IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i12p7314-d839216.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Interaction of Biotechnology and Institution: A Stakeholder Perspective

Author

Listed:
  • Ya-Feng Zhang

    (School of Public Policy and Management, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 101408, China
    School of Intellectual Property, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 101408, China)

  • Tara Qian Sun

    (School of Public Policy and Management, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 101408, China)

Abstract

Institutional systems have a crucial impact on the development of biotechnology. In this article, we analyze the interaction between biotechnology and institutions. To conduct our analysis, we use the case study method and the stakeholder perspective. Our findings suggest the following: (1) Through the analysis of patent data, biotechnology has been developing very rapidly in recent years in China; (2) basic biotechnology institutions have been established, consisting of government, policy, and other institutional arrangements; (3) the interaction between the development of biotechnology and its existing institutions is dynamic; and (4) the interaction is affected by relative stakeholders. This study contributes to the theory concerning the governance of biotechnology, which is important in the sustainable development of biotechnology. Moreover, the article sheds light on policy implications.

Suggested Citation

  • Ya-Feng Zhang & Tara Qian Sun, 2022. "The Interaction of Biotechnology and Institution: A Stakeholder Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-22, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:12:p:7314-:d:839216
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/12/7314/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/12/7314/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Florian Rabitz, 2019. "Institutional Drift in International Biotechnology Regulation," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 10(2), pages 227-237, May.
    2. Rebecca Henderson & Adam B. Jaffe & Manuel Trajtenberg, 1998. "Universities As A Source Of Commercial Technology: A Detailed Analysis Of University Patenting, 1965-1988," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 80(1), pages 119-127, February.
    3. Geuna, Aldo & Rossi, Federica, 2011. "Changes to university IPR regulations in Europe and the impact on academic patenting," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(8), pages 1068-1076, October.
    4. Marcelo Sili & Jochen Dürr, 2022. "Bioeconomic Entrepreneurship and Key Factors of Development: Lessons from Argentina," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-28, February.
    5. Anthony Arundel, 2003. "Biotechnology Indicators and Public Policy," OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers 2003/5, OECD Publishing.
    6. Bronzini, Raffaello & Piselli, Paolo, 2016. "The impact of R&D subsidies on firm innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(2), pages 442-457.
    7. Kes McCormick & Niina Kautto, 2013. "The Bioeconomy in Europe: An Overview," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 5(6), pages 1-20, June.
    8. Zifeng Chen & Jiancheng Guan, 2011. "Mapping of biotechnology patents of China from 1995–2008," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 88(1), pages 73-89, July.
    9. Gautam Ahuja & Riitta Katila, 2001. "Technological acquisitions and the innovation performance of acquiring firms: a longitudinal study," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(3), pages 197-220, March.
    10. Mike W Peng & David Ahlstrom & Shawn M Carraher & Weilei (Stone) Shi, 2017. "An institution-based view of global IPR history," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 48(7), pages 893-907, September.
    11. Peter van Dongen & Hester Tak & Eric Claassen, 2019. "Policies and patenting to stimulate the biotechnology sector: Evidence from The Netherlands," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 46(1), pages 136-147.
    12. David Cyranoski, 2020. "What CRISPR-baby prison sentences mean for research," Nature, Nature, vol. 577(7789), pages 154-155, January.
    13. Ian M. Sheldon, 2002. "Regulation of biotechnology: will we ever 'freely' trade GMOs?," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 29(1), pages 155-176, March.
    14. David Cyranoski & Heidi Ledford, 2018. "Genome-edited baby claim provokes international outcry," Nature, Nature, vol. 563(7733), pages 607-608, November.
    15. Beate El-Chichakli & Joachim von Braun & Christine Lang & Daniel Barben & Jim Philp, 2016. "Policy: Five cornerstones of a global bioeconomy," Nature, Nature, vol. 535(7611), pages 221-223, July.
    16. Dan Prud’homme & Tony W. Tong & Nianchen Han, 2021. "A stakeholder-based view of the evolution of intellectual property institutions," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 52(4), pages 773-802, June.
    17. Wiktorowicz, Mary & Deber, Raisa, 1997. "Regulating biotechnology: a rational-political model of policy development," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(2), pages 115-138, May.
    18. Christine Oliver, 1997. "Sustainable competitive advantage: combining institutional and resource‐based views," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 18(9), pages 697-713, October.
    19. Loureiro, Sandra Maria Correia & Romero, Jaime & Bilro, Ricardo Godinho, 2020. "Stakeholder engagement in co-creation processes for innovation: A systematic literature review and case study," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 388-409.
    20. Yang Xue & Hanzhi Yu & Geng Qin, 2021. "Towards Good Governance on Dual-Use Biotechnology for Global Sustainable Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(24), pages 1-14, December.
    21. Keupp, Marcus Matthias & Friesike, Sascha & von Zedtwitz, Maximilian, 2012. "How do foreign firms patent in emerging economies with weak appropriability regimes? Archetypes and motives," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(8), pages 1422-1439.
    22. Thomas Dietz & Jan Börner & Jan Janosch Förster & Joachim Von Braun, 2018. "Governance of the Bioeconomy: A Global Comparative Study of National Bioeconomy Strategies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-20, September.
    23. Markus M. Bugge & Teis Hansen & Antje Klitkou, 2016. "What Is the Bioeconomy? A Review of the Literature," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(7), pages 1-22, July.
    24. Steffi Friedrichs & Brigitte van Beuzekom, 2018. "Revised proposal for the revision of the statistical definitions of biotechnology and nanotechnology," OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers 2018/1, OECD Publishing.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Benoit Mougenot & Jean-Pierre Doussoulin, 2022. "Conceptual evolution of the bioeconomy: a bibliometric analysis," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(1), pages 1031-1047, January.
    2. Walther Zeug & Alberto Bezama & Urs Moesenfechtel & Anne Jähkel & Daniela Thrän, 2019. "Stakeholders’ Interests and Perceptions of Bioeconomy Monitoring Using a Sustainable Development Goal Framework," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-24, March.
    3. Andrew M. Neill & Cathal O’Donoghue & Jane C. Stout, 2020. "A Natural Capital Lens for a Sustainable Bioeconomy: Determining the Unrealised and Unrecognised Services from Nature," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(19), pages 1-24, September.
    4. Daniela Firoiu & George H. Ionescu & Teodor Marian Cojocaru & Mariana Niculescu & Maria Nache Cimpoeru & Oana Alexandra Călin, 2023. "Progress of EU Member States Regarding the Bioeconomy and Biomass Producing and Converting Sectors," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(19), pages 1-22, September.
    5. Ayrapetyan, David & Hermans, Frans, 2020. "Introducing a multiscalar framework for biocluster research: A meta-analysis," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 12(9).
    6. Feng Zhang & Guohua Jiang, 2019. "Combination of Complementary Technological Knowledge to Generate “Hard to Imitate” Technologies," Journal of Information & Knowledge Management (JIKM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 18(02), pages 1-24, June.
    7. George B. Frisvold & Steven M. Moss & Andrea Hodgson & Mary E. Maxon, 2021. "Understanding the U.S. Bioeconomy: A New Definition and Landscape," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-24, February.
    8. Sebastian Hinderer & Leif Brändle & Andreas Kuckertz, 2021. "Transition to a Sustainable Bioeconomy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-16, July.
    9. Troxler, David & Zabel, Astrid, 2021. "Clearing forests to make way for a sustainable economy transition in Switzerland," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).
    10. Yuliia Maksymiv & Valentyna Yakubiv & Nadia Pylypiv & Iryna Hryhoruk & Iryna Piatnychuk & Nazariy Popadynets, 2021. "Strategic Challenges for Sustainable Governance of the Bioeconomy: Preventing Conflict between SDGs," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-12, July.
    11. Sotiropoulou, Irene & Deutz, Pauline, 2021. "Understanding the bioeconomy: a new sustainability economy in British and European public discourse," Bio-based and Applied Economics Journal, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA), vol. 10(4), December.
    12. D'Amato, D. & Korhonen, J., 2021. "Integrating the green economy, circular economy and bioeconomy in a strategic sustainability framework," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    13. Dan Prud’homme & Tony W. Tong, 2024. "Rethinking firm-specific advantages from intellectual property rights: Boundary conditions for MNEs," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 55(1), pages 91-109, February.
    14. Stefan Bößner & Francis X. Johnson & Zoha Shawoo, 2020. "Governing the Bioeconomy: What Role for International Institutions?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-24, December.
    15. Ayrapetyan, David, 2023. "Technological innovations and sustainability transitions in the bioeconomy: A multiscalar approach toward the development of bioclusters," EconStor Theses, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, number 278703, July.
    16. Andreas Nicolaidis Lindqvist & Sarah Broberg & Linda Tufvesson & Sammar Khalil & Thomas Prade, 2019. "Bio-Based Production Systems: Why Environmental Assessment Needs to Include Supporting Systems," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(17), pages 1-26, August.
    17. P. J. Stephenson & Anca Damerell, 2022. "Bioeconomy and Circular Economy Approaches Need to Enhance the Focus on Biodiversity to Achieve Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-20, August.
    18. Marianne Duquenne & Hélène Prost & Joachim Schöpfel & Franck Dumeignil, 2020. "Open Bioeconomy—A Bibliometric Study on the Accessibility of Articles in the Field of Bioeconomy," Publications, MDPI, vol. 8(4), pages 1-33, December.
    19. Jochen Dürr & Marcelo Sili, 2022. "New or Traditional Approaches in Argentina’s Bioeconomy? Biomass and Biotechnology Use, Local Embeddedness, and Sustainability Outcomes of Bioeconomic Ventures," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(21), pages 1-28, November.
    20. Franz Grossauer & Gernot Stoeglehner, 2020. "Bioeconomy—Spatial Requirements for Sustainable Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-28, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:12:p:7314-:d:839216. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.