Journals / Avrasya Etüdleri / 2013 / Cilt: 1 - Sayı: 43

Schumpeter’e yeniden bakmak: Biyoteknoloji endüstrisi üzerine bir açıklama

Schumpeter revisited: Explaining the emergence of the biotech industry

Pages
7–28
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

It is therefore concluded that the biotechnology industry has thus far evolved in a manner mostly consistent with Schumpeterian views.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This paper examines the emergence of the global biotechnology industry from the Schumpeterian perspective.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Specifically, the changing importance of small versus large firms, as well as the shift from competition to cooperation within the biotechnology sector, is taken as typical manifestations of a process of ‘creative destruction’.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:It is therefore concluded that the biotechnology industry has thus far evolved in a manner mostly consistent with Schumpeterian views.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

This paper examines the emergence of the global biotechnology industry from the Schumpeterian perspective. Specifically, the changing importance of small versus large firms, as well as the shift from competition to cooperation within the biotechnology sector, is taken as typical manifestations of a process of ‘creative destruction’. Following an explanation of biotechnology from the neo-liberal economic view, an outline of Schumpeter’s views on technological change as a three-stage process involving invention, innovation and diffusion, the implications of such a conceptualization for long-term industrial evolution, are examined as the key explanation. It is therefore concluded that the biotechnology industry has thus far evolved in a manner mostly consistent with Schumpeterian views. Extrapolating into the future, a Schumpeterian framework suggests important challenges for an industry at that stage of maturity. The importance of technological discontinuities for the emergence of novel industrial sectors is illustrated by a case study of the biotechnology industry in the late 20th century.

Özet

Bu makale, küresel biyoteknoloji endüstrisinin ortaya çıkışını Schumpeterci bakış açısı ile değerlendirmektedir. Özellikle, büyük firmalara karşı küçük firmaların öneminin değişmesi ile biyoteknoloji sektöründe rekabetten işbirliğine sıçrama ‘yaratıcı yıkıcılık’ sürecinin tipik bir manifestosu olarak ele alınmaktadır. Neo-liberal ekonomik açıdan bioteknoloji incelendikten sonra Schumpeter’in teknolojik değişim yaklaşımının, icat (invention), yenilik (innovation) ve yayılma (diffusion)’ yı içeren üç aşamalı sürecini izleyerek, böylesi bir kavramsallaştırmanın uzun dönem endüstriyel evrim (evolution) üzerindeki etkilerine bakılmıştır. Sonuç olarak biyoteknoloji endüstrisinin daha çok Schumpeter’in görüşlerine uygun bir davranış göstererek evrildiği gözlenmistir. Geleceğe ilişkin olarak, Schumpeterci bir çerçeve olgunluk aşamasında bulunan bir endüstri için önemli değişiklikler önermektedir. Yükselen yeni endüstri sektörü için teknolojik kesintinin (discontinuities) önemi geç 20. yüzyılda biyoteknoloji endüstrisi vaka çalışması olarak gösterilmiştir.

🔖

Cite This Article

DEMİRBAŞ, D. (2013). Schumpeter’e yeniden bakmak: Biyoteknoloji endüstrisi üzerine bir açıklama. Avrasya Etüdleri, Cilt: 1 - Sayı: 43, 7–28. https://ajindex.com/articles/149713

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (13)

  1. Arora, A. and A. Gambardella. “Complementarily and external linkages: The strategies of the large firms in biotechnology”, Journal of Industrial Economics, Vol. 38, Year 1990, pp. 361-379.
  2. Barley, S. R., J. Freeman and R. C. Hybels. “Strategic alliances in commercial biotechnology”, (eds) N. Nohria and R. G. Eccles, Networks and Organizations: Structure, Forms and Action, Harvard Business School Press, Boston (MA), 1992, pp. 311-347.
  3. Barry, T. Zapata’s Revenge: Free Trade and the Farm Crises in Mexico, Brown and Co., Boston, 1995.
  4. Braunerhjelm, P. and R. Svensson. “The Inventor’s Role: Was Schumpeter Right?”, Paper presented at The Oslo Research Workshop 2006 on Entrepreneurship, Innovation and Innovation Policy, Norwegian School of Management, Oslo, 2006.
  5. Bronwyn, B. and R. M. Ziedonis. “The patent paradox revidited: an empirical study of patenting in the US semiconductor industry”, Rand Journal Of Economics, Vol. 32, 2001, pp. 1001-128.
  6. Cantwell, J. A. and A. Bachman. “Changing Pattern in Technological Leadership- evidence from Pharmaceutical Industry”, International Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 21, Year 1998, pp. 45-77.
  7. Coriat, B., F. Orsi and O. Weinstein. “Does Biotech Reflect a New Science Based Innovation Regime?”, Industry and Innovation, Vol. 10, Year 2003, pp. 231-253. Ernst & Young. Beyond Borders; Global Biotechnology Report 2011,
  8. UK. Fransman, M. “Biotechnology, Generation, Diffusion and Policy in Technology and Innovation in the International Economy”,(ed.) C. Cooper, United Nations University Institute for New Technology, United Nations University Press, 1994.
  9. Hagedoorn, J. and N. Roijakkers. “Small Enterpreneurial Firms and Large Companies in Inter-firm R&D Networks-The International Biotechnology Industry”, Discussion Paper, MERIT, University of Maastricht, The Netherlands, 2000.
  10. Hagedoorn, J. "Innovation and enterpreneurship: Schumpeter revisited", Industrial and Corporate Change, Vol. 5, Year 1996, pp. 883-896.
  11. Hansen, A. and J. L. Pedersen. “The Politicization of Technology Policy: Between big Business and Public Movements”, paper presented at the 7th International ISASS Conference, 2000.
  12. Hine, D. and J. Kapeleris. İnnovation and Entrepreneurship in Biotechnology, An International Perspective; Concepts, Theories and Cases, Edward Elgar, UK, 2006.
  13. Kenney, M. “Biotechnology and the creation of a new economic space”, in Private Science, Biotechnology and the Rise of the Molecular Sciences, (eds.) A. Thackrey, University of Pennsy