Skip to main content

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

  • Chapter
Sustaining Entrepreneurship and Economic Growth

Part of the book series: International Studies in Entrepreneurship ((ISEN,volume 19))

  • 1044 Accesses

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Allen, F. (1984). Reputation and product quality. RAND Journal of Economics, 15:311–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arrow, K. J. (1963). Uncertainty and the welfare economics of medical care. American Economic Review, 53(5):941–973.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17:99–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • BMBF (1993). Faktenbericht 1992 zum Bundesbericht Forschung. Technical report.

    Google Scholar 

  • BMBF (1998). Faktenbericht 1997 zum Bundesbericht Forschung. Technical report.

    Google Scholar 

  • BMBF (2003). Faktenbericht 2002 zum Bundesbericht Forschung. Technical report.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brealy, R. and Myers, S. (2000). Principles of Corporate Finance. McGraw-Hill: New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bundesministerium für Bildung und Wissenschaft (BMBW) (1971). Erster Ergebnisbericht des ad-hoc-Ausschusses ÅžNeue TechnologienŤ, volume 6 of Schriftenreihe Forschungsplanung. Bonn.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bundesministerium für Wissenschaftliche Forschung (BMWF) (1969). Bundesbericht Forschung 3. Bonn.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bundesmnisterium für Forschung und Technologie (BMFT) (1972). Bericht über die Japanreise einer Expertenkommission für Biotechnologie. Bonn.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter, R. and Petersen, B. (2002). Capital market imperfections, high-tech investment, and new equity financing. The Economic Journal, 112:54–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough, H. (1999). The differing organizational impact of technological change: A comparative theory of national institutional factors, Industrial and Corporate Change, 8:447–485.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diamond, D. (1989). Reputation acquisition in debt markets. Journal of Political Economy, 97:828–862.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dohse, D. (2000). Technology policy and the regions Å° the case of the bioregio contest. Research Policy, 29:1111–1133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Downs, A. (1957). An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper & Row Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ernst and Young (2004). Biotechnology. source: www.ibef.org, accessed on January 2006.

  • 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 

  • Fiet, J. (1995). Risk avoidance strategies in venture capital markets. Journal of Management Studies, 32(4):551–574.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Greene, W. (2003). Econometric Analysis, volume 5. New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Kirzner, I. (1973). Entrepreneurship and Competition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein, B. and Leffler, K. (1981). The role of market forces in assuring contractual performance. Journal of Political Economy, 89:615–641.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knight, F. (1921). Risk, uncertainty and profit. New York: Houghton Mifflin, 2021:226–228.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Nelson, R. (1959). The simple economics of basic scientific research. The Journal of Political Economy, 67(3):297–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • NIST (2004). Measuring ATP Impact: 2004 Report on Economic Progress. Annual Report, Gaithersburg.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD (1966). Wages and Labour Mobility. Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ollig, W. (2001). Strategiekonzepte für Biotechnologie-Unternehmen: Gründung, Entwicklungsp-fade, Geschäftsmodelle. Deutscher Universitäts-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orsenigo, L. (1989). The Emergence of Biotechnology: Institutions and Markets in Industrial Innovation. London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perlman, D. (1975). Influence of penicillin fermentation technology to processes for production of other antibiotics. Process Biochemistry, 10(9):23.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive Strategy. Techniques for Analyzing Industries and Competitors. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Rogerson, W. (1983). Reputation and product quality. Bell Journal of Economics, 14:508–516.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schumpeter, J. (1911). Theorie der wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung. Eine Untersuchung über Unternehmergewinn, Kapital, Kredit, Zins und den Konjunkturzyklus. München.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The Theory of Economic Development. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schumpeter, J. A. (1943). Capitalism, socialism and democracy. London: George Allen & Unwin (Publishers) Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro, C. (1983). Premiums for high quality products as returns to reputations. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 98(4):659–679.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spence, A. (1984). Cost reduction, competition, and industry performance. Econometrica, 52:101–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stahl, K. (1991). Das Mannheimer Unternehmenspanel: Konzept und Entwicklung. Mitteilungen aus der Arbeitsmarkt-und Berufsforschung, 28:735–738.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wink, M. (2004). Molekulare Biotechnologie, chapter Die Zelle ist die Grundeinheit des Lebens, pages 3–29. Weinheim.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Max Keilbach Jagannadha Pawan Tamvada David B. Audretsch

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2009 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Fier, A., Heneric, O. (2009). Public R&D Policy: The Right Turns of the Wrong Screw? The Case of the German Biotechnology Industry. In: Keilbach, M., Tamvada, J.P., Audretsch, D.B. (eds) Sustaining Entrepreneurship and Economic Growth. International Studies in Entrepreneurship, vol 19. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-78695-7_10

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics