A science-based sector in the making: the formation of the biotechnology sector in two regions

REFERENCES

• Adams, J. D. (2002). Comparative localization of academic and industrial spillovers. Journal of Economic Geography, 2, 253–278. doi:10.1093/jeg/2.3.253
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Adler, P. S., & Kwon, S.-W. (2002). Social capital: Prospects for a new concept. Academy of Management Review, 27(1), 17–40.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Angelakis, A. (2011). Regional competitiveness and research, technology and innovation policies (PhD thesis). University of Crete. [in Greek]
   Google Scholar
• Asheim, B., Boschma, R., & Cooke, P. (2011). Constructing regional advantage: Platform policies based on related variety and differentiated knowledge bases. Regional Studies, 45, 893–904. doi:10.1080/00343404.2010.543126
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Asheim, B., & Coenen, L. (2005). Knowledge bases and regional innovation systems: Comparing Nordic clusters. Research Policy, 34, 1173–1190. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2005.03.013
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Autant-Bernard, C., Fadairo, M., & Massard, N. (2013). Knowledge diffusion and innovation policies within the European regions: Challenges based on recent empirical evidence. Research Policy, 42, 196–210. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2012.07.009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Autant-Bernard, C., & LeSage, J. (2011). Quantifying knowledge spillovers using spatial econometric tools. Journal of Regional Science, 51, 471–496. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9787.2010.00705.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Banerjee, P. M., & Cole, B. M. (2012). A study of biotechnology start-ups undergoing leadership change: Antecedents of change and endogenous performance consequences. Technovation, 32, 568–578. doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2012.05.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bitard, P., Edquist, C., Hommen, L., & Rickne, A. (2008). Reconsidering the paradox of high R&D input and low innovation: Sweden. In C. Edquist & L. Hommen (Eds.), Small country innovation systems: Globalization, change and policy in Asia and Europe (pp. 237–280). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
   Google Scholar
• Bottazzi, L., & Peri, G. (2003). Innovation and spillovers in regions: Evidence from European patent data. European Economic Review, 47, 687–710. doi:10.1016/S0014-2921(02)00307-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burt, R. (1992). Structural holes versus network closure as social capital (pp. 31–56). In N. Lin, K. Cook, & R. Burt (Ed.), (2001) Social capital: Theory and research. New Brunswick: Transaction.
   Google Scholar
• Carlsson, B., Jacobsson, S., Holmén, M., & Rickne, A. (2002). Innovation systems: Analytical and methodological issues. Research Policy, 31, 233–245. doi:10.1016/S0048-7333(01)00138-X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Casper, S. (2007). How do technology clusters emerge and become sustainable? Social network formation and inter-firm mobility within the San Diego biotechnology cluster. Research Policy, 36, 438–455. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2007.02.018
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chesbrough, H. (2003). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
   Google Scholar
• Coenen, L. (2007). The role of universities in the regional innovation systems of the North East of England and Scania, Sweden: Providing missing links? Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 25, 803–821. doi:10.1068/c0579
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Collis, J., & Hussey, R. (2003). Business research: A practical guide for undergraduate and postgraduate students. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Crescenzia, R., Gagliardi, L., & Iammarino, S. (2015). Foreign multinationals and domestic innovation: Intra-industry effects and firm heterogeneity. Research Policy, 44, 596–609. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2014.12.009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Curran, D., Van Egeraat, C., & O’Gorman, C. (2011). New entrants and inherited competence: The evolution of the Irish biotech sector (NIRSA Working Paper Series 66). Maynooth: National University of Ireland.
   Google Scholar
• Edquist, C. (Ed.). (1997). Systems of innovation: Technologies, institutions and organizations. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Edquist, C. (2011). Design of innovation policy through diagnostic analysis: Identification of systemic problems (or failures). Industrial and Corporate Change, 20, 1725–1753. doi:10.1093/icc/dtr060
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fisken, J., & Rutherford, J. (2002). Business models and investment trends in the biotechnology industry in Europe. Journal of Commercial Biotechnology, 8, 191–199.
   Google Scholar
• Foray, D., & Mairesse, J. (2002). The knowledge dilemma and the geography of innovation. In M. Feldman & N. Massard (Eds.), Institutions and systems in the geography of innovation (pp. 35–54). Boston: Kluwer.
   Google Scholar
• Forfás. (2000). Enterprise 2010: A new strategy for the promotion of enterprise in Ireland in the 21st century. Dublin: Forfás.
   Google Scholar
• Forfás. (2011). Analysis of Ireland’s innovation performance. Dublin: Forfás.
   Google Scholar
• Galanakis, K. (2006). Innovation process. Make sense using systems thinking. Technovation, 26, 1222–1232. doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2005.07.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gertler, M. S., & Levitte, Y. M. (2005). Local nodes in global networks: The geography of knowledge flows in biotechnology innovation. Industry and Innovation, 12, 487–507. doi:10.1080/13662710500361981
   Google Scholar
• Göransson, B., & Pålsson, C. M. (2011). Strategies for appropriation of biotechnology. In B. Göransson & C. M. Pålsson (Eds.), Biotechnology and innovation systems: The role of public policy (pp. 1–10). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
   Google Scholar
• Guan, J., Zhang, J., & Yan, Y. (2015). The impact of multilevel network on innovation. Research Policy, 44, 545–559. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2014.12.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hall, B. (2002). The financing of research and development. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 18, 35–51. doi:10.1093/oxrep/18.1.35
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Henning, M., Moodysson, J., & Nilsson, M. (2010). Innovation and regional transformation: From clusters to new combinations. Malmo: Region Skåne.
   Google Scholar
• Hewitt-Dundas, N., & Roper, S. (2008). Ireland’s innovation performance: 1991–2005. Quarterly Economic Commentary, 2008(2), 46–68.
   Google Scholar
• Hilliard, R., & Green, R. (2005). Governance and institutional change in Ireland. In Governance of innovation systems, Volume 2. Case studies in innovation policy (pp. 43–64). Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).
   Google Scholar
• Hite, J., & Hesterly, W. (2001). The evolution of firm networks: From emergence to early growth of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 22, 275–286. doi:10.1002/smj.156
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hopkins, M. M., Martin, P. A., Nightingale, P., Kraft, A., & Mahdi, S. (2007). The myth of the biotech revolution: An assessment of technological, clinical and organisational change. Research Policy, 36, 566–589. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2007.02.013
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Industrial Development Agency (IDA). (2011). Agenda 2000 regionalisation arrangements. Dublin: IDA. Retrieved March 9, 2011, from http://www.idaireland.com/
   Google Scholar
• Intertradeireland. (2003). Mapping the bio-island. A north/south study of the private biotechnology sector. Down: Intertradeireland.
   Google Scholar
• Kuhlmann, S. (2001). Future governance of innovation policy in Europe – three scenarios. Research Policy, 30, 953–976. doi:10.1016/S0048-7333(00)00167-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lowe, N., & Gertler, M. (2009). Building on diversity: Institutional foundations of hybrid strategies in Toronto’s life sciences complex. Regional Studies, 43, 589–603. doi:10.1080/00343400701875179
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lundvall, B. Å. (Ed.). (1992). National systems of innovation. Toward a theory of innovation and interactive learning. London: Pinter.
   Google Scholar
• Lundvall, B. Å., & Borras, S. (2005). Science, technology and innovation policy. In J. Fagerberg, D. Mowery, & R. Nelson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of innovation (pp. 599–631). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Miguélez, E., & Moreno, R. (2015). Knowledge flows and the absorptive capacity of regions. Research Policy, 44, 833–848. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2015.01.016
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mukherji, N., & Silberman, J. (2013). Absorptive capacity, knowledge flows, and innovation in US metropolitan areas. Journal of Regional Science, 53, 392–417.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nauwelaers, C., & Wintjes, R. (Ed.). (2008). Innovation policy in Europe. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
   Google Scholar
• Nelson, R. R. (Ed.). (1993). National innovation systems. A comparative analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2002). Redefining territories: The functional regions. Paris: OECD.
   Google Scholar
• Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2006). The Øresund science region: A cross-border partnership between Denmark and Sweden (Peer Review Report). Paris: OECD.
   Google Scholar
• Pharmachemical Ireland. (2011). Ireland: The location of choice for scientific investment. Dublin: IBEC.
   Google Scholar
• Pisano, G. (2006). Science business: The promise, the reality, and the future of biotech. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pisano, G. (2015). You need an innovation strategy. Harvard Business Review, June.
   Google Scholar
• Rahm, D., Kirkland, J., & Bozeman, B. (2000). University–industry R&D collaboration in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Japan. London: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Reichertz, J. (2007). Abduction: The logic of discovery of grounded theory. In A. Bryant & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The Sage handbook of grounded theory (pp. 215–228). Los Angeles: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Senker, J., Enzing, C., Joly, P., & Reiss, T. (2000). European exploitation of biotechnology – do government policies help? Nature Biotechnology, 18, 605–608. doi:10.1038/76439
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Singh, J., & Agrawal, A. (2011). Recruiting for ideas: How firms exploit the prior inventions of new hires. Management Science, 57, 129–150. doi:10.1287/mnsc.1100.1253
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• SPRU. (2007). BioPolis – Inventory and analysis of national public policies that stimulate research in biotechnology, its exploitation and commercialisation by industry in Europe in the period 2002–2005 (Ed. I. Rafols). National Report of Ireland. Brighton: SPRU.
   Google Scholar
• Ter Wal, A. L. J., & Boschma, R. (2011). Co-evolution of firms, industries and networks in space. Regional Studies, 45, 919–933. doi:10.1080/00343400802662658
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thorslund, J., Elg, L., & Sandgren, P. (2005). The end of an era? Governance of Swedish innovation policy. In Governance of innovation systems: Case studies in innovation policy (pp. 245–282). Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).
   Google Scholar
• Tödtling, F., & Trippl, M. (2005). One size fits all? Towards a differentiated regional innovation policy approach. Research Policy, 34, 1203–1219. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2005.01.018
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vale, M., & Carvalho, L. (2013). Knowledge networks and processes of anchoring in Portuguese biotechnology. Regional Studies, 47(7), 1018–1033. doi:10.1080/00343404.2011.644237
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• VINNOVA. (2007). Effects of VINNVÄXT in Swedish regions (Final Report). Stockholm: VINNOVA.
   Google Scholar
• VINNOVA. (2010). VINNVÄXT at the halfway mark: Experiences and lessons learned. Stockholm: VINNOVA.
   Google Scholar
• Yin, R. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods (Applied Social Research Methods, 2nd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.
   Google Scholar