IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/wzbsps/spiii2011601.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Wie entstehen neue Innovationsfelder? Vergleich der Formierungs- und Formungsprozesse in der Biotechnologie und Elektromobilität

Author

Listed:
  • Canzler, Weert
  • Wentland, Alexander
  • Simon, Dagmar

Abstract

Technologische Neuerungen versprechen die Lösung drängender technisch-sozialer Probleme, aber auch wirtschaftliches Wachstum und sozialen Wohlstand in den zunehmend wissensgetriebenen Ökonomien der OECD-Welt. Die beiden Fälle Biotechnologie (bzw. Gentechnik) und Elektromobilität illustrieren exemplarisch, wie staatliche, wirtschaftliche und akademische Akteure dazu beitragen, dass neue Innovationsfelder entstehen und Bestand haben. Hierzu bedarf es robuster Netzwerke und Austauschbeziehungen, insbesondere zwischen Grundlagenforschung und Anwendung, aber auch zwischen Forschern aus verschiedenen akademischen Disziplinen, Ingenieuren, Managern und politischen Entscheidungsträgern. Derartige Konstellationen entstehen nicht über Nacht. Sie sind das Produkt von Aushandlungsprozessen, strategischen Weichenstellungen und Demarkationskämpfen an den Grenzen etablierter Branchen und Disziplinen, in der Regel begleitet von politischen Koordinations- und Regulierungsversuchen. Die Entstehung einer neuen Technik geht zudem oft einher mit bestimmten Nutzen- und Nutzervorstellungen, die ihre Genese mitbestimmen. Um auf diese Ebene analytisch vordringen zu können, müssen gängige Innovationsmodelle jedoch kulturalistisch erweitert werden. In diesem Discussion Paper beabsichtigen wir, analytische Schneisen für einen umfassenderen empirischen Vergleich emergenter Innovationsfelder zu schlagen. Eine solche Systematisierung könnte helfen, über die Einzelfalldarstellung hinaus Aussagen zu den Möglichkeiten und Grenzen von strukturorientierter Innovationspolitik zu treffen. Biotechnologie und Elektromobilität eignen sich als idealtypische Ausprägungen der Triple-Helix aus Wissenschaft, Wirtschaft und Staat (Etzkowitz/Leydesdorff 2000), wie sich zeigen wird, trotz ihrer Verschiedenheit in besonderem Maße für diese Gegenüberstellung.

Suggested Citation

  • Canzler, Weert & Wentland, Alexander & Simon, Dagmar, 2011. "Wie entstehen neue Innovationsfelder? Vergleich der Formierungs- und Formungsprozesse in der Biotechnologie und Elektromobilität," Discussion Papers, Research Group Science Policy Studies SP III 2011-601, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
  • Handle: RePEc:zbw:wzbsps:spiii2011601
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/57092/1/690122721.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Callon, M., 1980. "The state and technical innovation: a case study of the electrical vehicle in France," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 9(4), pages 358-376, October.
    2. Jasanoff, Sheila, 1985. "Technological innovation in a corporatist state: The case of biotechnology in the Federal Republic of Germany," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 14(1), pages 23-38, February.
    3. Gaston Heimeriks & Marianne Hörlesberger & Peter Van Den Besselaar, 2003. "Mapping communication and collaboration in heterogeneous research networks," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 58(2), pages 391-413, October.
    4. Etzkowitz, Henry & Leydesdorff, Loet, 2000. "The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and "Mode 2" to a Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 109-123, February.
    5. Saxenian, AnnaLee, 1991. "The origins and dynamics of production networks in Silicon Valley," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 20(5), pages 423-437, October.
    6. Giesecke, Susanne, 2000. "The contrasting roles of government in the development of biotechnology industry in the US and Germany," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 205-223, February.
    7. Markard, Jochen & Truffer, Bernhard, 2008. "Technological innovation systems and the multi-level perspective: Towards an integrated framework," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(4), pages 596-615, May.
    8. Robert Dalpé, 2002. "Bibliometric analysis of biotechnology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 55(2), pages 189-213, August.
    9. Rosenberg,Nathan, 1994. "Exploring the Black Box," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521459556, January.
    10. Stuart, Toby E. & Ozdemir, Salih Zeki & Ding, Waverly W., 2007. "Vertical alliance networks: The case of university-biotechnology-pharmaceutical alliance chains," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(4), pages 477-498, May.
    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. Chung, Chao-chen, 2013. "Government, policy-making and the development of innovation system: The cases of Taiwanese pharmaceutical biotechnology policies (2000–2008)," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(5), pages 1053-1071.
    2. Rakas, Marija & Hain, Daniel S., 2019. "The state of innovation system research: What happens beneath the surface?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(9), pages 1-1.
    3. Souzanchi Kashani, Ebrahim & Roshani, Saeed, 2019. "Evolution of innovation system literature: Intellectual bases and emerging trends," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 68-80.
    4. Ramani, Shyama V. & Urias, Eduardo, 2018. "When access to drugs meets catch-up: Insights from the use of CL threats to improve access to ARV drugs in Brazil," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(8), pages 1538-1552.
    5. Constant, Edward II, 2002. "Why evolution is a theory about stability: constraint, causation, and ecology in technological change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(8-9), pages 1241-1256, December.
    6. Agarwal, Rajshree & Shah, Sonali K., 2014. "Knowledge sources of entrepreneurship: Firm formation by academic, user and employee innovators," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(7), pages 1109-1133.
    7. Niels Stijn & Frank J. Rijnsoever & Martine Veelen, 2018. "Exploring the motives and practices of university–start-up interaction: evidence from Route 128," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 43(3), pages 674-713, June.
    8. Lindholm-Dahlstrand, Asa & Andersson, Martin & Carlsson, Bo, 2016. "Entrepreneurial Experimentation: A key function in Entrepreneurial Systems of Innovation," Papers in Innovation Studies 2016/20, Lund University, CIRCLE - Centre for Innovation Research.
    9. Irina Dezhina & V. Kiseleva, 2008. "State, Science and Business in Russia's Innovation System," Research Paper Series, Gaidar Institute for Economic Policy, issue 115P.
    10. Perkmann, Markus & King, Zella & Pavelin, Stephen, 2011. "Engaging excellence? Effects of faculty quality on university engagement with industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(4), pages 539-552, May.
    11. Guijie Zhang & Yuqiang Feng & Guang Yu & Luning Liu & Yanqiqi Hao, 2017. "Analyzing the time delay between scientific research and technology patents based on the citation distribution model," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(3), pages 1287-1306, June.
    12. Schmidt, Tobias S. & Battke, Benedikt & Grosspietsch, David & Hoffmann, Volker H., 2016. "Do deployment policies pick technologies by (not) picking applications?—A simulation of investment decisions in technologies with multiple applications," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(10), pages 1965-1983.
    13. Autio, Erkko & Kenney, Martin & Mustar, Philippe & Siegel, Don & Wright, Mike, 2014. "Entrepreneurial innovation: The importance of context," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(7), pages 1097-1108.
    14. Bar-Ilan, Judit, 2008. "Informetrics at the beginning of the 21st century—A review," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 2(1), pages 1-52.
    15. Shi, Xianwei & Liang, Xingkun & Luo, Yining, 2023. "Unpacking the intellectual structure of ecosystem research in innovation studies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(6).
    16. Geels, Frank W., 2010. "Ontologies, socio-technical transitions (to sustainability), and the multi-level perspective," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(4), pages 495-510, May.
    17. Martin Meyer & Kevin Grant & Piera Morlacchi & Dagmara Weckowska, 2014. "Triple Helix indicators as an emergent area of enquiry: a bibliometric perspective," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 99(1), pages 151-174, April.
    18. Chai, Sen & Shih, Willy, 2016. "Bridging science and technology through academic–industry partnerships," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 148-158.
    19. Mario COCCIA, 2018. "Evolution of the economics of science in the Twenty Century," Journal of Economics Library, KSP Journals, vol. 5(1), pages 65-84, March.
    20. A. Bellucci & L. Pennacchio, 2016. "University knowledge and firm innovation: evidence from European countries," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 41(4), pages 730-752, August.

    More about this item

    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:zbw:wzbsps:spiii2011601. 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/wzbbbde.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.