Innovation Dynamics And Appropriation Strategy Of A Large Argentine Bio-Pharmaceutical Company
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.52712/issn.1850-0013-471Keywords:
appropriation, innovation, bio-pharmaceuticalAbstract
The paper presents the case study of Biosidus SA, Argentina’s oldest and most important bio- pharmaceutical company. This analysis intends to reveal how the appropriation strategy of the company’s technological innovation derived benefits articulates with its innovative dynamics. Biosidus is characterized by a long-track record of innovation supported by important internal capacities, and strong ties with public institutions of R&D with which it has collaborated; this is reflected in a wide range of innovative projects in the field of biotechnology applied to human health. Within this framework, the aim of this work is twofold; on the one hand, it aims to evaluate the company’s appropriation strategy and reveal the different existing appropriation mechanisms it resorts to protect its innovations from its competitors as well as from its innovation partners. On the other hand, it aims to correlate the different observable variations of such strategy to the innovation dynamics and characteristics developed in the different projects, where it is possible to identify differences as to their objectives, complexity, and significance in terms of cooperation with R&D public entities.
Downloads
References
AGUIAR, D. (2011): Análisis de los procesos socio técnicos de construcción de tecnologías intensivas en conocimiento en la Argentina: un abordaje desde la sociología de la tecnología sobre una empresa de biotecnología en el sector salud: el caso de Biosidus S.A. 1975-2005, tesis de doctorado, FLACSO, Sede Académica Argentina, Buenos Aires.
ARORA, A., FOSFURI, A. y GAMBARDELLA, A. (2001): Markets for Technology: Economics of Innovation and Corporate Strategy, Cambridge (MA), MIT Press.
ARROW, K. (1962): “Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention”, en R. NELSON (ed.): The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity, Princeton (NJ), Princeton University Press, pp. 609–625.
ARUNDEL, A. (2001): “The Relative Effectiveness of Patents and Secrecy for Appropriation”, Research Policy, vol. 30, pp. 611-624.
ARZA, V. (2010): “Channels, benefits and risks of public–private interactions for knowledge transfer: conceptual framework inspired by Latin America”, Science and Public Policy, vol. 37, n° 7, pp.473–484.
BELDERBOS, R., CARREE, M., y LOKSHIN, B. (2004): “Cooperative R&D and firm performance”, Research Policy, vol. 33, pp. 1477-1492.
BERCOVITZ, J. y FELDMAN, M. (2007): “Fishing upstream: Firm innovation strategy and university research alliances”, Research Policy, vol. 36, pp. 930-948.
BONACCORSI, A. y PICCALUGA, A. (1994): “A theoretical framework for the evaluation of university-industry relationships”, R&D Management, vol. 24, n.3, pp.229–247.
BROUWER, E. y KLEINKNECHT, A. (1999): “Innovative output and a firm’s propensity to patent. An exploration of CIS micro data”, Research Policy, vol. 28, pp. 615–624.
BURETH, A., LEVY, R., PÉNIN, J. y WOLFF, S. (2005): “Strategic Reasons for Patenting: Between Exclusion and Coordination Rationales”, Rivista di Politica Economica, vol. 95, n° 5, pp.19-46.
CALOGHIROU, Y., AGGELOS, T. y VONORTAS, N. S. (2001): “University-Industry Cooperation in the Context of the European Framework Programmes”, Journal of Technology Transfer, vol. 26, n° 1-2, pp. 153-161.
CARAYOL, N. (2003): “Objectives, agreements and matching in science-industry collaborations: Reassembling the pieces of the puzzle”, Research Policy, vol. 32, pp. 887-908.
CASSIER, M. (1997): “Compromis institutionnels et hybridations entre recherche publique et recherche privée”, Revue d’Economie Industrielle, vol. 79, pp. 191-212.
CASSIMAN, B. y VEUGELERS, R. (2002): “R&D cooperation and spillovers: Some empirical evidence from Belgium”, American Economic Review, vol. 44, n° 3, pp. 1169- 1184.
CIMOLI, M. y PRIMI, A. (2008): “Technology and Intellectual Property: A Taxonomy of Contemporary Markets for Knowledge and Their Implications for Development”, LEM Papers Series.
COHEN, W. M.; NELSON, R. R. y WALSH, J. P. (2000): Protecting Their Intellectual Assets: Appropriability Conditions and Why Us Manufacturing Firms Patent (or Not), Cambridge (MA), National Bureau of Economic Research.
DOSI, G., MARENGO, L. y PASQUALI, C. (2006): “How much should society fuel the greed of innovators? On the relations between appropriability, opportunities and rates of innovation”, Research Policy, vol. 35, pp. 1110-1121.
EISENHARDT, K. M. (1989): “Building Theories from Case Study Research”, Academy of Management Review, vol. 14, n° 4, pp. 532-550.
EUN, J. H., LEE, K. y WU, G. S., (2006): “Explaining the “University-run enterprises” in China: A theoretical framework for university-industry relationship in developing countries and its application to China”, Research Policy, vol. 35, n° 9, pp.1329-1346.
FERNÁNDEZ SÁNCHEZ, E., MONTES PEÓN, J. M., PÉREZ BUSTAMANTE, G. y VÁZQUEZ ORDÁS, C. J. (1998): “Acumulación, Naturaleza e Imitación del Conocimiento Tecnológico: una Revisión de la Literatura”, Investigaciones Europeas de Dirección y Economía de la Empresa, vol. 4, n° 1, pp. 11-34.
FERNÁNDEZ SÁNCHEZ, E. (2004): “Formas de apropiación de las ganancias de una innovación”, Universia Business Review, n° 1, pp. 70-81, I trimestre.
GALENDE DEL CANTO, J. (2006): “La apropiación de los resultados de la actividad innovadora”, Universidad de Salamanca, mimeo.
GONZÁLEZ, N. y NIETO, M. (2007): “Appropriability of innovation results: An empirical study in Spanish manufacturing firms”, Technovation, n° 27, pp. 280-295.
GRILICHES, Z. (1990): “Patent Statistics as Economic Indicators: A Survey”, Journal of Economic Literature, vol. 28, n° 4, pp. 1661-1707.
GUTMAN, G. y LAVARELLO, P. (2010): Desarrollo reciente de la moderna biotecnología en el sector de salud humana, documento del Proyecto CEUR- CONICET “Potencialidades de la biotecnología para el desarrollo industrial de Argentina”, Buenos Aires.
HALL, B. H., LINK, A. N. y SCOTT, J. T. (2001): “Barriers inhibiting industry from partnering with universities: evidence from the advanced technology program”, Journal of Technology Transfer, vol. 26, pp. 87-98.
HARABI, N. (1995): “Appropriability of technical innovations: An empirical analysis”, Research Policy, vol. 24, n° 6, pp. 981-992.
HURMELINNA-LAUKKANEN, P. y PUUMALAINEN, K. (2007): “Nature and Dynamics of Appropriability: Strategies for Appropriating Returns on Innovation”, R&D Management, vol° 37, n° 2, pp. 95-112.
HUSSINGER, K. (2006): “Is Silence Golden? Patents versus Secrecy at the Firm Level”, Economics of Innovation and New Technology, vol. 15, n° 8, pp. 735-752.
JOLY, P. B. y MANGEMATIN, V. (1996): “Profile of public laboratories, industrial partnerships and organisation of R&D: the dynamics of industrial relationships in a large research organisation”, Research Policy, vol. 25, pp. 901-922.
LAURSEN, K. y SALTER, A. (2006): “Open for innovation: the role of openness in explaining innovation performance among U.K. manufacturing firms”, Strategic Management Journal, vol. 27, n° 2, pp. 131–150.
LEVIN, R. C., KLEVORICK, A. K., NELSON, R. R., WINTER, S. G., GILBERT, R. y GRILICHES, Z. (1987): “Appropriating the Returns from Industrial Research and Development”, Brookings papers on economic activity, vol. 1987, n° 3, pp. 783-831.
LEVY, R., ROUX, P. y WOLFF, S. (2009): “An analysis of science–industry collaborative patterns in a large European University”, The Journal of Technology Transfer, vol. 34, n° 1, pp.1-23.
LHUILLERY, S. y PFISTER, E. (2009): “R&D cooperation and failures in innovation projects: Empirical evidence from french cis data”, Research Policy, vol. 38, pp. 45-57.
LOOF, H. y BROSTROM, A. (2008): “Does knowledge diffusion between university and industry increase innovativeness?”, The Journal of Technology Transfer, vol. 33, n° 1, pp. 73-90.
LOPEZ, A. (2008): “Determinants for R&D cooperation: Evidence from spanish manufacturing firms”, International Journal of Industrial Organization, vol. 26, pp. 113- 136.
MANSFIELD, E. (1986): “Patents and Innovation: an empirical study”, Management Science, vol. 32, n° 2, pp. 173-181.
MILESI, D., PETELSKI, N. y VERRE, V., (2013): “Innovation and appropriation mechanisms: Evidence from Argentine microdata”, Technovation, vol. 33, n° 2-3, pp. 78-87.
MILESI, D., VERRE, V., PETELSKI, N. y AGGIO, C. (2011): “Apropiación privada de las rentas de la innovación: elementos para la discusión conceptual y el abordaje metodológico”, Universidad Nacional de General Sarmiento, mimeo.
PERKMANN, M. y WALSH, K. (2007): “University–industry relationships and open innovation: Towards a research agenda”, International Journal of Management Reviews vol. 9, n° 4, pp. 259-280.
PERKMANN, M. y WALSH, K. (2009): “The two faces of collaboration: impacts of university-industry relations on public research”, Industrial and Corporate Change, vol. 18, n° 6, pp. 1033-1065.
PERKMANN, M., TARTARI, V. y McKELVEY M. (2013): “Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of the literature on university-industry relations”, Research Policy, vol. 42, n° 2, pp. 423-442.
SCHARTINGER, D., RAMMER, C., FISCHER, M. M. y FROHLICH, J. (2002): “Knowledge interactions between universities and industry in Austria: sectoral patterns and determinants”, Research Policy, vol. 31, n° 3, pp. 303-328.
SCHUMPETER, J. A. (1942): Capitalism Socialism and Democracy, New York, Harper and Row.
TEECE, D. J. (1986): “Profiting from Technological Innovation: Implications for Integration, Collaboration, Licensing and Public Policy”, Research policy, vol. 15, n° 6, pp. 285-305.
VERRE, V., MILESI, D. y PETELSKI, N. (2013): “Secreto Industrial y Cooperación Público-Privada en I+D en el Sector Biofarmacéutico Argentino”, Journal of Technology Management of Innovation, vol. 8, n° 3, pp. 127-138.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 CC Attribution 4.0
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
All CTS's issues and academic articles are under a CC-BY license.
Since 2007, CTS has provided open and free access to all its contents, including the complete archive of its quarterly edition and the different products presented in its electronic platform. This decision is based on the belief that offering free access to published materials helps to build a greater and better exchange of knowledge.
In turn, for the quarterly edition, CTS allows institutional and thematic repositories, as well as personal web pages, to self-archive articles in their post-print or editorial version, immediately after the publication of the final version of each issue and under the condition that a link to the original source will be incorporated into the self-archive.
