Small Business Economics

, Volume 20, Issue 4, pp 287–303 | Cite as

Growth Dynamics in the Biomedical/Biotechnology System

  • Dilek Çetindamar
  • Jens Laage-Hellman


This article aims to understand the dynamics of growth in the biomedical/biotechnology system that consists of a variety of actors ranging from universities, medical supplies firms, and drug research firms, to clinical service suppliers. Based on a comparative study made in Ohio and in Sweden, we have analyzed three main factors: technology competencies, technology transfer, and networking capabilities. Our findings show a set of differences that can be grouped into two categories, viz. management and agglomeration externalities. Differences in management appear at three points: the resources allocated to technological competence development, managerial skills in the technology transfer phase, and the use of technology councils. Ohio seems to offer a better environment for starting up new firms and enabling these firms to successfully commercialize their technological assets. The agglomeration externalities that make a difference between the two regions might be grouped into two categories: increasing returns arising from network externalities and the advantages of networking with a variety of supporting organizations in the system.


Service Supplier Technology Transfer Industrial Organization Transfer Phase Clinical Service 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Acharya, R., 1998, 'Conclusions: Biotechnology and European Competitiveness', in J. Senker and R. V. Vliet (eds.), Biotechnology and Competitive Advantage, Cheltenham, U.K.: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  2. Arrow, K. J., 1962, 'The Economic Implications of Learning by Doing', Review of Economic Studies 29(80), 155-173.Google Scholar
  3. Audretsch, D. B. and M. P. Feldman, 1996, 'R&D Spillovers and the Geography of Innovation and Production', American-Economic-Review 86(3), 30-40.Google Scholar
  4. Baunach, D. C., M. P. Furgalus and L. K. Shesser, 1993, 'Biotechnology: What's ahead for Ohio?', Ohio Journal of Science 93, 2-6.Google Scholar
  5. Battelle, 1993, Ohio's Technology Strengths, a Report to the Ohio Science and Technology Council. Columbus: Battelle.Google Scholar
  6. Berry, D., 1996, 'Technological Innovation and Diffusion in Cleveland's Biomedical/Biotechnology Industries', mimeo, Case Western Reserve University.Google Scholar
  7. Biemans, W. G., 1992, Managing Innovation within Networks, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. Carlsson, B. and R. Stankiewicz, 1991, 'On the Nature, Function, and Composition of Technological Systems', Journal of Evolutionary Economics 1(2), 93-118.Google Scholar
  9. Carlsson, B. and G. Eliasson, 1995, 'The Nature and Importance of Economic Competence', in B. Carlsson (ed.), Technological Systems and Economic Performance: The Case of Factory Automation, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  10. Carlsson, B., 1997, 'Four Technological Systems: What Have We Learned?', in B. Carlsson (ed.), Technological Systems: Cases, Analyses, Comparisons, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  11. Carlsson, B. and S. Jacobsson, 1997, 'Diversity Creation and Technological Systems: A Technology Policy Perspective', in C. Edquist (ed.), Systems of Innovation: Technologies, Institutions and Organizations, London: Pinter Publishers.Google Scholar
  12. Carlsson, B. and P. Braunerhjelm, 1998, 'Industry Clusters: Biotechnology/Biomedicine and Polymers in Ohio and Sweden', in D. Audretsch and R. Thurik (eds.), Innovation, Industry Evolution and Employment, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Carlsson, B., New Technological Systems in the Bio Industries-An International Study, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, forthcoming.Google Scholar
  14. EBTC, 1994, Biotechnology Development and Company Formation in Ohio, June, Special Report, Cleveland: EBTC.Google Scholar
  15. EBTC, 1998, The Directory of Edison Biotechnology Center, Cleveland, Ohio: EBTC.Google Scholar
  16. Eliasson, G., 1997, The Venture Capitalist as a Competent Outsider, KTH/ IEO/ R-97/ 6-SE, Stockholm: the Royal Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  17. Goetz, S. J. and R. S. Morgan, 1995, 'State Level Locational Determinants Of Biotechnology Firms', Economic Development Quarterly 9(2), 174-184.Google Scholar
  18. Granberg, A., 1997, 'Mapping the Cognitive and Institutional Structures of an Evolving Advanced-Materials Field: The Case of Powder Technology', in B. Carlsson (ed.), 302 Dilek Çetindamar and Jens Laage-Hellman Technological Systems: Cases, Analyses, Comparisons, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  19. Grönberg, A-M., 1996, Nordiska Företag i Medicinsk Teknik (Nordic Firms in Medical Technology), Huddinge: Bioprint Publishing and Consulting AB.Google Scholar
  20. Jaffe, A. B., M. Trajtenberg and R. Henderson, 1993, 'Geographic Localization of Knowledge Spillovers as Evidenced by Patent Citations', Quarterly Journal of Economics 100(3), 577-598.Google Scholar
  21. Karaömerlioglu, D. C. and S. Jacobsson, 2000, 'The Swedish Venture Capital Industry-an Infant, Adolescent or Grown-up?', Venture Capital 2(1), 61-88.Google Scholar
  22. Karaömerlioglu, D. C. and Å. Lindholm-Dahlstrand, 1999, 'Dynamics of Innovation Financing in Sweden', 44th ICSB World Conference (International Conference for Small Business), 20-23 June, Naples, Italy.Google Scholar
  23. Keeble, D. and R. Oakey, 1997, 'Spatial Variations in Innovation in High-Technology Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises: A Review', in A. Cosh and A. Hughes (eds.), Innovation: National Policies, Legal Perspectives and the Role of Smaller Firms, London: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  24. Laage-Hellman, J., 1998, 'Den Biomedicinska Industrin i Sverige' (The Biomedical Industry in Sweden), NUTEK B 1998:8, Stockholm: Swedish National Board for Technical and Industrial Development.Google Scholar
  25. Lindholm-Dahlstrand, Å., 1997, 'Spin-Off and Acquisition of Small Technology-Based Firms', in J. Evans and M. Klofsten (eds.), Technology, Innovation and Enterprise: The European Experience, London: Macmillan Press.Google Scholar
  26. Lindholm-Dahlstrand, Å., 1998, 'Incubators for Small Technology-Based Firms', paper presented at the Sixth Annual High Technology Small Firms Conference, 4-5 June 1998, University of Twente, Enschede, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
  27. Lundkvist, U. and Sjöberg, B. (eds.), 1999, Biologi och Teknik i Samverkan: Kompetensområden för en Bredare Industriell Bas (Biology and Technology in cooperation: competence areas for a broader industrial base)', Stockholm: Swedish National Board for Technical and Industrial Development.Google Scholar
  28. Martin, P. and S. Thomas, 1998, 'The Commercialization Gap In Gene Therapy: Lessons For European Competitiveness', in J. Senker and R. V. Vliet (eds.), Biotechnology and Competitive Advantage, Cheltenham, U.K.: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  29. McGrath, K., 1994, Current State of the Biomedical Technology Industries of Greater Cleveland and Recommendations for Future Development, A report prepared for EBTC, May 9, Cleveland: EBTC.Google Scholar
  30. Nilsson, A., 1998, Biotechnology Firms in Sweden: The Emergence of a New Business Model, Centre for Medical Innovations, Stockholm: The Karolinska Institute.Google Scholar
  31. Peth-Pierce, R., 1995, What Would You Do To Help Biotech?, A report prepared for EBTC, May 16, Cleveland: EBTC.Google Scholar
  32. Porter, M. E., 1990, The Competitive Advantage of Nations, New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  33. Prahalad, C. K. and G. Hamel, 1990, 'The Core Competence of the Corporation', Harvard Business Review 69(3), 79-91.Google Scholar
  34. Saviotti, P. P., 1998, 'Industrial Structure and the Dynamics of Knowledge Generation in Biotechnology', in J. Senker and R. V. Vliet (eds.), Biotechnology and Competitive Advantage, Cheltenham, U.K.: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  35. Saxenian, A., 1994, Regional Advantage: Culture and Competition in Silicon Valley and Route 128, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  36. SBA, 1999, Http://Www.Sba.Gov/SBIR/Otacc.Html.Google Scholar
  37. Senker, J., 1996, 'National Systems of Innovation, Organizational Learning and Industrial Biotechnology', Technovation 16(5), 219-229.Google Scholar
  38. Senker, J. and R. V. Vliet (eds.), 1998, Biotechnology and Competitive Advantage, Cheltenham, U.K.: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  39. Sharp, M., S. Thomas, and P. Martin, 1993, 'Chemicals and Biotechnology', Working Paper, STEEP. Brighton: SPRU.Google Scholar
  40. Shaw, B., 1991, 'Developing Technological Innovations within Networks', Entrepreneurship and Regional Development 3, 111-128.Google Scholar
  41. Swann, G. M. P., M. Prevezer and D. Stout, 1998, The Dynamics of Industrial Clustering, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Tson Söderström, H., 2001, Sverige i den ny ekonomiska geografin ( Sweden in the new economic geography), Stockholm: SNS Förlag.Google Scholar
  43. U.K. Department of Trade and Industry, 1999, 'Biotechnology Clusters: Report of a Team Led by Lord Sainsbury, Minister for Science', Scholar
  44. Zucker, L. M., M. Darby and M. Brewer, 1994, 'Intellectual Capital and the Birth of U.S. Biotechnology Enterprises', Working Paper No. 4653, National Bureau of Economic Research.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dilek Çetindamar
    • 1
  • Jens Laage-Hellman
    • 2
  1. 1.Graduate School of ManagementSabanci University TuzlaIstanbulTurkey
  2. 2.Department of Industrial MarketingChalmers University of TechnologyGothenburgSweden E-mail

Personalised recommendations