This dissertation explores different sides of the development of German biotechnology especially with regard to sustainability issues. As stated in section two of this chapter, the field has gone through different stages of industry life cycle during the past two decades. Policy initiatives, especially SME-oriented, as well as strong corporations and research institutions served as a good base for industry development. This also caused a large number of firms’
entries into biotechnology as well as an increasing number of patents. These numbers, however, decreased radically in the middle of the 2000s, because of the ending of funding programs as well as the general economic situation. But in the middle of the 2010s new innovations entered the market. This was caused by the necessity and willingness to find solutions to Sustainable Development Goals as well as to develop medicine-related inventions, especially in the fields of cancer research and wound healing. These directions of development appear to be the main paths of the industry nowadays (Chapter 2). Apart from corporations, universities and research institutions play an important role in the field. Especially institutions that are active in both research and technology. They influence the development of the research space through the combination of basic and applied research (Chapter 3).
As another important actor, SMEs are pushing the field forward, especially with regard to advancements in red biotechnology (Chapter 2). SMEs’ radical innovations not only help them to stand out among bigger actors, but also have a positive impact on the innovative performance of non-radical peers. This happens through contractual relationships (Chapter 4) and appropriation of radical innovator’s knowledge via patent citations (Chapter 5). In this, cooperation on the level of funded projects is not regionally or technologically bounded:
38 partner firms usually complement each other with regards to capabilities. In contrast to that, the impact over the citations' channel is still regionally bounded: firms, citing radical innovators, are profiting more from the knowledge of radical innovators when they are located closer.
Nevertheless, there are some issues, which are still unresolved through this dissertation and which might be of interest for further research. First, although evaluating the innovative performance of biotech SMEs, this dissertation does not deal with their survival. This topic is important, as many SMEs exited the industry in the middle of the 2000s, either after being acquired or going through insolvency procedures. It would be interesting to know which characteristics surviving SMEs possess and whether they were among the first companies going towards sustainability.
Further projects may concentrate more on the field of bioeconomy. There, the development of this industry within a particular country or international collaborations would be of interest.
Using the findings of chapters 2 and 3, follow-up studies may elaborate technological trajectories of the specific sub-fields of bioeconomy as well as unveiling the specific actors as well as collaborations standing behind influential inventions.
Furthermore, instead of focusing on patents as the main indicators of innovation, further research may add the dimension of products to the analysis by investigating websites of the firms, applying web-scrapping techniques or visiting specialized exhibitions. This would show the market dimension of innovation and would limit the analysis to successful inventions only.
This dissertation provides important policy implications. First, it shows the importance of SMEs in the field's transformation process. Thus, funding of these actors should not stop.
Moreover, programs, which opt at funding projects with the focus on sustainability, are especially important. Such programs make new SMEs enter the market as well as support the re-profiling of existing ones.
Furthermore, the programs should support science-industry collaborations, as they promote the interaction between basic and applied research as well as help in creating a versatile picture of the field. As findings of different research papers show, funding should not be limited only to the traditionally developed biotechnology clusters. SMEs, which are willing to follow radical innovations paths, are located in all parts of Germany, thus, potential for innovative development can be found everywhere. For example, such federal states as Saxony-Anhalt or Mecklenburg- Western Pomerania may profit from institutes, located there, for example Leibniz Institutes in Halle (Saale) and Rostock, focusing respectively on plant biochemistry and catalysis.
39 Therefore, it can be said that biotechnology in Germany is on its way to transformation caused by societal challenges. Its success depends on the collaborative effort of all stakeholders:
institutes and universities, providing scientific solutions and teaching future specialists;
corporations, in their effort to, e.g., conquer global hunger and implement new drugs against cancer; SMEs, looking for inventions and supporting others with services; and policy-makers, developing funding programs and strategies. The success of these actions can hopefully soon be seen not only in Germany, but worldwide.
Apart from providing implications to the policy-makers, dissertation also adds to the research landscape, both methodologically and with regards to the understanding of biotechnology transformation. Thus, chapter 2 from the one hand takes on the theoretical literature on biotechnology as the base for bioeconomy (for example McCormick and Kautto 2013, Bugge et al. 2016) and looks empirically, whether this transformation can be observed with the help of patent data. From the other hand, the chapter advances the literature on main path analysis (Mina et al. 2007, Verspagen 2007, Fontana et al. 2009) by taking into account not only the main strain of thoughts, but also periphery topics. Apart from that, paper connects main path analysis with contextual analysis of patent titles and abstracts.
Chapter 3 builds on the literature on science-technology interaction (for example Coward and Franklin 1989, Klitkou et al. 2007, Breschi and Catalini 2010) and estimates the role of author-inventors for the case of plant biotechnology. Although the focus on the biotechnology is not new (Breschi and Catalini 2010), paper complements this research by looking at the development of author-inventor role over time, which was not present in the previous literature.
Chapter 4 completes existing literature on the methods of radical innovation definition (Dahlin and Behrens 2005, Verhoeven et al. 2016) by consolidating the necessity to account for recombination of knowledge as well as high impact, that innovation brings to the field. The novelty in this case is reflecting by applying different filtering procedures successively.
Moreover, chapter shifts the accent from the radical innovator himself to its partners via applying ego-networks perspective, which could not be found in the literature before.
Chapter 5 combines radical innovation perspective with the concept of different proximity measures (as of Boschma 2005). It builts on the literature on knowledge diffusion (Fallah and Ibrahim 2004; Döring and Schnellenbach 2006; Ibrahim 2008) and applies it to the case of radical innovation. The chapter contributes to this stream of literature by looking at how the knowledge is diffusing for the case of radical innovations. It also complements the literature of proximity dimensions (for example Broekel and Boschma 2012) by estimating, what dimensions play role for the case of radical knowledge diffusion.
40 By looking at the overall level, this dissertation contributes to the evolutionary economics literature manifold. First, following Dosi (1982), Dosi et al. (1988) it looks at how the technology develops, following a particular trajectory on the example of biotechnology. From the other hand, dissertation also looks at the situation, when the existing paradigm breaks through the radical innovation and new routines will be established in the industry (Glueckler 2007). The novelty of this dissertation lies in following this transition for the case of highly complex field of biotechnology and its moving towards sustainability (towards bioeconomy).
Second, the dissertation outlines the potential, that SMEs have. Probably, it cannot be fully used when looking at the firm ‘in a vacuum’, but through networks (Ahuja 2000), both intra- and interregional, within and between the industry, high impact on the biotechnology advancement could be reached.
Lastly, building on the institutional framework (for example North 1990) this dissertation shows, that in order to push field towards great transformation the collective and collaborative effort of different actors (industry, research and policy) is necessary.
41
References
Adelberger, K. E. (2000). Semi‐sovereign leadership? The state's role in German biotechnology and venture capital growth. German Politics, 9(1), 103-122.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09644000008404582
Aguilar, A., Magnien, E., & Thomas, D. (2013). Thirty years of European biotechnology programmes: from biomolecular engineering to the bioeconomy. New biotechnology, 30(5), 410-425. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nbt.2012.11.014
Ahuja, G. (2000). Collaboration networks, structural holes, and innovation: A longitudinal study. Administrative science quarterly, 45(3), 425-455.
https://doi.org/10.2307/2667105
Arrow, K. J. (1962). Economic Welfare and The Allocation of Resources for Invention. The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity, Princeton University Press and NBER.
Arthur, W. B. (1989). Competing technologies, increasing returns, and lock-in by historical events. The economic journal, 99(394), 116-131.
https://doi.org/10.2307/2234208
Autant‐Bernard, C., & LeSage, J. P. (2011). Quantifying knowledge spillovers using spatial econometric models. Journal of regional Science, 51(3), 471-496.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9787.2010.00705.x
Bathelt, H., Malmberg, A., & Maskell, P. (2004). Clusters and knowledge: local buzz, global pipelines and the process of knowledge creation. Progress in human geography, 28(1), 31-56. https://doi.org/10.1191/0309132504ph469oa
Bernauer, T., & Meins, E. (2003). Technological revolution meets policy and the market:
Explaining cross‐national differences in agricultural biotechnology regulation. European Journal of Political Research, 42(5), 643-683. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.00099 Birch, K. (2017). Rethinking value in the bio-economy: Finance, assetization, and the management of value. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 42(3), 460-490.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243916661633
Birch, K., Levidow, L., & Papaioannou, T. (2010). Sustainable capital? The neoliberalization of nature and knowledge in the European “knowledge-based bio-economy”. Sustainability, 2(9), 2898-2918. https://doi.org/10.3390/su2092898
42 Borgatti, S. P., & Halgin, D. S. (2011). On network theory. Organization science, 22(5), 1168-1181. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1100.0641
Boschma, R. (2005). Proximity and Innovation: A critical assessment. Regional Studies, 39(1), 61-74. https://doi.org/10.1080/0034340052000320887
Boschma, R. A., & Frenken, K. (2006). Why is economic geography not an evolutionary science? Towards an evolutionary economic geography. Journal of economic geography, 6(3), 273-302. https://doi.org/10.1093/jeg/lbi022
Boschma, R., Martin, R. (2010). The Aims and Scope of Evolutionary Economic Geography. Papers in Evolutionary Economic Geography, 1.
http://econ.geo.uu.nl/peeg/peeg1001.pdf. Accessed 07 February 2020.
Boyack, K. W., & Klavans, R. (2008). Measuring science–technology interaction using rare inventor–author names. Journal of Informetrics, 2(3), 173-182.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2008.03.001
Broekel, T., & Boschma, R. (2012). Knowledge networks in the Dutch aviation industry:
the proximity paradox. Journal of Economic Geography, 12(2), 409-433.
https://doi.org/10.1093/jeg/lbr010
Breschi, S., & Catalini, C. (2010). Tracing the links between science and technology: An exploratory analysis of scientists’ and inventors’ networks. Research Policy, 39(1), 14-26.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2009.11.004
Breschi, S., Malerba, F., & Orsenigo, L. (2000). Technological regimes and Schumpeterian patterns of innovation. The economic journal, 110(463), 388-410.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0297.00530
Bresnahan, T. F., & Trajtenberg, M. (1995). General purpose technologies ‘Engines of growth’?. Journal of econometrics, 65(1), 83-108. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-4076(94)01598-T
Breschi, S., Lissoni, F., & Montobbio, F. (2005). The geography of knowledge spillovers:
conceptual issues and measurement problems. Clusters, networks and innovation, 343-378.
Brooks, S. (2005). Biotechnology and the politics of truth: From the green revolution to an evergreen revolution. Sociologia ruralis, 45(4), 360-379.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9523.2005.00310.x
43 Bugge, M. M., Hansen, T., & Klitkou, A. (2016). What is the bioeconomy? A review of the literature. Sustainability, 8(7), 691. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8070691
Cantner, U., Meder, A. (2007). Technological proximity and the choice of cooperation partner, J Econ Interac Coord 2, 45-65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11403-007-0018-y Cantner, U., Meder, A., Ter Wal, A.L.J. (2010). Innovator networks and regional
knowledge base. Technovation, 30(9-10), 496-507.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2010.04.002
Caragliu, A., & Nijkamp, P. (2016). Space and knowledge spillovers in European regions:
the impact of different forms of proximity on spatial knowledge diffusion. Journal of Economic Geography, 16(3), 749-774. https://doi.org/10.1093/jeg/lbv042
Casper, S., Lehrer, M., & Soskice, D. (1999). Can high-technology industries prosper in Germany? Institutional frameworks and the evolution of the German software and biotechnology industries. Industry and Innovation, 6(1), 5-24.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13662719900000002
Castillo, J. (2002). A note on the concept of tacit knowledge. Journal of Management Inquiry, 11(1), 46-57. https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492602111018
Content, J., Frenken, K., & Jordaan, J. A. (2019). Does related variety foster regional entrepreneurship? Evidence from European regions. Regional Studies, 53(11), 1531-1543.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2019.1595565
Coward, H. R., & Franklin, J. J. (1989). Identifying the science-technology interface:
Matching patent data to a bibliometric model. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 14(1), 50-77. https://doi.org/10.1177/016224398901400106
Dahlin, K.B., Behrens, D.M. (2005). When is an invention really radical?: Defining and measuring technological radicalness, Research Policy, 34(5), 717-737.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2005.03.009
Dalpé, R. (2002). Bibliometric analysis of biotechnology. Scientometrics, 55(2), 189-213.
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1019663607103
David, P. A. (1985). Clio and the Economics of QWERTY. The American economic review, 75(2), 332-337. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1805621. Accessed on 03 April 2020.
44 Döring, T, Schnellenbach, J. (2006). What do we know about geographical knowledge spillovers and regional growth?: A survey of the literature, Regional Studies, 40:03, 375-395. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343400600632739
Dosi, G. (1982). Technological paradigms and technological trajectories: a suggested interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change. Research policy,
11(3), 147-162.
http://static.gest.unipd.it/~birolo/didattica11/Materiale_2012/Letture/Materiale_per_
studenti_2012/_Il_modello_evolutivo-teorie/Dosi-Technological_paradigms.pdf.
Accessed on 03 April 2020.
Dosi, G., Freeman, C., Nelson, R., Silverberg, G., & Soete, L. (1988). Technical change and economic theory. Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.
Dosi, G., & Nelson, R. R. (1994). An introduction to evolutionary theories in economics.
Journal of evolutionary economics, 4(3), 153-172. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01236366 Ernst & Young (2011). Weichen stellen. Deutscher Biotechnologie-Report 2011.
https://www.ibbnetzwerk-gmbh.com/uploads/media/E_Y_-_German_Biotechreport_2011_03.pdf. Accessed 03 April 2020.
Ernst & Young (2017). Spot on Innovation! Best Practice beleuchten: Von der Idee zum
MarktDeutscher Biotechnologie-Report 2017.
https://www.ascenion.de/fileadmin/images/content/Medienspiegel/ey-deutscher-biotechnologie-report-2017.pdf. Accessed 03 April 2020.
European Commission (2012). Innovating for Sustainable Growth: A Bioeconomy for Europe. https://ec.europa.eu/research/bioeconomy/pdf/official-strategy_en.pdf.
Accessed on 29 March 2020.
Fallah, M. H., & Ibrahim, S. (2004). Knowledge spillover and innovation in technological clusters. In Proceedings, IAMOT 2004 Conference, Washington, DC (pp. 1-16).
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/KNOWLEDGE-SPILLOVER-AND-
INNOVATION-IN-TECHNOLOGICAL-Fallah-Howe/7624da7d86932d1c3537ffa73557d0f86dbf6f2c. Accessed 28 February 2020.
Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) (2010/2011). National Research Strategy BioEconomy 2030 – Our Route towards a biobased economy.
https://ebbeycop.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/5-national-research-strategy-bioeconomy-2030_de_eng.pdf. Accessed 27 March 2020
45 Fleming, L. (2001). Recombinant uncertainty in technological search. Management science, 47(1), 117-132. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.47.1.117.10671
Fleming, L. (2007). Breakthroughs and the" long tail" of innovation. MIT Sloan Management Review, 49(1), 69. http://sloanreview.mit.edu/wp-content/uploads/saleable-pdfs/49114.pdf. Accessed 07 January 2020
Fontana, R., Nuvolari, A., Verspagen, B. (2009). Mapping technological trajectories as patent citation networks. An application to data communication standards. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Vol. 18 (4), 311-336.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10438590801969073
Fornahl, D., Broekel, T. Boschma, R. (2011). What drives patent performance of German biotech firms? The impact of R&D subsidies, Knowledge networks and their location, Papers in Regional Science, 90(2), 395-419. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1435-5957.2011.00361.x
Glitz, E. Projektträger Jülich (2005). KMU-innovativ. Biotechnologie – BioChance.
https://www.bmbf.de/upload_filestore/pub/KMU_innovativ_Biotechnologie.pdf.
Accessed 30 March 2020.
Glückler, J. (2007). Economic geography and the evolution of networks. Journal of Economic Geography, 7(5), 619-634. https://doi.org/10.1093/jeg/lbm023
Graf, H., & Broekel, T. (2020). A shot in the dark? Policy influence on cluster networks.
Research Policy, 49(3), 103920. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2019.103920
Hagedoorn, J., Roijakkers, N., & Van Kranenburg, H. (2006). Inter‐Firm R&D Networks:
the Importance of Strategic Network Capabilities for High‐Tech Partnership Formation 1.
British Journal of Management, 17(1), 39-53. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2005.00474.x
Hanusch, H., & Pyka, A. (2007). Principles of neo-Schumpeterian economics. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 31(2), 275-289. https://doi.org/10.1093/cje/bel018
Häussler, C. (2007). Proactive versus reactive M&A activities in the biotechnology industry. The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 17(2), 109-123.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hitech.2006.11.001
46 Hilgartner, S. (2007). Making the bioeconomy measurable: Politics of an emerging
anticipatory machinery. Biosocieties, 2, 382–386.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1745855207005819
Hindriks, F., & Guala, F. (2015). Institutions, rules, and equilibria: a unified theory.
Journal of Institutional Economics, 11(3), 459-480.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744137414000496
Holmes Jr, R. M., Miller, T., Hitt, M. A., & Salmador, M. P. (2013). The interrelationships among informal institutions, formal institutions, and inward foreign direct investment.
Journal of Management, 39(2), 531-566. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310393503 Hopkins, M. M., Martin, P. A., Nightingale, P., Kraft, A., & Mahdi, S. (2007). The myth of the biotech revolution: An assessment of technological, clinical and organisational change. Research policy, 36(4), 566-589. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2007.02.013 Howells, J. R. (2002). Tacit knowledge, innovation and economic geography. Urban studies, 39(5-6), 871-884. https://doi.org/10.1080/00420980220128354
Hummon, N.; Doreian, P. (1989): Connectivity in a citation network: the development of DNA theory. Social Networks, Vol 11 (1), 39-63. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-8733(89)90017-8
Ibrahim, S. E., Fallah, M. H., & Reilly, R. R. (2009). Localized sources of knowledge and the effect of knowledge spillovers: an empirical study of inventors in the telecommunications industry. Journal of Economic Geography, 9(3), 405-431.
https://doi.org/10.1093/jeg/lbn049
Jacobs, J. (1969). The Economy of Cities. Random House, New York.
Jaffe, A.B., Trajtenberg, M., Henderson, R. (1993). Geographic Localization of Knowledge Spillovers as Evidenced by Patent Citations, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 108(3), 577-598. https://doi.org/10.2307/2118401
Kahl, J. (2015). The Determinants of Firm Growth in High-Technology Industries. An Empirical Analysis of Spatial, Relational and Institutional Factors in the German Biotechnology Industry. Schriftenreihe innovative betriebswirtschaftliche Forschung und Praxis, Band 443, Hamburg.
47 Kaiser, R., & Prange, H. (2004). The reconfiguration of national innovation systems—the example of German biotechnology. Research Policy, 33(3), 395-408.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2003.09.001
Kudic, M., Pyka, A., & Günther, J. (2012). Determinants of Evolutionary Change Processes in Innovation Networks–Empirical Evidence from the German Laser Industry (No.
7/2012). IWH Discussion Papers. https://www.econstor.eu/handle/10419/66854.
Accessed on 04 April 2020.
Lokko, Y., Heijde, M., Schebesta, K., Scholtès, P., Van Montagu, M., & Giacca, M. (2018).
Biotechnology and the bioeconomy—Towards inclusive and sustainable industrial development. New biotechnology, 40, 5-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nbt.2017.06.005 Malerba, F. (2002). Sectoral systems of innovation and production. Research policy, 31(2), 247-264. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(01)00139-1
Malerba, F., & Orsenigo, L. (1997). Technological regimes and sectoral patterns of innovative activities. Industrial and corporate change, 6(1), 83-118.
https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/6.1.83
McCormick, K., & Kautto, N. (2013). The bioeconomy in Europe: An overview.
Sustainability, 5(6), 2589-2608. https://doi.org/10.3390/su5062589
Marshall, A. (1961). Principles of economics: An introductory volume. London:
Macmillan.
Mietzsch, A. (2007). BioTechnologie Das Jahr- und Adreßbuch 20. Jahrgang 2006.
BIOCOM AG, Berlin.
Mietzsch, A. (2012). BioTechnologie Das Jahr- und Adreßbuch 25. Jahrgang 2011.
BIOCOM AG, Berlin.
Mietzsch, A. (2013). BioTechnologie Das Jahr- und Adreßbuch 26. Jahrgang 2012.
BIOCOM AG, Berlin.
Mietzsch, A. (2016). BioTechnologie Das Jahr- und Adreßbuch 29. Jahrgang 2016.
BIOCOM AG, Berlin.
Mina, A., Ramlogan, R., Tampubolon, G., Metcalfe, J.S. (2007). Mapping evolutionary trajectories: Application to the growth and transformation of medical knowledge.
Research Policy, Vol. 36 (5), 789-806. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2006.12.007
48 Müller, C. (2002). The evolution of the biotechnology industry in Germany. TRENDS in Biotechnology, 20(7), 287-290. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-7799(02)01966-2
Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (1982). An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change.
Belknap Press/Harvard University Press: Cambridge.
Nesta, L., & Dibiaggio, L. (2003). Technology strategy and knowledge dynamics: The case of biotech¹. Industry and Innovation, 10(3), 331-349.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1366271032000141670
Nightingale, P., & Martin, P. (2004). The myth of the biotech revolution. TRENDS in Biotechnology, 22(11), 564-569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tibtech.2004.09.010
Nomaler, Ö., Verspagen, B. (2016). River deep, mountain high: of long run knowledge trajectories within and between innovation clusters. Journal of Econoic Geography, Vol.
16 (6), 1259-1278. https://doi.org/10.1093/jeg/lbw035
North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance.
Cambridge university press.
Nooteboom, B., Van Haverbeke, W., Duysters, G., Gilsing, V., van der Oord, A. (2007).
Optimal cognitive distance and absorptive capacity, Research Policy, 36(7), 1016-1034.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2007.04.003
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2001). Second OECD Ad Hoc Meeting on Biotechnology Statistics, OECD, May 2001. Accessed 25 March 2020.
Palmer, E. (2014). Restrictions on Genetically Modified Organisms: Germany.
https://www.loc.gov/law/help/restrictions-on-gmos/germany.php. Accessed on 29 March 2020.
Parayil, G. (2003). Mapping technological trajectories of the Green Revolution and the Gene Revolution from modernization to globalization. Research policy, 32(6), 971-990.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00106-3
Perez, C. (2010). Technological revolutions and techno-economic paradigms. Cambridge journal of economics, 34(1), 185-202. https://doi.org/10.1093/cje/bep051
Polanyi, M. (1966). The Logic of Tacit Inference, Philosophy, 41(155), 1-18.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0031819100066110
49 Polanyi, M. (1967). Sense-Giving and Sense-Reading, Philosophy, 42(162), 301-325.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0031819100001509
Powell, W. W., White, D. R., Koput, K. W., & Owen-Smith, J. (2005). Network dynamics and field evolution: The growth of interorganizational collaboration in the life sciences.
American journal of sociology, 110(4), 1132-1205. https://doi.org/10.1086/421508 Ramlogan, R., & Consoli, D. (2008). Knowledge, understanding and the dynamics of medical innovation (No. 539). Manchester Business School Working Paper.
http://hdl.handle.net/10419/50694. Accessed on 04 April 2020.
Richardson, B. (2012). From a fossil-fuel to a biobased economy: The politics of industrial biotechnology. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 30(2), 282-296.
https://doi.org/10.1068/c10209
Romer, P. M. (1986). Increasing returns and long-run growth. Journal of political economy, 94(5), 1002-1037. https://doi.org/10.1086/261420
Sternberg, R. (2007). Entrepreneurship, Proximity and regional innovation systems.
Royal Dutch Geographical Society KNAG, 98(5), 652-666. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9663.2007.00431.x
Székács, A. (2017). Environmental and ecological aspects in the overall assessment of bioeconomy. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 30(1), 153-170.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-017-9651-1
Straus, J. (2017). Intellectual property rights and bioeconomy. Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice. https://doi:10.1093/jiplp/jpx059
United Nations Industrial Development Organization (1987). Annual report of UNIDO 1986. https://www.unido.org/sites/default/files/2013-03/AnnualReport_1986_0.pdf.
Accessed 25 March 2020.
Verhoeven, D., Bakker, J., & Veugelers, R. (2016). Measuring technological novelty with patent-based indicators. Research Policy, 45(3), 707-723.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2015.11.010
Verspagen, B. (2007). Mapping technological trajectories as patent citation networks: a study on the history of fuel cell research. Advances in Complex Systems, Vol. 10 (1), 93-115. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219525907000945
50 Walter, L., & Schnittker, F. C. (2016). Patentmanagement: recherche, analyse, strategie.
Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG.
Wasserman, S. & Faust, K. (1994). Social Network Analysis. Structural Analysis in the Social Sciences, Cambridge.
Witt, U. (2006). Evolutionary concepts in economics and biology. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 16:473–476. https://10.1007/s00191-006-0034-4
Witt, U. (2008). What is specific about evolutionary economics?. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 18(5), 547-575. https://10.1007/s00191-008-0107-7
Zidorn, W., & Wagner, M. (2013). The effect of alliances on innovation patterns: an analysis of the biotechnology industry. Industrial and corporate change, 22(6), 1497-1524.
https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dts042
51