IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/7248.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Local Academic Science Driving Organizational Change: The Adoption of Biotechnology by Japanese Firms

Author

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

Abstract

The local academic science base plays a dominant role in determining where and when biotechnology is adopted by existing firms or -- much more frequently -- exploited by new entrants in the U.S. In Japan this new dominant technology has almost exclusively been introduced through organizational change in existing firms. We show that for the U.S. and global pharmaceutical business -- biotechnology's most important application -- the performance enhancement associated with this organizational change is necessary for incumbent firms to remain competitive and, ultimately, to survive. Japan's sharply higher organizational change/new entry ratio compared to the U.S. during the biotech revolution is related to Japan's relatively compact geography and institutional differences between the higher-education and research funding systems, the venture capital and IPO markets, cultural characteristics and incentive systems which impact scientists' entrepreneurialism, and tort-liability exposures. Both local science base and pre-existing economic activity explained where and when Japanese firms adopted biotechnology, with the latter playing a somewhat larger role. De nova entry was determined similarly as if entry and organizational change are alternative ways of exploiting the scientific base with relative frequency reflecting underlying institutions. While similar processes are at work in Japan and America, stars in Japan induce entry or transformation of significantly fewer firms than in the U.S. and preexisting economic activity plays a greater role. We find no such significant difference for entry of keiretsu-member and nonmember firms within Japan.

Suggested Citation

  • Michael R. Darby & Lynne G. Zucker, 1999. "Local Academic Science Driving Organizational Change: The Adoption of Biotechnology by Japanese Firms," NBER Working Papers 7248, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  • Handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:7248
    Note: PR
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w7248.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    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. Lynne G. Zucker & Michael R. Darby & Maximo Torero, 2002. "Labor Mobility from Academe to Commerce," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 20(3), pages 629-660, July.
    2. Beath, John & Owen, Robert F. & Poyago-Theotoky, Joanna & Ulph, David, 2003. "Optimal incentives for income-generation in universities: the rule of thumb for the Compton tax," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 21(9), pages 1301-1322, November.
    3. Lincoln, James R., 2009. "Strategic Alliances in the Japanese Economy: Types, Critiques, Embeddedness, and Change," CEI Working Paper Series 2008-19, Center for Economic Institutions, Institute of Economic Research, Hitotsubashi University.

    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. Khanna, Rajat, 2021. "Aftermath of a tragedy: A star's death and coauthors’ subsequent productivity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(2).
    2. 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.
    3. Wallace E. Huffman & Richard E. Just, 1999. "The organization of agricultural research in western developed countries," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 21(1), pages 1-18, August.
    4. Maureen McKelvey & Bastian Rake, 2012. "Research Network Position and Innovative Performance: Evidence from the Pharmaceutical Industry," Jena Economics Research Papers 2012-021, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    5. 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.
    6. Hyunju Rachel Kim, 2014. "Formulation of a Success Model in Pharmaceutical R&D," SAGE Open, , vol. 4(1), pages 21582440145, March.
    7. Amit Jain, 2016. "Learning by hiring and change to organizational knowledge: Countering obsolescence as organizations age," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(8), pages 1667-1687, August.
    8. Angelo Kenneth S. Romasanta & Peter Sijde & Jacqueline Muijlwijk-Koezen, 2020. "Innovation in pharmaceutical R&D: mapping the research landscape," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(3), pages 1801-1832, December.
    9. Gilsing, Victor & Nooteboom, Bart, 2006. "Exploration and exploitation in innovation systems: The case of pharmaceutical biotechnology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 1-23, February.
    10. Kafouros, Mario & Wang, Chengqi & Piperopoulos, Panagiotis & Zhang, Mingshen, 2015. "Academic collaborations and firm innovation performance in China: The role of region-specific institutions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(3), pages 803-817.
    11. Casper, Steven & Matraves, Catherine, 2003. "Institutional frameworks and innovation in the German and UK pharmaceutical industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(10), pages 1865-1879, December.
    12. Hopkins, Michael M. & Nightingale, Paul, 2006. "Strategic risk management using complementary assets: Organizational capabilities and the commercialization of human genetic testing in the UK," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 355-374, April.
    13. Rebecca R. Kehoe & Daniel Tzabbar, 2015. "Lighting the way or stealing the shine? An examination of the duality in star scientists' effects on firm innovative performance," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(5), pages 709-727, May.
    14. Arroyabe, M. F. & Hussinger, Katrin & Hagedoorn, John, 2020. "Hiring new key inventors to improve firms' post-M&A inventive output," ZEW Discussion Papers 20-029, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    15. Lynne G. Zucker & Michael R. Darby & Jason Fong, 2014. "Communitywide Database Designs for Tracking Innovation Impact: Comets, Stars and Nanobank," Annals of Economics and Statistics, GENES, issue 115-116, pages 277-311.
    16. Frank T. Rothaermel & Andrew M. Hess, 2007. "Building Dynamic Capabilities: Innovation Driven by Individual-, Firm-, and Network-Level Effects," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(6), pages 898-921, December.
    17. Masao Nakamura & Robert Dalpé, 2003. "Interaction between public research organizations and industry in biotechnology," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(2-3), pages 171-185.
    18. Rothaermel, Frank T. & Thursby, Marie, 2007. "The nanotech versus the biotech revolution: Sources of productivity in incumbent firm research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(6), pages 832-849, July.
    19. Lynne G. Zucker & Michael R. Darby, 2014. "Defacto and Deeded Intellectual Property: Knowledge-Driven Co-Evolution of Firm Collaboration Boundaries and IPR Stragtegy," Annals of Economics and Statistics, GENES, issue 115-116, pages 221-251.
    20. Casper, Steven, 1999. "National institutional frameworks and high-technology innovation in Germany: the case of biotechnology," Discussion Papers, Research Unit: Economic Change and Employment FS I 99-306, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • O31 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives
    • L11 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Production, Pricing, and Market Structure; Size Distribution of Firms

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:7248. 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.