IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/5577.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Costly Information in Firm Transformation, Exit, or Persistent Failure

Author

Listed:
  • Lynne G. Zucker
  • Michael R. Darby

Abstract

Firms invest differentially in the intellectual human capital required to recognize, evaluate, and utilize technological breakthroughs occurring outside the firm. Such differential investment has been crucial in explaining which incumbent pharmaceutical firms have successfully transformed their technological identities in response to the biotechnological revolution and which are threatened by persistent low performance. While all incumbent firms lagged the dedicated new biotechnology firms in adopting the new drug-discovery technology, firms with higher R&D expenditures before the biotech revolution were more likely to successfully adopt the new techniques and likely to do so earlier. Failure to adopt the new techniques was associated with lower performance compared to firms adopting more fully and faster.

Suggested Citation

  • Lynne G. Zucker & Michael R. Darby, 1996. "Costly Information in Firm Transformation, Exit, or Persistent Failure," NBER Working Papers 5577, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  • Handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:5577
    Note: PR
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w5577.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Darby, Michael R, 1976. "Rational Expectations under Conditions of Costly Information," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 31(3), pages 889-895, June.
    2. Zucker, Lynne G. & Brewer, Marilynn B. & Darby, Michael R. & Peng, Yusheng, 1994. "Collaboration Structure and Information Dilemmas in Biotechnology: Organizational Boundaries as Trust Production," Institute for Social Science Research, Working Paper Series qt0gd8j9k8, Institute for Social Science Research, UCLA.
    3. Hanson, Gordon H, 1995. "Incomplete Contracts, Risk, and Ownership," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 36(2), pages 341-363, May.
    4. Lynne G. Zucker & Michael R. Darby & Jeff Armstrong, 1994. "Intellectual Capital and the Firm: The Technology of Geographically Localized Knowledge Spillovers," NBER Working Papers 4946, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. Patricia M. Danzon & Allison Percy, 1999. "The Effects of Price Regulation on Productivity in Pharmaceuticals," NBER Chapters, in: International and Interarea Comparisons of Income, Output, and Prices, pages 371-418, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. Lynne G. Zucker & Michael R. Darby, 1995. "Present at the Revolution: Transformation of Technical Identity for a Large Incumbent Pharmaceutical Firm After the Biotechnological Breakthrough," NBER Working Papers 5243, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. Zucker, Lynne G & Darby, Michael R & Brewer, Marilynn B, 1998. "Intellectual Human Capital and the Birth of U.S. Biotechnology Enterprises," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 88(1), pages 290-306, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Dominique Perrochon & Didier Lebert, 2000. "L'utilisation des notions de confiance et de proximité dans l'étude des processus de R&D pharmaceutiques," Cahiers de la Maison des Sciences Economiques r00056, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1).
    2. McMillan, G. Steven & Narin, Francis & Deeds, David L., 2000. "An analysis of the critical role of public science in innovation: the case of biotechnology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 1-8, January.
    3. Lynne G. Zucker & Michael R. Darby, 2009. "Star Scientists, Innovation and Regional and National Immigration," Chapters, in: David B. Audretsch & Robert E. Litan & Robert Strom (ed.), Entrepreneurship and Openness, chapter 6, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    4. Davis, Lee, 1999. "R&D Investments, Information and Strategy," Working Papers 10-1999, Copenhagen Business School, Department of International Economics and Management.
    5. Rothaermel, Frank T. & Thursby, Marie, 2005. "University-incubator firm knowledge flows: assessing their impact on incubator firm performance," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 305-320, April.
    6. Peter Arbo & Heikki Eskelinen, 2003. "The Role of Small, Comprehensive Universities in Regional Economic Development: Experiences from Two Nordic cases," ERSA conference papers ersa03p530, European Regional Science Association.
    7. Zucker, Lynne G. & Darby, Michael R., 1997. "Present at the biotechnological revolution: transformation of technological identity for a large incumbent pharmaceutical firm," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(4-5), pages 429-446, December.
    8. Lynne G. Zucker & Michael R. Darby & Yusheng Peng, 1998. "Fundamentals or Population Dynamics and the Geographic Distribution of U.S. Biotechnology Enterprises, 1976-1989," NBER Working Papers 6414, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    9. Fabiano Schivardi & Martin Schneider, 2008. "Strategic Experimentation and Disruptive Technological Change," Review of Economic Dynamics, Elsevier for the Society for Economic Dynamics, vol. 11(2), pages 386-412, April.

    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. Michael R. Darby & Lynne G. Zucker & Andrew Wang, 2003. "Universities, Joint Ventures, and Success in the Advanced Technology Program," NBER Working Papers 9463, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Pierre Azoulay & Joshua S. Graff Zivin & Bhaven N. Sampat, 2011. "The Diffusion of Scientific Knowledge across Time and Space: Evidence from Professional Transitions for the Superstars of Medicine," NBER Chapters, in: The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity Revisited, pages 107-155, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Heide Fier & Andreas Pyka, 2014. "Against the one-way-street: analyzing knowledge transfer from industry to science," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 39(2), pages 219-246, April.
    4. Hicks, Diana & Breitzman, Tony & Olivastro, Dominic & Hamilton, Kimberly, 2001. "The changing composition of innovative activity in the US -- a portrait based on patent analysis," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 681-703, April.
    5. Marie Thursby & Richard Jensen, 2001. "Proofs and Prototypes for Sale: The Licensing of University Inventions," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(1), pages 240-259, March.
    6. Lee, Chang-Yang, 2009. "Do firms in clusters invest in R&D more intensively? Theory and evidence from multi-country data," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(7), pages 1159-1171, September.
    7. Hong, Wei, 2008. "Decline of the center: The decentralizing process of knowledge transfer of Chinese universities from 1985 to 2004," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(4), pages 580-595, May.
    8. Jorge Niosi & Maureen McKelvey, 2018. "Relating business model innovations and innovation cascades: the case of biotechnology," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 28(5), pages 1081-1109, December.
    9. Edward E Leamer & Michael Storper, 2001. "The Economic Geography of the Internet Age," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 32(4), pages 641-665, December.
    10. Michael R. Darby & Lynne G. Zucker, 1996. "Star Scientists, Institutions, and the Entry of Japanese Biotechnology Enterprises," NBER Working Papers 5795, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    11. Iain Cockburn & Rebecca Henderson & Scott Stern, 1999. "The Diffusion of Science-Driven Drug Discovery: Organizational Change in Pharmaceutical Research," NBER Working Papers 7359, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    12. Choi, Jin-Uk & Lee, Chang-Yang, 2022. "The differential effects of basic research on firm R&D productivity: The conditioning role of technological diversification," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 118(C).
    13. Ellen Enkel & Annika Groemminger & Sebastian Heil, 2018. "Managing technological distance in internal and external collaborations: absorptive capacity routines and social integration for innovation," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 43(5), pages 1257-1290, October.
    14. Dominique Perrochon & Didier Lebert, 2000. "L'utilisation des notions de confiance et de proximité dans l'étude des processus de R&D pharmaceutiques," Cahiers de la Maison des Sciences Economiques r00056, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1).
    15. Richard Jensen & Marie Thursby, 1998. "Proofs and Prototypes for Sale: The Tale of University Licensing," NBER Working Papers 6698, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    16. Fritjof Karnani, 2013. "The university’s unknown knowledge: tacit knowledge, technology transfer and university spin-offs findings from an empirical study based on the theory of knowledge," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 38(3), pages 235-250, June.
    17. Jerry G. Thursby & Marie C. Thursby, 2002. "Who Is Selling the Ivory Tower? Sources of Growth in University Licensing," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 48(1), pages 90-104, January.
    18. Julia Porter Liebeskind & Amalya Lumerman Oliver & Lynne G. Zucker & Marilynn B. Brewer, 1995. "Social Networks, Learning, and Flexibility: Sourcing Scientific Knowledge in New Biotechnology Firms," NBER Working Papers 5320, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    19. Traore, Namatie & Rose, Antoine, 2003. "Determinants of biotechnology utilization by the Canadian industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(10), pages 1719-1735, December.
    20. Gersbach, Hans & Schneider, Maik & Schneller, Olivier, 2010. "Optimal Mix of Applied and Basic Research, Distance to Frontier, and Openness," CEPR Discussion Papers 7795, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:nbr:nberwo:5577. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/nberrus.html .

    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.