations (stiftelser) and other research and/or other public organizations mainly linked to either of the two universities. The lack of comparative elements makes it difficult to actually measure the cohesiveness within and compared to other biotech clusters (or other industries). However, the analysis reveals that a vast majority (48 firms) are linked to one and the same network, while only 7 firms are excluded from the greater network and forming three separate micro networks (Waxell 2005).

8.  When referring to the interest in the role of labour as a recent turn in cluster research, one should be aware that this factor was very much present, already in Alfred Marshall's (1890) classical analysis of the mechanisms behind industry localization.

9.  The study period comprises mobility between a total of 88 firms and organizations during 1995 to 1999 (for more details see Waxell 2005).