IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/wai/econwp/04-01.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Biotechnology in New Zealand

Author

Abstract

This paper provides a detailed description of the New Zealand biotechnology sector based on a re-analysis of the first comprehensive (1998/99) survey of biotechnology in New Zealand, data from an original (2002) survey conducted by the author and a detailed review of secondary sources. It provides the background for a study of the determinants of innovation reported elsewhere (Marsh, 2004). A review of alternative data sources on sector size and characteristics is followed by a comparison of New Zealand and international biotech indicators. Data is presented on enterprise type and size and the age distribution of New Zealand biotech enterprises. This is followed by an analysis of innovative output using data on new products, processes and patents. Data is also presented on partnerships and alliances, information sources and other factors affecting innovative performance.

Suggested Citation

  • Dan Marsh, 2004. "Biotechnology in New Zealand," Working Papers in Economics 04/01, University of Waikato.
    • Handle: RePEc:wai:econwp:04/01
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://repec.its.waikato.ac.nz/wai/econwp/0401.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Stéphane Malo & Aldo Geuna, 2000. "Science-Technology Linkages in an Emerging Research Platform: The Case of Combinatorial Chemistry and Biology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 47(2), pages 303-321, February.
    2. Joly, Pierre-Benoit & de Looze, Marie-Angele, 1996. "An analysis of innovation strategies and industrial differentiation through patent applications: the case of plant biotechnology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(7), pages 1027-1046, October.
    3. repec:fth:harver:1473 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Jeremy Foltz & Bradford Barham & Kwansoo Kim, 2000. "Universities and agricultural biotechnology patent production," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(1), pages 82-95.
    5. 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.
    6. Dan Marsh, 2002. "Does New Zealand have an Innovation System for Biotechnology?," Working Papers in Economics 02/03, University of Waikato.
    7. Zvi Griliches, 1998. "Patent Statistics as Economic Indicators: A Survey," NBER Chapters, in: R&D and Productivity: The Econometric Evidence, pages 287-343, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. Andrew Devlin, 2003. "An Overview of Biotechnology Statistics in Selected Countries," OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers 2003/13, OECD Publishing.
    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. Marsh, Dan & Oxley, Les, 2005. "Modelling innovative activity in the New Zealand biotechnology sector," Mathematics and Computers in Simulation (MATCOM), Elsevier, vol. 69(1), pages 103-112.

    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. Dan Marsh, 2000. "Fostering Innovation in a Small Open Economy: The Case of the New Zealand Biotechnology Sector," Working Papers in Economics 00/01, University of Waikato.
    2. Dan Marsh, 2002. "Does New Zealand have an Innovation System for Biotechnology?," Working Papers in Economics 02/03, University of Waikato.
    3. Tomás del Barrio-Castro & José García-Quevedo, 2009. "The determinants of university patenting: Do incentives matter?," Working Papers XREAP2009-14, Xarxa de Referència en Economia Aplicada (XREAP), revised Nov 2009.
    4. Metcalfe, J.S. & James, Andrew & Mina, Andrea, 2005. "Emergent innovation systems and the delivery of clinical services: The case of intra-ocular lenses," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(9), pages 1283-1304, November.
    5. Qingjun Zhao & Jiancheng Guan, 2012. "Modeling the dynamic relation between science and technology in nanotechnology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 90(2), pages 561-579, February.
    6. 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.
    7. Kamilia Loukil, 2019. "Is Public Research Beneficial for Innovation in Emerging and Developing Countries?," Asian Journal of Economic Modelling, Asian Economic and Social Society, vol. 7(4), pages 171-178, December.
    8. Leten, Bart & Kelchtermans, Stijn & Belderbos, Ren, 2010. "Internal Basic Research, External Basic Research and the Technological Performance of Pharmaceutical Firms," Working Papers 2010/12, Hogeschool-Universiteit Brussel, Faculteit Economie en Management.
    9. John Hagedoorn & Boris Lokshin & Stéphane Malo, 2018. "Alliances and the innovation performance of corporate and public research spin-off firms," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 50(4), pages 763-781, April.
    10. Leila Tahmooresnejad & Catherine Beaudry, 2019. "Collaboration or funding: lessons from a study of nanotechnology patenting in Canada and the United States," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 44(3), pages 741-777, June.
    11. Meyer, Martin, 2006. "Are patenting scientists the better scholars?: An exploratory comparison of inventor-authors with their non-inventing peers in nano-science and technology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(10), pages 1646-1662, December.
    12. Kornelius Kraft & Jörg Stank & Ralf Dewenter, 2011. "Co-determination and innovation," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 35(1), pages 145-172.
    13. Ugo Rizzo & Nicolò Barbieri & Laura Ramaciotti & Demian Iannantuono, 2020. "The division of labour between academia and industry for the generation of radical inventions," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 45(2), pages 393-413, April.
    14. Simeth, Markus & Raffo, Julio D., 2013. "What makes companies pursue an Open Science strategy?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(9), pages 1531-1543.
    15. Robert Dalpé, 2002. "Bibliometric analysis of biotechnology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 55(2), pages 189-213, August.
    16. Lili Wang & Zexia Li, 2021. "Knowledge flows from public science to industrial technologies," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 46(4), pages 1232-1255, August.
    17. Bart Looy & Tom Magerman & Koenraad Debackere, 2007. "Developing technology in the vicinity of science: An examination of the relationship between science intensity (of patents) and technological productivity within the field of biotechnology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 70(2), pages 441-458, February.
    18. Acosta, Manuel & Coronado, Daniel & Toribio, Mª Rosario, 2011. "The use of scientific knowledge by Spanish agrifood firms," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(4), pages 507-516, August.
    19. Kamilia Loukil, 2016. "Innovation Policy and R&D Efficiency in Emerging Countries: a Stochastic Frontier Analysis," Eastern European Business and Economics Journal, Eastern European Business and Economics Studies Centre, vol. 2(3), pages 165-192.
    20. Carsten C. Guderian, 2019. "Identifying Emerging Technologies with Smart Patent Indicators: The Example of Smart Houses," International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management (IJITM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 16(02), pages 1-24, April.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    biotechnology; innovation; New Zealand; patents; survey data;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • L65 - Industrial Organization - - Industry Studies: Manufacturing - - - Chemicals; Rubber; Drugs; Biotechnology; Plastics
    • L66 - Industrial Organization - - Industry Studies: Manufacturing - - - Food; Beverages; Cosmetics; Tobacco
    • O31 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives
    • O32 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Management of Technological Innovation and R&D

    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:wai:econwp:04/01. 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: Geua Boe-Gibson (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/dewaknz.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.