Doing Business in Biotech: European Paradigm Versus American Success



Entrepreneurship is the central element of growth and economic development. In the absence of it, however abundant and available the economic resources may be, progress cannot be achieved in any field of activity. The entrepreneurial process presents both common and specific elements, depending on the level of economic development, the pace of technical progress, the social and cultural elements, the applied development strategies and policies, the level of education, the conjectural aspects, etc. For this reason, a comparative analysis of successful factors in entrepreneurship can make a valuable contribution to identifying aspects that can decisively influence the stimulation and sustainable development of entrepreneurship. We refer here to national, regional, or microeconomic level effects and to the level of various fields of activity such as biotechnology. The American entrepreneurial process is characterized as the most advanced in the world, and this is intended to encourage other countries to make sustained efforts to reduce development gaps in entrepreneurship. As far as US entrepreneurship in biotech is concerned, there is an important difference between it and the degree of development of entrepreneurship at European level for several reasons. Thus, identifying the similarities and differences between the European and American perspectives on entrepreneurship in biotech can reveal several directions for action to increase the speed of development of this field in the future.


Entrepreneurship Entrepreneurial process Biotechnology industry European approach American perspective Comparative analyses Reduce the gap  


  1. Acs ZJ (2010) High impact entrepreneurship. In: Acs ZJ, Audretsch DB (eds) Handbook of entrepreneurship research. An interdisciplinary survey and introduction, 2nd edn. Springer, New York, NY, pp 165–182. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Acs ZJ, Szerb L (2006) Entrepreneurship, economic growth and public policy. Small Bus Econ (2007) 28:109–122. Springer. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Acs J, Aldrich HE, Audretsch DB, Baumol WJ, Boko S, Gatewood EJ, Johannisson B, Reynolds PD, Sabel C, Thurik RA, Lundström A (2009) The role of SMEs and entrepreneurship in a globalised economy. Expert report no. 34 to Sweden’s Globalisation Council.
  4. Aernoudt R (2004) Incubators: tool for entrepreneurship? Small Bus Econ 23(2):127–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ahn MJ, Meeks M (2008) Building a conducive environment for life science-based entrepreneurship and industry clusters. J Commer Biotechnol 14:20–30. Published online 27 Nov 2007. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Aldrich HE, Martinez MA (2010) Entrepreneurship as social construction: a multilevel evolutionary approach. In: Acs ZJ, Audretsch DB (eds) Handbook of entrepreneurship research. An interdisciplinary survey and introduction, 2nd edn. Springer, New York, p 387–430. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Annual Report on European SMEs (2017/2018). In: Hope K (ed) The 10th anniversary of the Small Business Act, SME performance review 2017/2018, Contract number: EASME/COSME/2017/031, November 2018, European UnionGoogle Scholar
  8. Audretsch DB, Thurik R, Verheul I, Wennekers S (eds) (2002) Understanding entrepreneurship across countries and over time, in entrepreneurship: determinants and policy in a european-us comparison, Economics of science, technology and innovation, vol 27. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp 1–10.,+Biotechnology,+Entrepreneurship,+European,+paradigm,+American,+success,+Perspective,+Key+elements,+Gap&ots=n5VO9YQ1cw&sig=RL3NYj9CWly7wDZJMN97ntX2qV8&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false Google Scholar
  9. Bagchi-Sen S, Smith HL, Hall L (2016) The US biotechnology industry: industry dynamics and policy. Environ Plan C Gov Policy 22(2):199–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Birch K, Levidow L, Papaioannou T (2012). Self-fulfilling prophecies of the European knowledge-based bio-economy: the discursive shaping of institutional and policy frameworks in the biopharmaceuticals sector. J Knowl Econ.
  11. Etzkowitz H (1998) The norms of entrepreneurial science: cognitive effects of the new university-industry linkages. Res Policy 27:823–833. Elsevier. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Expert Group Report: Review of the EU Bioeconomy Strategy and Its Action Plan (2017) European Commission, Directorate General for Research and Innovation, Directorate F – Bioeconomy, Brussels. Publications Office of the European Union.
  13. Feldman M, Francis J, Bercovitz J (2005) Creating a cluster while building a firm: entrepreneurs and the formation of industrial clusters. Reg Stud 39(1):129–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gompers P, Lerner J (2001) The venture capital revolution. J Econ Perspect 15(2):145–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hine D, Kapeleris J (2006) Innovation and entrepreneurship in biotechnology, an international perspective. Concepts, theories and cases. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Shimasaki CD (2009) The business of bioscience: what goes into making a biotechnology product. Springer, New York. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Shimasaki CD (ed) (2014) Biotechnology entrepreneurship. Starting, managing, and leading biotech companies. Elsevier, Waltham, MA. Google Scholar
  18. Taylor J (2011) The ‘leverage’ start-up model, trade secrets, a blog from nature biotechnology. Google Scholar
  19. The Knowledge Base Bio-Economy (KBBE) in Europe: achievements and challenges, full report (14 September 2010), European Commission, European Research Area, coordinated by Clever Consult BVBA (Belgium).

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Commerce, Economic Integration and Business AdministrationRomanian-American UniversityBucharestRomania

Personalised recommendations