nach oben

Small Business Economics

Erschienen in:

22.05.2017

The adaptive life cycle of entrepreneurial ecosystems: the biotechnology cluster

verfasst von: Philip E. Auerswald, Lokesh Dani

Erschienen in: Small Business Economics | Ausgabe 1/2017

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

We propose an empirical framework for assessing the vibrancy and trajectory of regional entrepreneurial ecosystems. We apply this framework to study the US National Capital Region’s localized cluster of biotechnology-related entrepreneurship by building our analysis around a set of indicators of ecosystem vitality proposed by Stangler and Bell-Masterson (2015). This application constitutes an initial attempt at mapping the dynamics of an industry cluster within the adaptive life cycle of a wider regional ecosystem. We find that the biotechnology cluster in the National Capital Region entered a “reorientation” stage in the early 2000s, building up stored energy, capital, and connectedness in non-research-oriented activities. An increasing regional presence of large biotech firms in the past 5 years, a highly active and diverse start-up sector, increasing merger and acquisition activity, and declines in regional public funding for medical and clinical trials all suggest a transition of entrepreneurial activity in the region from a dynamic driven by federal research spillovers to one increasingly driven by private sector actors.

Vorheriger Artikel The campus as entrepreneurial ecosystem: the University of Chicago

Nächster Artikel The paradox of new venture legitimation within an entrepreneurial ecosystem

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

The first two paragraphs of the introduction are shared with (Auerswald and Dani 2017).

He continued: “But biological conceptions are more complex than those of mechanics. A volume on Foundations must therefore give a relatively large place to mechanical analogies; and frequent use is made of the term ‘equilibrium,’ which suggests something of statical analogy” (Marshall 1920, p. 19). Inspired by these words of Marshall’s and the work of other foundational figures in the field of economics who similarly perceived a fundamentally biological order in the evolution of the economy—most notably, Spencer (1857)—economists have for decades sought to represent the adaptive dynamics evident in economic ecosystems. The seminal work of Nelson and Winter (1982) helped to define the currently thriving field of evolutionary economics.

Emphasizing the central role of invention and innovation in geographical localization, Marshall continues: “Good work is rightly appreciated, inventions and improvements in machinery, in processes and the general organization of the business have their merits promptly discussed: if one man starts a new idea, it is taken up by others and combined with suggestions of their own; and thus it becomes the source of further new ideas” (Marshall 1920, p. 225).

Acs et al. (2014) introduce the related but distinct concept of a National Entrepreneurial Ecosystem (NEE).

For example, Holling et al. (1995), Holling (2001), Holling et al. (2002), and Gavrilets (1999, 2004).

For example, as represented in early efforts by Rosenthal and Strange (2001), Wallsten (2001), and Auerswald et al. (2007).

Isenberg (2010a, 2010b). The first two paragraphs of this paper are shared with Auerswald and Dani (2017).

Such relationships among existing firms take a variety of forms, both formal and informal, and encompass an array of functional domains from supply chain linkages, knowledge sharing, training, marketing, sales, and policy advocacy.

In Auerswald and Dani (2017), we offer a broader framework of the “economic ecosystems” within which both clusters and entrepreneurial ecosystems naturally fit. The fundamental unit of analysis in that paper, as in Auerswald et al. (2000), Auerswald (2007), and Auerswald (2017), is the firm-level production process, or “production algorithm.” We argue in those related papers that the production algorithm in economic ecosystems is directly analogous to DNA in biological ecosystems; in turn, the creation of a new industry in economic ecosystems is analogous to speciation in biological ecosystems. In the interest of space, we do not develop that dimension of the theory in this paper.

See also Auerswald (2007), Auerswald (2012, pp. 101–103), and Acs, Autio, and Szerb (2014).

Schumpeter referred to the “new combination of means of production” as the “fundamental phenomenon of economic development” (Schumpeter 1951, p. 74) and placed innovation in the middle of invention and imitation in bringing about technical change. He noted that innovation brought inventions to the market that would then diffuse as a result of firms imitating the new technology. It is because of this role in introducing novelty to the market that Schumpeter (1951) positioned entrepreneurs as the key drivers of economic growth.

Stochastic events may affect ecological niches differently in an ecosystem (Holling 2001). Similarly, a large disturbance to an entrepreneurial ecosystem may lead to collapse of some entrepreneurial niches over others.

We define the biotechnology cluster narrowly around NAICS classifications that are directly involved in biological or biomolecular production. This includes the production of pharmaceuticals and medicines as well as agriculture- and plant process-related chemicals. A complete list of the included NAICS sectors is provided in the Appendix.

Authors’ estimates based on data from County Business Patterns.

Report in the industry journal FierceBiotech: http://www.fiercebiotech.com/story/top-15-cities-biotech-venture-funding/2014-03-06

Maryland Department of Commerce.

Biotech industry journal GEN: http://www.genengnews.com/insight-and-intelligence/top-10-u-s-biopharma-clusters/77900393/

By large-scale networks, we imply a significant concentration of resources and influence over the ecosystem.

Walshok (2013), pp. 16–17. Regarding how the stage in the evolution of the regional economy affected the conceptualization of CONNECT, Walshok (2013) adds (p. 10): “[A]t San Diego’s moment of crisis, when large employers such as General Dynamics were beginning to downsize, a national furniture manufacturer was leaving, and efforts to attract R&D consortia had failed, regional leaders shifted their attention to growing more local enterprises that would draw on the technology applications emerging from the basic research being done on the Torrey Pines Mesa.”

See Auerswald (2015) for discussion of a program of action for policymakers consistent with the analysis in this paper.

Acs, Z. J., Estrin, S., Mickziewicz, T., & Szerb, L. (2014). The continued search for the solow residual: the role of national entrepreneurial ecosystems. IZA Discussion Paper No. 8652, 2014 November. Institute for the study of Labor.

Audretsch, D. B. (2001). The role of small firms in U.S. biotechnology clusters. Small Business Economics, 3–15.

Auerswald, P. E. (2015). Enabling entrepreneurial ecosystems. In D. Audretsch, A. Link, & M. Walshok, Oxford handbook of local competitiveness. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Auerswald, P. E. (2017). The code economy: a forty-thousand year history. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Auerswald, P. E., & Branscomb, L. M. (2003). Valleys of death and Darwinian seas: financing the invention to innovation transition in the United States. Journal of Technology Transfer, 227–239.

Auerswald, P. E., & Dani, L. M. (2017). Economic ecosystems. In G. Clark, M. Feldman, M. Gertler, & D. Wojcik, The new Oxford handbook of economic geography. Oxford: Oxford University Press, forthcoming.

Auerswald, P. E., Kauffman, S., Lobo, J., & Shell, K. (2000). The production recipes approach to modeling technological innovation: an application to learning by doing. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 24, 389–450.CrossRef

Auerswald, P., Branscomb, L., Gorman, S., Kulkarni, R., & Schintler, L. (2007). Placing innovation: a geographic information systems (GIS) approach to identifying emergent technological activity. Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology, US Department of Commerce.

Bengtsson, J., Nilsson, S. G., Franc, A., & Menozzidi, P. (2000). Biodiversity, disturbances, ecosystem function and management of European forests. Forest Ecology and Management, 132(1), 39–50.CrossRef

Biotechnology Industry Organization. (2012). Testimony of the biotechnology industry organization on competition and intellectual property law and policy in the knowledge E-based economy. Berkeley, CA: Competition Policy Center.

Branscomb, L. M., & Auerswald, P. E. (2001). Taking technical risks: how innovators, managers, and investors manage high-tech risks. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Carlson, R. (2016). Estimating the biotech sector’s contribution to the US economy. Nature Biotechnology, 247–255.

Casper, S. (2007). How do technology clusters emerge and become sustainable?: social network formation and inter-firm mobility within the San Diego biotechnology cluster. Research Policy, 438–455.

Cooke, P. (2002). Regional innovation systems: general findings and some new evidence from biotechnology clusters. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 133–145.

Feldman, M. P., & Francis, J. L. (2003). Fortune favors the prepared region: the case of entrepreneurship and the capitol region biotechnology cluster. European Planning Studies, 11(7), 765–788.

Feldman, M., Francis, J., & Bercovitz, J. (2005). Creating a cluster while building a firm: entrepreneurs and the formation of industrial clusters. Regional Studies, 129–141.

FierceBiotech. (2014). The top 15 cities for biotech venture funding. Retrieved 11 20, 2015, from FierceBiotech: The biotech industry’s daily monitor: http://www.fiercebiotech.com/story/top-15-cities-biotech-venture-funding/2014-03-06

Fuller, S. S. (2016). The roadmap for the Washington region’s future economy. 24th Annual Economic Conference. Washington, D.C.: Center for Regional Analysis.

Gavrilets, S. (1999). A dynamical theory of speciation on holey adaptive landscapes. The American Naturalist, 1–22.

Gavrilets, S. (2004). Fitness landscapes and the origin of species. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Genus, A., & Coles, A.-M. (2008). Rethinking the multi-level perspective of technological transitions. Research Policy, 1436–1445.

Hecker, D. E. (2005). High-technology employment: a NAICS-based update. Monthly Labor Review, 57–72.

Holling, C. S. (2001). Understanding the complexity of economic, ecological, and social systems. Ecosystems, 390–405.

Holling, C. S., & Gunderson, L. H. (2002). Panarchy: understanding transformations in human and social systems. Washington, D.C. : Island Press.

Holling, C. S., Gunderson, L. H., & Light, S. (1995). Barriers and bridges to the renewal of ecosystems. New York: Columbia University Press.

Isenberg, D. J. (2010a). How to start an entrepreneurial revolution. Harvard Business Review, 88(6), 40–50.

Isenberg, D. J. (2010b). Can policy makers create an ecosystem for entrepreneurship? The Economist.

Marshall, A. (1920). Principles of economics. London: Macmillan.

Martin, R., & Sunley, P. (2011). Conceptualizing cluster evolution: beyond the life cycle model? Regional Studies, 1299–1318.

Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (1982). An evolutional theory of economic change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Rosenthal, S. S., & Strange, W. C. (2001). The determinants of agglomeration. Journal of Urban Economics, 191–229.

Schumpeter, J. A. (1951). The theory of economic development. An inquiry into profits, capital, credit, interest and the business cycle. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Spencer, H. (1857). Progress: its law and causes. The Westminster Review.

Stangler, D., & Bell-Masterson, J. (2015). Measuring an entrepreneurial ecosystem. Kansas City, MO: Kauffman Foundation Research Series on City, Metro, and Regional Entrepreneurship.

Sussan, F., & Acs, Z. J. (2017). The digital entrepreneurial economy. Small Business Economics.

Terjesen, S., Acs, Z. J., Audretsch, D. B., Hechavarria, D., Stam, E., & White, R. (2017). Entrepreneurial ecosystems: a literature review. University of Tampa Working Paper.

Valdez, J. (1988). The entrepreneurial ecosystem: toward a theory of new business formation. Small Business Institute Director’s Association. SBIDA.

Van De Ven, H. (1993). The development of an infrastructure for entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 211–230.

Wallsten, S. J. (2001). An empirical test of geographic knowledge spillovers using geographic information systems and firm-level data. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 571–599.

Walshok, M. (2013). A systemic approach to accelerating entrepreneurship. Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization, 8(3/4), 7–17.CrossRef

Weitzman, M. (1970b). Optimal growth with economies of scale in the creation of overhead capital. Review of Economic Studies, 555–570.

Weitzman, M. (1998). Recombinant growth. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 331–360.

Weitzman, M. L. (1970a). Soviet postwar economic growth and capital-labor substitution. American Economic Review, 676–692.

Titel: The adaptive life cycle of entrepreneurial ecosystems: the biotechnology cluster
verfasst von: Philip E. Auerswald
Lokesh Dani
Publikationsdatum: 22.05.2017
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: Small Business Economics / Ausgabe 1/2017
Print ISSN: 0921-898X
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-0913
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-017-9869-3

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2017

Job dissatisfaction of the self-employed in Indonesia

Effects of foreign acquisitions on R&D and high-skill activities

Productive and harmful entrepreneurship in a knowledge economy

Searching for the existence of entrepreneurial ecosystems: aregional cross-section growth regression approach

Integrating psychological approaches to entrepreneurship: the Entrepreneurial Personality System (EPS)

Looking inside the spiky bits: a critical review and conceptualisation of entrepreneurial ecosystems