The Bio-economy and the Competition State: Transcending the Dichotomy between Coordinated and Liberal Market Economies

Abstract

This article examines the role of the state in the emerging bio-economy. The starting point is that state interventions, including supportive regulatory arrangements and the shaping of public attitudes, constitute core assets in the evolution of bio-industrial complexes. Public policy in the bio-economy, across advanced industrial countries, is well captured by the “competition state” concept. This type of state takes different forms, analogously with the historical variants of the Keynesian welfare state. The article compares patterns of governance of the biotechnology sector in Finland and Sweden, the USA and the UK, and Australia. It is concluded that the bio-industry sector does not fit with the “models of capitalism” paradigm which postulates coherence within, and systemic divergences between, national models of economic governance. The bio-economy displays trends toward convergence, in particular mounting public investments in health care and in research and development. On the other hand, countries differ in their approach to market regulation, industrial support, and ethical restrictions. These differences do not follow the dichotomy between “liberal” and “coordinated” models of capitalism.

Notes

^*This paper is an extensively revised version of a paper presented at the DRUID Tenth Anniversary Summer Conference on Dynamics of Industry and Innovation: Organizations, Networks and Systems, Copenhagen Business School, Copenhagen, June 27–29, 2005. We wish to acknowledge insightful comments provided by two anonymous reviewers.

¹ OECD, Biotechnology for Sustainable Growth and Development (Paris: OECD, 2004), p. 5, available online at: < http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/43/2/33784888.PDF> (accessed August 2006).

² Luigi Orsenigo, The Emergence of Biotechnology: Institutions and Markets in Industrial Innovation (London: Pinter, 1989).

³ Carlota Perez, Technological Revolutions and Financial Capital: The Dynamics of Bubbles and Golden Ages (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2002).

⁴ Manuel Castells, The Rise of the Network Society, 2nd ed., The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture (Oxford: Blackwell, 2000).

⁵ Bo Carlsson and Ram Mudambi, “Globalization, Entrepreneurship, and Public Policy: A Systems View,” Industry and Innovation 10:1 (2003), pp. 103–116; Charles Edquist, “Reflections on the Systems of Innovation Approach,” Science and Public Policy 31:6 (2004), pp. 485–489.

⁶ See, for instance, Philip G. Cerny, The Changing Architecture of Politics: Structure, Agency and the Future of the State (London: Sage, 1990); Philip G. Cerny, “Paradoxes of the Competition State: The Dynamics of Political Globalization,” Government and Opposition 32:2 (1997), pp. 251–274; Joachim Hirsch, “From the Fordist to the Post-Fordist State,” in Bob Jessop et al. (eds), The Politics of Flexibility: Restructuring State and Industry in Britain, Germany and Scandinavia (Aldershot: Edward Elgar, 1991), pp. 67–81; Bob Jessop, “Fordism and Post-Fordism: A Critical Reformulation,” in Michael Storper and Allen J. Scott (eds), Pathways to Industrialization and Regional Development (London: Routledge, 1992), pp. 46–69; Bob Jessop, The Future of the Capitalist State (Oxford: Polity Press, 2002); Dirk Messner, The Network Society: Economic Development and International Competitiveness as Problems of Social Governance (London: Frank Cass, 1997); Perez, Technological Revolutions and Financial Capital.

⁷ Peter A. Hall and David Soskice, “An Introduction to Varieties of Capitalism,” in Peter A. Hall and David Soskice (eds), Varieties of Capitalism: The Institutional Foundations of Comparative Advantage (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), pp. 1–70; see also, for instance, Robert Boyer, How and Why Capitalisms Differ, MPIfG Discussion Paper 05/4 (Cologne: Max-Planck-Institut fur Gesellschaftsforschung, 2005), available online at: < http://www.mpi-fg-koeln.mpg.de/pu/abstracts/dp05-4.html> (accessed January 2006); and David Coates, Models of Capitalism: Growth and Stagnation in the Modern Era (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2000).

⁸ Annegrethe Hansen, “Biotechnology Regulation: Limiting or Contributing to Biotech Development?” New Genetics and Society 20:3 (2001), pp. 255–271.

⁹ Hans Lofgren and Mats Benner, “Biotechnology and Governance in Australia and Sweden: Path Dependency or Institutional Convergence,” Australian Journal of Political Science 38:1 (2003), pp. 25–43.

¹⁰ Bert A. Rockman, “The Changing Role of the State,” in B. Guy Peters and Donald J. Savoie (eds), Taking Stock: Assessing Public Sector Reform (Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press, 1998), pp. 20–44; Jessop, The Future of the Capitalist State.

¹¹ Andrew Gamble, “Neo-liberalism,” Capital & Class 75 (2001), pp. 127–134; David Harvey, A Brief History of Neoliberalism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005).

¹² Colin Crouch and Wolfgang Streeck, “Introduction: The Future of Capitalist Diversity,” in Colin Crouch and Wolfgang Streeck (eds), Political Economy of Modern Capitalism: Mapping Convergence and Diversity (London: Sage, 1997), pp. 1–18.

¹³ Robert Boyer and Jean-Pierre Durand, After Fordism (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1997); Hirsch, “From the Fordist to the Post-Fordist State”; Pascal Petit, “Structural Forms and Growth Regimes of the Post-Fordist Era,” Review of Social Economy 57:2 (1999), pp. 220–243.

¹⁴ Rikard Stankiewicz, “The Concept of ‘Design Space’,” in John Ziman (ed., Technological Innovation as an Evolutionary Process (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), pp. 234–247.

¹⁵ Philip Cooke, “Biosciences and the Rise of Regional Science Policy,” Science and Public Policy 31:3 (2004), pp. 185–197; Philip Cooke, “The Evolution of Biotechnology in Three Continents: Schumpeterian or Penrosian? (Editorial),” European Planning Studies 11:7 (2003), pp. 757–763; Philip Cooke, “Regional Knowledge Capabilities, Embeddedness of Firms and Industry Organisation: Bioscience Megacentres and Economic Geography,” European Planning Studies 12:5 (2004), pp. 625–641; Maureen McKelvey, Annika Rickne, and Jens Laage-Hellman, “Stylized Facts about Innovation Processes in Modern Biotechnology,” in Maureen McKelvey, Annika Rickne, and Jens Laage-Hellman (eds), The Economic Dynamics of Modern Biotechnology (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2004), pp. 43–75; Rikard Stankiewicz, “The Cognitive Dynamics of Biotechnology and the Evolution of its Technological System,” in Bo Carlsson (ed.), Technological Systems in the Bio Industries (Boston: Kluwer, 2001), pp. 35–52.

¹⁶ See, for example, Jan Fagerberg, David C. Mowery, and Richard Nelson (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Innovation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005).

¹⁷ Ulrich Hilpert, “State-Induced Participation in New World Market,” in Ulrich Hilpert (ed.), State Policies and Techno-Industrial Innovation (London: Routledge, 1991), pp. 331–345.

¹⁸ David M. Hart, “Private Technological Capabilities as Products of National Innovation Systems: Four Ways of Looking at the State,” Science and Public Policy 29:3 (2002), pp. 181–188.

¹⁹ B. T. Asheim and M. S. Gertler, “The Geography of Innovation: Regional Innovation Systems,” in J. Fagerberg, D. C. Mowery, and R. R. Nelson (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Innovation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), pp. 291–371.

²⁰ Cooke, “The Evolution of Biotechnology in Three Continents”; Cooke, “Regional Knowledge Capabilities, Embeddedness of Firms and Industry Organisation.”

²¹ Keith E. Maskus and Jerome H. Reichman, “The Globalization of Private Knowledge Goods and the Privatization of Global Public Goods,” Journal of International Economic Law 7:2 (2004), pp. 279–320.

²² Craig Cormick, “Social Causes of Public Concerns about Developments in Biotechnology in Australia: Comparisons with Other Countries and Lessons for Asia,” Biotechnology Australia, 2005, available online at: < http://www.biotechnology.gov.au/library/content_library/BA_Asia_technologies_2004.pdf> (accessed October 2005).

²³ Bo Rothstein, “Social Capital, Economic Growth and Quality of Government: The Causal Mechanism,” New Political Economy 8:1 (2003), pp. 49–71.

²⁴ Cerny, The Changing Architecture of Politics; Cerny, “Paradoxes of the Competition State”; Jessop, The Future of the Capitalist State; Colin Hay, “Re-stating Politics, Re-politicising the State: Neo-liberalism, Economic Imperatives and the Rise of the Competition State,” Political Quarterly 75:1 (2004), pp. 38–50.

²⁵ Boyer and Durand, After Fordism; Hirsch, “From the Fordist to the Post-Fordist State”; J. R. Hollingsworth and R. Boyer, “Coordination of Economic Actors and Social Systems of Production,” in J. R. Hollingsworth and R. Boyer (eds), Contemporary Capitalism: The Embeddedness of Institutions (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), pp. 1–47; Jessop, “Fordism and Post-Fordism: A Critical Reformulation.”

²⁶ Jessop, The Future of the Capitalist State, p. 110.

²⁷ Bob Jessop, “The Rise of Governance and the Risks of Failure,” International Social Science Journal 50:1 (1998), pp. 29–46; Jon Pierre, “Introduction: Understanding Governance,” in Jon Pierre (ed.), Debating Governance (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), pp. 1–10; Gerry Stoker, “Governance as Theory: Five Propositions,” International Social Science Journal 50:1 (1998), pp. 155–172.

²⁸ Bob Jessop, “Liberalism, Neoliberalism, and Urban Governance: A State-Theoretical Perspective,” Antipode 34 (2002), pp. 452–472.

²⁹ Philip Cooke, “Rational Drug Design, the Knowledge Value Chain and Bioscience Megacentres,” Cambridge Journal of Economics 29:3 (2005), pp. 325–341.

³⁰ Finnish Bioindustries, “Biotechnology: A Promising High Tech Sector in Finland,” available online at: < http://www.finbio.net/artikkelit/nature-fin2.htm> (accessed October 2005); Sweden Bio, available online at: < www.swedenbio.se> (accessed September 2005).

³¹ Göran Marklund et al., “The Swedish National Innovation System 1970–2003” (Stockholm: Vinnova, 2004), available online at: < http://www.vinnova.se/main.aspx?ID = 49bb9765-4ac7-4e4f-a7b5-cd12ef38d318> (accessed January 2006).

³² Manuel Castells and Pekka Himanen, The Information Society and the Welfare State: The Finnish Model (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004).

³³ Raine Hermans, Martti Kulvik, and Pekka Yiä-Anttila, “International Mega-Trends and Growth Prospects of the Finnish Biotechnology Industry: Recent Economic Research and Policy Implications,” Journal of Commercial Biotechnology 11:2 (2005), pp. 134–145.

³⁴ H. Bruun, “The Emergence of a Regional Innovation Network,” in Gerd Schienstock (ed.), Embracing the Knowledge Economy: The Dynamic Transformation of the Finnish Innovation System (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2004), pp. 147–168.

³⁵ Näringsdepartementet, Innovativa Sverige: En Strategi för Tillväxt Genom Förnyelse, Ds 2004:36 (Stockhom: Fritzes Offentliga Publikationer, 2004).

³⁶ Ernst & Young, Queensland Biotechnology Report 2003 (Brisbane: Queensland Government, 2004), available online at: < http://www.ey.com/global/download.nsf/Australia/Australian_Biotechnology_Report_2004/$file/QueenslandBiotechnologyReport2004.pdf> (accessed August 2005).

³⁷ Anna Nilsson, “The Swedish Biotechnology Industry,” Small Business Economics 17:1/2 (2001), pp. 93–102.

³⁸ Directive 98/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of July 6, 1998 on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions, OJ L 213, July 30, 1998.

³⁹ Australia is a federation encompassing six States and two Territories. Economic policy is principally the responsibility of the federal government, but the States deploy significant resources to attract business investments.

⁴⁰ Ernst & Young, Australian Biotechnology Report 2001, available online at: < http://www.biotechnology.gov.au/index.cfm?event = object.showContent&objectID = 0B772A21-BCD6-81AC-1474B9C3F8342B8D> (accessed January 2006); Australian Trade Commission, Biotechnology Capability Overview, available online at: < http://www.austrade.gov.au/overseas/layout/0,0_S3-1_3zo-2_-3_PWB110706898-4_-5_-6_-7_,00.html> (accessed August 2006).

⁴¹ Medicines Australia, “At a Glance: Pharmaceutical Fact Sheet, “ available online at: < http://www.medicinesaustralia.com.au/public/At_A_Glance_2001.pdf> (accessed July 2005).

⁴² Hans Lofgren, “Industry Policy to Set the Market Free: Drug Pricing and the Factor (f) Program,” Labour & Industry 8:2 (1997), pp. 67–84.

⁴³ Francis Castles, Australian Public Policy and Economic Vulnerability: A Comparative and Historical Perspective (Sydney: Allen & Unwin, 1988); Boris Frankel, When the Boat Comes In: Transforming Australia in the Age of Globalisation (Annandale, NSW: Pluto Press, 2001).

⁴⁴ Paul Kelly, “The Politics of Economic Change in Australia in the 1980s and 1990s,” in D. Gruen and S. Shrestha (eds), The Australian Economy in the 1990s: RBA Conference (Canberra: Reserve Bank of Australia, 2000), pp. 222–234.

⁴⁵ Michael E. Porter, The Competitive Advantage of Nations (New York: Free Press, 1990).

⁴⁶ See, for instance, Barry Jones, Sleepers, Wake!: Technology & the Future of Work (Melbourne: Oxford University Press, 1995).

⁴⁷ Don Scott-Kemmis, “Innovation Systems in Australia,” Growth (Committee for Economic Development of Australia) 53 (2004), pp. 45–72. For statistical and other data, see Department of Education, Science and Training, available online at: < http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/science_innovation/policy_issues_reviews/key_issues/science_and_innovation_analysis.htm#Science_and_Innovation_Statistics> (accessed August 2006).

⁴⁸ Australian Research Council, “National Survey of Research Commercialisation: Year 2000” (Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia, 2002), available online at: < http://www.arc.gov.au/pdf/AURC003.pdf> (accessed June 2005).

⁴⁹ Department of Education Science and Training, “Backing Australia's Ability,” Department of Education, Science and Training, 2005, available online at: < http://backingaus.innovation.gov.au/default2004.htm#> (accessed June 2005).

⁵⁰ Industry Science and Resources, Annual Report 1998–99 (Canberra: Department of Industry, Science and Resources, 1999).

⁵¹ Buchan Communications Group, Feasibility Study Establishment of a National Biotechnology Organisation: Final Report (Canberra: Biotechnology Australia, 2000).

⁵³ Nick Minchin, “Opening Address: Launch of National Biotechnology Strategy” (2000).

⁵² Industry Science and Resources, Annual Report 1999–2000 (Canberra: The Department, 2000).

⁵⁴ OECD, Policy Brief: Modern Biotechnology and the OECD (Paris: OECD, 1999).

⁵⁵ See Office of the Gene Technology Regulator, < http://www.ogtr.gov.au/>.

⁵⁷ Department of Industry Science and Resources, Australian Biotechnology Report (Canberra: AusInfo, 1999).

⁵⁶ Sam Ricketson, Intellectual Property Administration and Policy in Australia (Melbourne: Faculty of Law, Monash University, 2000).

⁵⁸ Department of Industry Science and Resources, Australian Biotechnology Report (Canberra: AusInfo, 1999).

⁵⁹ Industry Science and Resources, Annual Report 1998–99.

⁶⁰ Craig Cormick, Social Causes of Public Concerns about Developments in Biotechnology in Australia: Comparisons with other Countries and Lessons for Asia (Melbourne: Biotechnology Australia, 2005).

⁶¹  OECD Factbook: Economic, Environmental and Social Statistics (Paris: OECD, 2005), available online at: < http://caliban.sourceoecd.org/vl = 740119/cl = 29/nw = 1/rpsv/factbook/06-02-04.htm> (accessed November 2005).

⁶² Eva Ohlin, The Structure and Financing of Medical Research in the United States: An Overview (Östersund: Swedish Institute for Growth Policy Studies, 2004), available online at: < http://www.itps.se/Archive/Documents/Swedish/Publikationer/Rapporter/Allm%E4nna/A2004/A2004_006.pdf> (accessed January 2006).

⁶³ David B. Audretsch, “The Role of Small Firms in U.S. Biotechnology Clusters,” Small Business Economics 17:1/2 (2001), pp. 3–16; Lynne G. Zucker, Michael R. Darby, and Marilyn B. Brewer, “Intellectual Human Capital and the Birth of the US Biotechnology Enterprises,” American Economic Review 88:1 (1998), pp. 290–306.

⁶⁴ Cooke, “Regional Knowledge Capabilities, Embeddedness of Firms and Industry Organisation.”

⁶⁵ Peter Drahos and John Braithwaite, “Intellectual Property, Corporate Strategy, Globalisation: TRIPS in Context,” Wisconsin International Law Journal 19 (2001), pp. 451–480; Peter Drahos and John Braithwaite, “Who Own the Knowledge Economy: Political Organising behind TRIPS,” Briefing Paper 32 (London: The Corner House, 2004).

⁶⁶ R. J. Kenney, “How to Conduct Non-Federal Stem Cell Research without Violating the Federal Stem Cell Funding Prohibition,” Medical Research Law & Policy Report 4:1 (2005), pp. 39–46.

⁶⁷ Shereen Eli Feki, “Prescription for Change: A Survey of Pharmaceuticals,” The Economist, June 18, 2005.

⁶⁸ Sheila Jasanoff, Designs on Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005).

⁶⁹ Leo Panitch, “The Impoverishment of State Theory,” Socialism and Democracy 13:2 (1999), p. 30.