Public R&D Policy: The Right Turns of the Wrong Screw? The Case of the German Biotechnology Industry

  • Andreas Fier
  • Oliver Heneric
Part of the International Studies in Entrepreneurship book series (ISEN, volume 19)

10.1 Introduction

The biotechnology industry still has considerable expectations concerning its growth rates in employment, new products, patents and profits. The technology is most relevant for policy makers to foster the national competitiveness, employment and social wealth. It is of particular importance for pharmaceutical companies to develop new products and its future profit margin is promising for private investors. Biotechnology start-ups have received special attention to investors and policy makers in most OECD countries. Actually, industrialized countries invest a high amount of tax payers' money in laboratories, incubators and R&D projects. The common intention is to support biotechnology entrepreneurs and to ensure future competitiveness.

However, it is largely recognized that Germany one of the largest European economies missed the accession of this upcoming key technology in the 1980s, while it evolved in other countries directed by the US. Today, German R&D policy...


Business Model Venture Capital Public Funding Credit Rating Market Risk 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Allen, F. (1984). Reputation and product quality. RAND Journal of Economics, 15:311–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arrow, K. J. (1963). Uncertainty and the welfare economics of medical care. American Economic Review, 53(5):941–973.Google Scholar
  3. Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17:99–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. BMBF (1993). Faktenbericht 1992 zum Bundesbericht Forschung. Technical report.Google Scholar
  5. BMBF (1998). Faktenbericht 1997 zum Bundesbericht Forschung. Technical report.Google Scholar
  6. BMBF (2003). Faktenbericht 2002 zum Bundesbericht Forschung. Technical report.Google Scholar
  7. Brealy, R. and Myers, S. (2000). Principles of Corporate Finance. McGraw-Hill: New York.Google Scholar
  8. Bundesministerium für Bildung und Wissenschaft (BMBW) (1971). Erster Ergebnisbericht des ad-hoc-Ausschusses ŞNeue TechnologienŤ, volume 6 of Schriftenreihe Forschungsplanung. Bonn.Google Scholar
  9. Bundesministerium für Wissenschaftliche Forschung (BMWF) (1969). Bundesbericht Forschung 3. Bonn.Google Scholar
  10. Bundesmnisterium für Forschung und Technologie (BMFT) (1972). Bericht über die Japanreise einer Expertenkommission für Biotechnologie. Bonn.Google Scholar
  11. Carpenter, R. and Petersen, B. (2002). Capital market imperfections, high-tech investment, and new equity financing. The Economic Journal, 112:54–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chesbrough, H. (1999). The differing organizational impact of technological change: A comparative theory of national institutional factors, Industrial and Corporate Change, 8:447–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Czarnitzki, D. and Fier, A. (2003). Publicly funded R&D collaborations and patent outcome in Germany. Technical report, ZEW Discussion Paper 03-24, Mannheim.Google Scholar
  14. Di Masi, J., Hansen, R., and Grabowski, H. (2003). The price of innovation: New estimates of drug development costs. Journal of Health Economics, 22(2):151–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Diamond, D. (1989). Reputation acquisition in debt markets. Journal of Political Economy, 97:828–862.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dohse, D. (2000). Technology policy and the regions Ű the case of the bioregio contest. Research Policy, 29:1111–1133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Downs, A. (1957). An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper & Row Publishers.Google Scholar
  18. Ernst and Young (2004). Biotechnology. source:, accessed on January 2006.
  19. European Commission (2004). Biowissenschaften und Biotechnologie — Eine Strategie für Europa. In Mitteilung der Kommission an das Europäische Parlament, number 27, pages 7–50.Google Scholar
  20. Fiet, J. (1995). Risk avoidance strategies in venture capital markets. Journal of Management Studies, 32(4):551–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fiet, J. O. (1991). Network reliance by venture capital firms and business angels: An empirical and theoretical test. In Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, pages 445–455. Babson College.Google Scholar
  22. Giesecke, S. (2000). The contrasting roles of government in the development of biotechnology industry in the US and Germany. Research Policy, 29:205–223. Greene, W. (2000). Econometric Analysis, volume 4. New York.Google Scholar
  23. Greene, W. (2003). Econometric Analysis, volume 5. New York.Google Scholar
  24. Harding, R. (2003). Why invest in biotechnology, and how? Britain and Germany compared. Technical report, Anglo-German Foundation for the Study of Industrial Society, London.Google Scholar
  25. Harhoff, D. and Stahl, K. (1995). Unternehmens- und beschaeftigungsdynamik in Westdeutsch-land: Zum einfluss von haftungsregeln und eigentuemerstruktur. In Oppenländer, K. H., editor, Industrieoekonomik und Finanzmaerkte, volume 41 of ifo Studien, pages 17–50.Google Scholar
  26. Harhoff, D. and Steil, F. (1997). Die zew-gruendungspanels: Konzeptionelle ueberlegungen und analysepotential. In Harhoff, D., editor, Unternehmensgruendungen — Empirische Analysen fuer die alten und neuen Bundeslaender, volume 7. Baden-Baden.Google Scholar
  27. Herstatt, C., Müller, C., and Fujiwara, T. (2004). Sources of bioentrepreneurship: The cases of Germany and Japan. Journal of Small Business Management, 42(1).Google Scholar
  28. Kirzner, I. (1973). Entrepreneurship and Competition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  29. Klein, B. and Leffler, K. (1981). The role of market forces in assuring contractual performance. Journal of Political Economy, 89:615–641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Knight, F. (1921). Risk, uncertainty and profit. New York: Houghton Mifflin, 2021:226–228.Google Scholar
  31. Müller, C. and Herstatt, C. (2004). Einflussfaktoren auf die Effizienz von FuE-Kooperationen in der Biotechnologie-Branche — Eine kausalanalytische Untersuchung. Technical Report 20, TU Harburg.Google Scholar
  32. Nelson, R. (1959). The simple economics of basic scientific research. The Journal of Political Economy, 67(3):297–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. NIST (2004). Measuring ATP Impact: 2004 Report on Economic Progress. Annual Report, Gaithersburg.Google Scholar
  34. OECD (1966). Wages and Labour Mobility. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  35. Ollig, W. (2001). Strategiekonzepte für Biotechnologie-Unternehmen: Gründung, Entwicklungsp-fade, Geschäftsmodelle. Deutscher Universitäts-Verlag.Google Scholar
  36. Orsenigo, L. (1989). The Emergence of Biotechnology: Institutions and Markets in Industrial Innovation. London.Google Scholar
  37. Perlman, D. (1975). Influence of penicillin fermentation technology to processes for production of other antibiotics. Process Biochemistry, 10(9):23.Google Scholar
  38. Peter, V. (2001). Einführung in die biotechnologie. In Peter, V., editor, Institutionen im Innovationsprozess: Eine Analyse anhand der biotechnologischen Innovationssysteme in Deutschland und Japan, pages 65–88.Google Scholar
  39. Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive Strategy. Techniques for Analyzing Industries and Competitors. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  40. Prantl, S. (2003). Bankruptcy and voluntary liquidation: Evidence for new firms in East and West Germany after unification. Technical Report 03-72, ZEW Discussion Paper, Mannheim.Google Scholar
  41. Rogerson, W. (1983). Reputation and product quality. Bell Journal of Economics, 14:508–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Schumpeter, J. (1911). Theorie der wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung. Eine Untersuchung über Unternehmergewinn, Kapital, Kredit, Zins und den Konjunkturzyklus. München.Google Scholar
  43. Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The Theory of Economic Development. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Schumpeter, J. A. (1943). Capitalism, socialism and democracy. London: George Allen & Unwin (Publishers) Ltd.Google Scholar
  45. Shapiro, C. (1983). Premiums for high quality products as returns to reputations. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 98(4):659–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Spence, A. (1984). Cost reduction, competition, and industry performance. Econometrica, 52:101–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Stahl, K. (1991). Das Mannheimer Unternehmenspanel: Konzept und Entwicklung. Mitteilungen aus der Arbeitsmarkt-und Berufsforschung, 28:735–738.Google Scholar
  48. Wink, M. (2004). Molekulare Biotechnologie, chapter Die Zelle ist die Grundeinheit des Lebens, pages 3–29. Weinheim.Google Scholar
  49. Wörner, S., Reiss, T., Menrad, M., and Menrad, K. (2000). European biotechnology innovation systems: Case study Germany. Bericht für die Europäische Kommission (SOE1-CT98-1117). Fraunhofer-Institut für Systemtechnik und Innovationsforschung, Karlsruhe, 118.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andreas Fier
    • 1
  • Oliver Heneric
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for European Economic Research (ZEW)MannheimGermany

Personalised recommendations