Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Resource-based and institution-based approaches to biotechnology industry development in Malaysia

  • Published:
Asia Pacific Journal of Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this study, we use both resource-based and institution-based theories to examine potential sources of competitive advantage in the relatively new and rapidly growing biotechnology sector. We then use those theories as the basis for a multimethod study to assess the priorities, capabilities, and competitiveness of the emerging biotechnology industry in Malaysia. Multifunctional experts from a biotechnology industry organization in Malaysia identified the use of biotechnology for agriculture and biofuels as key country priorities, with access to funding and talent cited as key capabilities required for successful sector development. The gap between capabilities required and strategic priorities provides a “to do” list for industry development, with government institutions playing a central role in accelerating technology development and providing the capital flows necessary to bridge this gap. Implications include the need for public–private sector collaboration to enable biotech firms to efficiently obtain international investment and alliances to ensure sustainability, as well as to develop bold and creative approaches for developing and recruiting talent both at home and abroad.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. By way of comparison and noting the global interest in stem cell transplantation, multinational manufacturer of scientific and medical equipment, PerkinElmer purchased the Boston-based Viacell stem cell storage business for US$ 300 million in 2007 (PerkinElmer, 2008).

References

  • Ahn, M., & Meeks, M. 2007. Building a conducive environment for life science based entrepreneurship and industry clusters. Journal of Commercial Biotechnology, 14: 20–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ahn, M., Davenport, S., Meeks, M., & Bednarek, R. 2009. Exploring technology agglomeration patterns for multinational pharmaceutical and biotechnology firms. Journal of Commercial Biotechnology. doi:10.1057/jcb.2009.8.

  • Andersson, T., Serger, S., Sorvik, J., & Hansson, E. W. 2004. The cluster policy whitebook. Sweden: International Organization for Knowledge Economy and Enterprise Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andriesse, E., & van Westen, G. 2009. Unsustainable varieties of capitalism along the Thailand–Malaysia border? The role of institutional complementarities in regional development. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 26. doi:10.1007/s10490-008-9107-2.

  • Azoulay, P., Michigan, R., & Sampat, B. 2007. The anatomy of medical school patenting. New England Journal of Medicine, 357: 2049–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barney, J. B. 1991. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1): 99–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barney, J. B. 2001. Resource-based theories of competitive advantage: A ten-year retrospective on the resource-based view. Journal of Management, 27(6): 643–650.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baum, J. A. C., & Silverman, B. S. 2004. Picking winners or building them? Alliance, intellectual, and human capital as selection criteria in venture financing and performance in biotechnology startups. Journal of Business Venturing, 19: 411–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • BIO (Biotechnology Industry Organization). 2006. BIO 2005–2006: Guide to biotechnology. http://www.bio.org, Accessed May 5, 2007.

  • BIO (Biotechnology Industry Organization). 2007. BIO 2006–2007: Guide to biotechnology. http://www.bio.org, Accessed Apr. 20, 2008.

  • Boehm, T. & Schuehsler, H. 2003. Where do biotechnology venture capitalists go from here?. http://www.thebiotechclub.org, Accessed Oct. 3, 2007.

  • Burrill & Co. 2007. Life sciences: A global transformation. San Francisco: Burrill Life Sciences Venture Capital Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carney, M., Gedajlovic, E., & Yang, X. 2009. Varieties of Asian capitalism. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 26. doi:10.1007/s10490-009-9139-2.

  • 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(4): 438–455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • CHI (California Healthcare Institute). 2006. California’s biomedical industry 2006 report. http://www.chi.org, Accessed Dec. 5, 2007.

  • Deeds, D. I., DeCarolis, D., & Coombs, J. 1991. Dynamic capabilities and new product development in high technology ventures: An empirical analysis of biotechnology firms. Journal of Business Venturing, 15: 211–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeFillipi, R., & Arthur, M. 1998. Paradox in project-based enterprise: The case of film making. California Management Review, 40(2): 125–139.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dodgson, M. 2009. Asia’s national innovation systems: Institutional adaptability and rigidity in the face of global innovation challenges. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 26. doi:10.1007/s10490-008-9105-4.

  • Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. 2007. Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1): 25–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • EYGM (Ernst & Young). 2008. Strategic business risk: Biotechnology 2008. http://www.ey.com, Accessed Jun. 1, 2008.

  • Feldman, M. 2003. The locational dynamics of the US biotech industry: Knowledge externalities and the anchor hypothesis. Industry & Innovation, 10: 311–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frost & Sullivan. 2001. Southeast Asia: Gearing up for the bio-economy wave. http://www.frost.com, Accessed Dec. 15, 2008.

  • Furman, J. L., Porter, M. E., & Stern, S. 2002. The determinants of national innovative capacity. Research Policy, 31(6): 899–933.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goetz, S., & Morgan, S. 1995. State-level localization determinants of biotechnology firms. Economic Development Quarterly, 9: 174–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iammarino, S., & McCann, P. 2006. The structure and evolution of industrial clusters: Transactions, technology and knowledge spillovers. Research Policy, 35(7): 1018–1036.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jick, T. D. 1979. Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24: 602–611.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kalorama. 2006. The worldwide market for in vitro diagnostic tests, 5th ed. New York: Market Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lau, C. M., & Bruton, G. D. 2008. FDI in China: What we know and what we need to study next. Academy of Management Perspectives, 22(4): 30–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lu, Y., Tsang, E. W. K., & Peng, M. W. 2008. Knowledge management and innovation strategy in the Asia Pacific: Toward an institution-based view. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 25: 361–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Makadok, R. 2001. Toward a synthesis of the resource-based and dynamic-capability views of rent creation. Strategic Management Journal, 22: 387–401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martino, M. 2006. Economic development: Malaysia plays catch-up for biotech business. Fierce biotech. http://www.fiercebiotech.com, Accessed Dec. 15, 2008.

  • Meyer, K. E., Estrin, S., Bhaumik, S. K., & Peng, M. W. 2009. Institutions, resources, and entry strategies in emerging economies. Strategic Management Journal, 30: 61–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MIDA (Malaysian Industrial Development Authority). 2008. Economic strength. http://www.mida.gov.my, Accessed Dec. 12, 2008.

  • Munroe, T., Craft, G., & Hutton, D. 2002. A critical analysis of the local biotechnology industry cluster—counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, & Solano in California. Research monograph prepared for the consortium of Bay Area organizations. http://www.baybio.org, Accessed May 2, 2002.

  • Peng, M. W. 2006. Global strategy. Mason: South-Western Thomson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peng, M. W., Wang, D. Y., & Jiang, Y. 2008. An institution-based view of international business strategy: A focus on emerging economies. Journal of International Business Studies, 39: 920–936.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peng, M. W., Sun, S. L., Pinkham, B., & Chen, H. 2009. The institution-based view as a third leg for a strategy tripod. Academy of Management Perspectives, (in press).

  • PerkinElmer. 2008. http://www.perkinelmer.com, Accessed Dec. 4, 2008.

  • Pisano, G. 2006. Can science be a business?. Harvard Business Review, 84(10): 114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. 1990. Competitive advantage of nations. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. 1996. What is strategy?. Harvard Business Review, 74(6): 61–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. 1998. Clusters and the new economics of competition. Harvard Business Review, 76(12): 78–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Priem, R. L., & Butler, J. E. 2001. Is the resource-based “view” a useful perspective for strategic management research?. Academy of Management Review, 26(1): 22–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ritchie, B. K. 2009. Economic upgrading in a state-coordinated, liberal market economy. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 26. doi:10.1007/s10490-008-9089-0.

  • Ross, J. 2004. Biotechnology growth takes time. http://www.marshall.edu, Accessed Nov. 14, 2007.

  • Sackett, P. R., & Larson, J. Jr. 1990. Research strategies and tactics in industrial and organization psychology. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.). Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology: 419–489. Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scandura, T. A., & Williams, E. A. 2000. Research methodology in management: Current practices, trends, and implications for future research. Academy of Management Journal, 43(6): 1248–1264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steier, L. P. 2009. Familial capitalism in global institutional contexts: Implications for corporate governance and entrepreneurship in East Asia. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 26. doi:10.1007/s10490-008-9117-0.

  • StemLife. 2008. http://www.stemlife.com, Accessed Dec. 6, 2008.

  • Stuart, T., & Sorenson, O. 2003. The geography of opportunity: Spatial heterogeneity in founding rates and the performance of biotechnology firms. Research Policy, 32(2): 229–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Su, Y.-S., Tsang, E. W. K., & Peng, M. W. 2009. How do internal capabilities and external partnerships affect innovativeness?. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 26: 309–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tipton, F. B. 2009. Southeast Asian capitalism: History, institutions, states, and firms. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 26. doi:10.1007/s10490-008-9118-z.

  • Van de Ven, A. H., Polley, D. E., Gardud, R., & Venkataraman, S. 1999. The innovation journey. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • World Bank. 2008. http://www.worldbank.org, Accessed Dec. 2, 2008.

  • Yin, R. K. 1984. Case study research: Design and methods. Beverly Hills: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeller, C. 2001. Clustering biotech: A recipe for success? Spatial patterns of growth of biotechnology in Munich, Rhineland, and Hamburg. Small Business Economics, 17: 123–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhou, L., Wu, W., & Luo, X. 2007. Internationalization and the performance of born-global SMEs: The mediating role of social networks. Journal of International Business Studies, 38: 673–690.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculties of Commerce and Administration and Science, Victoria University of Wellington, RH Room 928, 23 Lambton Quay, Wellington, 6140, New Zealand

    Mark J. Ahn

  2. College of Business, Creighton University, 2500 California Plaza, Omaha, NE, 68178, USA

    Anne S. York

Authors
  1. Mark J. Ahn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Anne S. York
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mark J. Ahn.

Additional information

The authors would like to gratefully acknowledge Editor-in-Chief Mike Peng and the anonymous reviewers for their excellent guidance and encouragement. We would also like to thank the Malaysian Biotech Corporation, Bionexus, and the Malaysian Life Sciences Fund for their generous support of this research study, as well as the participants who provided their insights. We are thankful for the efforts of our research assistants, Rebecca Bednarek and Melvyn Loh; and grateful to Rob Wiltbank and Stephen Cummings for their helpful feedback on earlier versions. All views and errors are ours.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ahn, M.J., York, A.S. Resource-based and institution-based approaches to biotechnology industry development in Malaysia. Asia Pac J Manag 28, 257–275 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-009-9147-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-009-9147-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation