IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/euc/ancoec/wpaper1164.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Biotecnologia: corporações, financiamento da inovação e novas formas organizacionais

Author

Listed:
  • Silveira, José Maria F. J. da

Abstract

The emergence of biotechnology since the second half of the 1970´s definitely cannot be treated in a conventional and linear way, in which a scientific discovery is followed by the upsurge of differentiated biotech products. Biotechnological activities suppose now the development of important class of feed-backs between the productive sector (pharmaceutical and agribusiness, for example) and specialised firms. Using advanced biotech procedures and protocols these firms give rise to a new class of network amongst different sectors and industries. Together they represent a complex combination expertise, capabilities and proficiency. This paper seeks to indicate some elements of an alternative analysis that values some important characteristics of the activities surrounding biotechnological activities, principally the so- called biotechnology industry. It will be organised in terms of the following issues: a) Some considerations about different theoretical approaches in order to define and understand how biotechnology is evolving in a new industry; b) A brief description about pharmaceutical industry´s view on biotechnology, mostly their efforts to manage innovation technology; c) A brief reflection upon the new financial institutions that have been representing solutions to the problem of funding biotechnology activities and firms in underdeveloped countries.

Suggested Citation

  • Silveira, José Maria F. J. da, 2002. "Biotecnologia: corporações, financiamento da inovação e novas formas organizacionais," Revista Economia e Sociedade, Instituto de Economia, Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP), vol. 18, pages 1-36, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:euc:ancoec:wpaper:1164
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.eco.unicamp.br/images/arquivos/artigos/540/05-RuizSilveira.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lynn, Leonard H. & Mohan Reddy, N. & Aram, John D., 1996. "Linking technology and institutions: the innovation community framework," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 91-106, January.
    2. James G. March, 1991. "Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 2(1), pages 71-87, February.
    3. David B. Audretsch & Paula E. Stephan, 1999. "Knowledge spillovers in biotechnology: sources and incentives," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 9(1), pages 97-107.
    4. Nathan ROSENBERG, 2009. "Why do firms do basic research (with their own money)?," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Studies On Science And The Innovation Process Selected Works of Nathan Rosenberg, chapter 11, pages 225-234, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    5. McKelvey, Maureen, 1997. "Coevolution in Commercial Genetic Engineering," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 6(3), pages 503-532, September.
    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. repec:euc:ancoec:v:18:y:2002:p:129-164 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Alex Coad & Agustí Segarra-Blasco & Mercedes Teruel, 2021. "A bit of basic, a bit of applied? R&D strategies and firm performance," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 46(6), pages 1758-1783, December.
    3. Frank T. Rothaermel & Maria Tereza Alexandre, 2009. "Ambidexterity in Technology Sourcing: The Moderating Role of Absorptive Capacity," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(4), pages 759-780, August.
    4. Mehmet Ali Köseoglu & John A. Parnell & Melissa Yan Yee Yick, 2021. "Identifying influential studies and maturity level in intellectual structure of fields: evidence from strategic management," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(2), pages 1271-1309, February.
    5. Bart Leten & Rene Belderbos & Bart Van Looy, 2016. "Entry and Technological Performance in New Technology Domains: Technological Opportunities, Technology Competition and Technological Relatedness," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(8), pages 1257-1291, December.
    6. John Seely Brown & Paul Duguid, 2001. "Knowledge and Organization: A Social-Practice Perspective," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 12(2), pages 198-213, April.
    7. Hayashi, Daisuke, 2018. "Knowledge flow in low-carbon technology transfer: A case of India's wind power industry," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 104-116.
    8. Thomas Hutzschenreuter & Arie Y. Lewin & Stephan Dresel, 2011. "Time to Success in Offshoring Business Processes," Management International Review, Springer, vol. 51(1), pages 65-92, February.
    9. Chul Lee & Gunno Park & Klaus Marhold & Jina Kang, 2017. "Top management team’s innovation-related characteristics and the firm’s explorative R&D: an analysis based on patent data," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(2), pages 639-663, May.
    10. Marcus T. Wolfe & Dean A. Shepherd, 2015. "What do you have to Say about That? Performance Events and Narratives’ Positive and Negative Emotional Content," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 39(4), pages 895-925, July.
    11. Jong, Simcha & Slavova, Kremena, 2014. "When publications lead to products: The open science conundrum in new product development," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(4), pages 645-654.
    12. Tina Wolf & Uwe Cantner & Holger Graf & Michael Rothgang, 2019. "Cluster ambidexterity towards exploration and exploitation: strategies and cluster management," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 44(6), pages 1840-1866, December.
    13. Areti Gkypali & Apostolos Rafailidis & Kostas Tsekouras, 2015. "Innovation and export performance: do young and mature innovative firms differ?," Eurasian Business Review, Springer;Eurasia Business and Economics Society, vol. 5(2), pages 397-415, December.
    14. Hammady Ahmed DINE RABEH, 2013. "Firm Resources’ Entanglement Determines ITS Absorptive Capacity: A Review Towards A New Reconceptualization," Working Papers 270, Laboratoire de Recherche sur l'Industrie et l'Innovation. ULCO / Research Unit on Industry and Innovation.
    15. Chigu Kim & Chul Lee & Jina Kang, 2018. "Determinants Of Firm’S Innovation-Related External Knowledge Search Strategy: The Role Of Potential Absorptive Capacity And Appropriability Regime," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 22(06), pages 1-33, August.
    16. Lee, Kyung Yul & Jung, Hyun Ju & Kwon, Youngsun, 2024. "Boundary-spanning technology search, product component reuse, and new product innovation: Evidence from the smartphone industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(4).
    17. Ashish Arora & Sharon Belenzon & Lia Sheer, 2017. "Back to Basics: Why do Firms Invest in Research?," NBER Working Papers 23187, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    18. Rachel Bocquet & Caroline Mothe, 2015. "Can a governance structure foster cluster ambidexterity through knowledge management? An empirical study of two French SME clusters," Knowledge Management Research & Practice, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(3), pages 329-343, August.
    19. Seiko Arai, 2016. "Absorptive Capability of Japanese and European MNCs: Balance between Autonomy and Control of R&D Subsidiaries in the US," GRIPS Discussion Papers 16-18, National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies.
    20. Azni Zarina Taha & Mozard Mohtar & Mahfuzur Rahman & Thamil Maran Periannan & Noor Ismawati Jaafar & Tey Lian Seng, 2025. "The impact of technology orientation, technology opportunism, and change orientation on the firm operational performance: a moderated-mediation analysis," Operations Management Research, Springer, vol. 18(1), pages 89-110, March.
    21. Hoppmann, Joern & Peters, Michael & Schneider, Malte & Hoffmann, Volker H., 2013. "The two faces of market support—How deployment policies affect technological exploration and exploitation in the solar photovoltaic industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(4), pages 989-1003.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:euc:ancoec:wpaper:1164. 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: Carolina Troncoso Baltar (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ieuecbr.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.