A Concurrent Analysis of Three Institutions that Transform Health Technology-Based Ventures: Economic Policy, Capital Investment, and Market Approval

Drawing on institutional theory, this article articulates qualitative insights from a program of research on Canadian health technology-based ventures to examine the rules that characterize economic policy, capital investment, and regulatory approval as well as the way these institutions enable and constrain the development of ventures at an early stage. Our findings clarify how economic policy integrates these ventures into the entrepreneurial domain, how capital investment configures them for economic value extraction, and how regulatory approval fully releases their market value. These findings help to revisit current policy modernization initiatives by calling attention to the convergence among the three institutions. Rather than operating solely as a source of constraints, these institutions provide a highly integrated market-oriented space for health technology-based entrepreneurial activities to unfold.

[1]  Alexander Styhre.  Coping with the financiers: attracting venture capital investors and end-users in the biomaterials industry , 2014, Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag..

[2]  Marie Lavoie.  The Role of Social Scientists in Accelerating Innovation in Regenerative Medicine , 2011 .

[3]  Johan P. Olsen,et al.  The Institutional Dynamics of International Political Orders , 1998, International Organization.

[4]  P. Lehoux,et al.  Converting clinical risks into economic value: The role of expectations and institutions in health technology development , 2017 .

[5]  Paul Nightingale,et al.  Muppets and Gazelles: Political and Methodological Biases in Entrepreneurship Research , 2013 .

[6]  P. Braunerhjelm,et al.  Entrepreneurship, Institutions and Economic Dynamism: Lessons from a Comparison of the United States and Sweden , 2012 .

[7]  P. Lehoux,et al.  How venture capitalists decide which new medical technologies come to exist , 2016 .

[8]  James C. Robinson,et al.  Biomedical innovation in the era of health care spending constraints. , 2015, Health affairs.

[9]  Pamela S. Tolbert,et al.  Institutionalization and Structuration: Studying the Links between Action and Institution , 1997 .

[10]  P. McCulloch,et al.  The EU’s system for regulating medical devices , 2012, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[11]  Petr Hanel,et al.  Evaluating the Impact of R&D Tax Credits on Innovation: A Microeconometric Study on Canadian Firms , 2011 .

[12]  Jonathan J. Fleming.  The decline of venture capital investment in early-stage life sciences poses a challenge to continued innovation. , 2015, Health affairs.

[13]  M. Mazzucato,et al.  The risk-reward nexus in the innovation-inequality relationship: who takes the risks? Who gets the rewards? , 2013 .

[14]  Jean-Louis Denis,et al.  How do business model and health technology design influence each other? Insights from a longitudinal case study of three academic spin-offs , 2014 .

[15]  E. Ferlie,et al.  The Nonspread of Innovations: the Mediating Role of Professionals , 2005 .

[16]  G. Permanand,et al.  EU Regulation of Medical Devices and Pharmaceuticals in Comparative Perspective , 2007 .

[17]  D. Cohen.  Devices and desires: industry fights toughening of medical device regulation in Europe , 2013, BMJ.

[18]  Trisha Greenhalgh,et al.  Achieving and sustaining profound institutional change in healthcare: case study using neo-institutional theory. , 2013, Social science & medicine.

[19]  Mathieu Albert,et al.  The Legitimation and Dissemination Processes of the Innovation System Approach , 2007 .

[20]  Mike Wright,et al.  Critical junctures in the development of university high-tech spinout companies , 2004 .

[21]  W. Scott,et al.  Approaching adulthood: the maturing of institutional theory , 2008 .

[22]  B. Lander.  The Role of Institutions and Capital in Intersectoral Collaboration: Infection and Immunity Research and Development Collaboration in Vancouver , 2014 .

[23]  T. Luukkonen,et al.  The value added by government venture capital funds compared with independent venture capital funds , 2013 .

[24]  J. Lerner,et al.  Institutions and Venture Capital , 2012 .

[25]  Alex Faulkner,et al.  Regulatory policy as innovation: Constructing rules of engagement for a technological zone of tissue engineering in the European Union , 2009 .

[26]  Deborah Cohen,et al.  Europeans are left to their own devices , 2011, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[27]  M. Drummond,et al.  Another special relationship? Interactions between health technology policies and health care systems in the United States and the United Kingdom. , 2011, Journal of health politics, policy and law.

[28]  H. Hirsch-Kreinsen.  Financial Market and Technological Innovation , 2011 .

[29]  F. Geels.  From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-technical systems: Insights about dynamics and change from sociology and institutional theory , 2004 .

[30]  B. Cashore,et al.  Transnational private governance between the logics of empowerment and control , 2015 .

[31]  Éric Montpetit.  Between Detachment and Responsiveness: Civil Servants in Europe and North America , 2011 .

[32]  O. Sorenson,et al.  Venture Capital as a Catalyst to Commercialization , 2010 .

[33]  A. Langley,et al.  Agency at the Managerial Interface: Public Sector Reform as Institutional Work , 2016 .

[34]  R. Suddaby.  Challenges for Institutional Theory , 2010 .

[35]  Robert I. Sutton,et al.  Crossroads—The Virtues of Closet Qualitative Research , 1997 .