The Biomedical Clusters in Ohio and Sweden: An Overview

  • Bo Carlsson
  • Pontus Braunerhjelm
Part of the Economics of Science, Technology and Innovation book series (ESTI, volume 26)


As explained in Chapter 1, we have chosen to focus our international comparison mainly on the area of biomedicine, defined broadly to include pharmaceuticals (not only those based on biotechnology), medical equipment and supplies, diagnostics, software, and a variety of supporting services. This means that our primary unit of analysis here is a cluster, not a technological system. It is not a technological system because it is not defined solely by a particular set of technologies. Instead, the main criterion for including a particular activity in our analysis is whether it produces goods and services for use in the provision of health care, either directly to patients or indirectly via health care providers (hospitals, clinics, physicians, and so on). Since the unit of analysis is defined from the perspective of the end users, it would be appropriate to refer to it as a competence bloc consisting of parts of several technological systems, including biotechnology, mechanical engineering, information technology, software, and materials. Yet we refer to it in the following as a cluster rather than a competence bloc, since we are more interested in a general overview of the composition, structure, and institutional infrastructure than in the particular actors (customers, innovators, entrepreneurs, venture capitalists, exit markets, and industrialists) who may convert the cluster into a competence bloc (see further discussion in Chapter 9 in this volume). The main goal of our inquiry is to understand both the similarities and the differences in the development of the biomedical clusters in Ohio and Sweden.


Venture Capital Medical Equipment Total Employment Location Quotient Macroeconomic Performance 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Andersson, T., P. Braunerhjelm, B. Carlsson, G. Eliasson, S. FSlster, L. Jagrén, E. Kazamaki Ottersten, and K.R. Sjöholm, 1993.Den Mingo vagen: den ekonomiska politikens begränsningar och möjligheter att fora Sverige ur 1990-talets kris(The Long Road: The Limitations and Possibilities of Economic Policy to Bring Sweden out of the Crisis of the 1990s). Stockholm: IUI.Google Scholar
  2. Audretsch, David, and Paula Stephan, 1996. “Company-Scientist Locational Links: The Case of Biotechnology.”American Economic Review86(3), 641–652.Google Scholar
  3. Braunerhjelm, Pontus, and Bo Carlsson, 1999. “Industry Clusters in Ohio and Sweden, 1975–1995.”Small Business Economics12(4), 279–293.Google Scholar
  4. Braunerhjelm, P, B. Carlsson, D. Cetindamar, and D. Johansson, 2000. “The Old and the New: The Evolution of Polymer and Biomedical Clustersin Ohio and Sweden,”Journal of Evolutionary Economics10(5), 471–488.Google Scholar
  5. Braunerhjelm, P., B. Carlsson, and D. Johansson,1998. “Industriella kluster, tillväxt och ekonomisk politik,”Ekonomisk Debatt26(6), 419–430.Google Scholar
  6. Carlsson, Bo (ed.), 1997.Technological Systems and Industrial Dynamics.Boston: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carlsson, Bo, and Pontus Braunerhjelm, 1999. “Industry Clusters: Bio-technology/Biomedicine and Polymers in Ohio and Sweden.” In David Audretsch and Roy Thurik (eds.)Innovation Industry Evolution and Employment pp. 182–215. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Grönberg, Ann-Marie, 1996.Nordiska företag i medicinsk teknik(Nordic Firms in Medical Technology). Huddinge: Bioprint Publishing and Consulting AB.Google Scholar
  9. Grönberg, Ann-Marie, 1997.Nordiska företag i bioteknik(Nordic Firms in Biotechnology). Huddinge: Bioprint Publishing and Consulting AB.Google Scholar
  10. Henrekson, Magnus and Dan Johansson, 1999. “Institutional Effects on the Evolution of the Size Distribution of Firms,”Small Business Economics12(1), 11–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Jaffe, A.B., M. Trajtenberg, and R. Henderson, 1993. “Geographic Location of Knowledge Spillovers as Evidenced by Patent Citations.”Quarterly Journal of Economics63(3), 577–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Jakobsson, U., L. Bergman, P. Braunerhjelm, S. Fölster and M. Henrekson, 1998.Entrepreneurship in the Welfare State: Summary and Conclusions. SNS Economic Policy Group Report 1998.Stockholm: SNS.Google Scholar
  13. Nutek (Swedish National Board for Industrial and Technical Development), 1998.Den biomedicinska industrin i Sverige(The Biomedical Industry in Sweden). Nutek Report B 1998:8. Stockholm: Nutek.Google Scholar
  14. Prevezer, Martha,1997. “The Dynamics of Industrial Clustering in Biotechnology,”Small Business Economics9(3), 255–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Stankiewicz, Rikard, 1997. “The Development of Beta Blockers at Astra-Hässle and the Technological System of the Swedish Pharmaceutical Industry.” In B. Carlsson (1997), pp. 93–137.Google Scholar
  16. U.K. Department of Trade and Industry, 1999. “Biotechnology Clusters: Report of a Team Led by Lord Sainsbury, Minister for Science.” Google Scholar
  17. L.G., M. Darby, and J. Armstrong, 1998. “Geographically Localized Knowledge: Spillovers or Markets?”Economic Inquiry36(1), 65–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Zucker, L.G., M. Darby, and M. Brewer, 1998. “Intellectual Capital and the Birth of U.S. Biotechnology Enterprises.”American Economic Review88(1), 290–306.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bo Carlsson
  • Pontus Braunerhjelm

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations