The Development of Minich and Cambridge Therapeutic Biotech Firms: A Case Study of Institutional Adaptation

© Oxford University Press, 2013. In order to understand better the development of the therapeutic biotech firms in the Munich region, Germany's largest and most successful biotech cluster, this chapter contrasts the development of Munich firms with that in the Cambridge region in the UK. The chapter proceeds as follows. First, it discusses how the comparative case study will increase the understanding of the mechanisms through which entrepreneurs in a new industry are able to overcome pre-existing institutional barriers to their firms' development. Second, it outlines the main organizational challenges with which biotech entrepreneurs in Cambridge and Munich have been confronted in building up a biotech firm. Third, it analyzes how Munich's and Cambridge's therapeutic biotech firms have relied on their institutional environments differently to develop their firms' capabilities to deal with these organizational challenges. Fourth, it discusses how the different institutional paths which Cambridge's and Munich's biotech entrepreneurs have followed to deal with key organizational challenges have affected the development of these firms. Finally, the main findings are summarized and some implications of this study for broader debates in the comparative institutional literature are suggested.

[1]  Steffen Hillmert,et al.  New ways of life or old rigidities? changes in social structures and life courses and their political impact , 2003 .

[2]  P. Katzenstein,et al.  Policy and Politics in West Germany: The Growth of a Semisovereign State , 1987 .

[3]  A Developmental German State? Explaining Growth in German Biotechnology and Venture Capital1 , 2003 .

[4]  M. Aoki,et al.  Toward a Comparative Institutional Analysis , 2002 .

[5]  Steven Casper,et al.  Institutional Adaptiveness, Technology Policy, and the Diffusion of New Business Models: The Case of German Biotechnology , 2000 .

[6]  M. Albert,et al.  Capitalism against capitalism , 1993 .

[7]  Mark Lehrer,et al.  Has Germany Finally Fixed its High-Tech Problem? The Recent Boom in German Technology-Based Entrepreneurship , 2000 .

[8]  P. Hall,et al.  Varieties of Capitalism , 2001 .

[9]  J. Hollingsworth,et al.  Contemporary capitalism : the embeddedness of institutions , 1997 .

[10]  W. Powell.  Learning from Collaboration: Knowledge and Networks in the Biotechnology and Pharmaceutical Industries , 1998 .

[11]  W. Streeck,et al.  Political Economy of Modern Capitalism: Mapping Convergence and Diversity , 1997 .

[12]  Richard Whitley,et al.  Divergent Capitalisms: The Social Structuring and Change of Business Systems , 1999 .

[13]  J. Goldthorpe,et al.  Order and Conflict in Contemporary Capitalism , 1985 .

[14]  W. Streeck.  German Capitalism: Does It Exist? Can It Survive? , 1997 .

[15]  W. Powell,et al.  Interorganizational Collaboration and the Locus of Innovation: Networks of Learning in Biotechnology. , 1996 .

[16]  M. Brewer,et al.  Intellectual Capital and the Birth of U.S. Biotechnology Enterprises , 1994 .

[17]  M. Lehrer,et al.  Can High-technology Industries Prosper in Germany? Institutional Frameworks and the Evolution of the German Software and Biotechnology Industries , 1999 .

[18]  Steven Casper,et al.  Economic Organization, Innovation Systems, and the Internet , 2001 .

[19]  Amalya L. Oliver,et al.  Social Networks, Learning, and Flexibility: Sourcing Scientific Knowledge in New Biotechnology Firms , 1994 .

[20]  D. North.  Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance: Economic performance , 1990 .

[21]  W. Streeck,et al.  From stability of stagnation: Germany at the beginning of the twenty-first century , 2003 .