The Spatial Clustering of Science and Capital: Accounting for Biotech Firm-Venture Capital Relationships

This paper focuses on the spatial concentration of two essential factors of production in the commercial field of biotechnology: ideas and money. The location of both research-intensive biotech firms and the venture capital firms that fund biotech is highly clustered in a handful of key US regions. The commercialization of a new medicine and the financing of a high-risk start-up firm are both activities that have an identifiable timeline, and often involve collaboration with multiple participants. The importance of tacit knowledge, face-to-face contact, and the ability to learn and manage across multiple projects are critical reasons for the continuing importance of geographic propinquity in biotech. Over the period 1988-99, more than half of the US biotech firms received locally-based venture funding. Those firms receiving non-local support were older, larger and had moved research projects further along the commercialization process. Similarly, as venture capital firms grow older and bigger, they invest in more non-local firms. But these patterns have a strong regional basis, with notable differences between Boston, New York and West Coast money. Biotechnology is unusual in its dual dependence on basic science and venture financing; other fields in which product development is not as dependent on the underlying science may have different spatial patterns. Cet article porte sur la concentration spatiale de deux facteurs de production clés dans le domaine commercial de la biotechnologie: à savoir, les idées et l'argent. La localisation et des entreprises àforte intensitéde recherche-développement du secteur de la biotechnologie, et les sociétés de capital-risque qui financent la biotechnologie, s'avère très concentrée dans une poignée de régions clé aux E-U. La commercialisation d'un nouveau médicament et le financement d'une création d'entreprise àhaut risque sont, tous les deux, des activités qui ont une date limite, et nécessitent souvent une collaboration avec de multiples partenaires. L'importance de la connaissance tacite, du contact direct et de la capacité d'apprendre et d'administrer de multiples projets sont des raisons essentielles pour l'importance continuelle de la proximité géographique dans la biotechnologie. Sur la période de 1988 à 1999, plus de la moitié des entreprises américaines du secteur de la biotechnologie ont profité du capital-risque local. Les entreprises qui bénéficient du soutien externe étaient plus vieilles, plus grandes, et ont fait plus avancer davantage des projets de recherche le long du processus de commercialisation. De la même manière, les sociétés de capital-risque investissent plutôt dans des entreprises externes, au fur et à mesure qu'elles vieillissent et s'agrandissent. Les fondements d'une telle distribution s'avèrent fortement régionaux, avec de notables différences pour ce qui est de l'argent provenant de Boston, de New York et de la Côte de l'ouest. La biotechnologie est hors du commun étant donnésa double dépendance de la science de base et du capital-risque; il se peut que d'autres domaines oùle développement des produits ne dépend pas de la science sous-jacente aient une distribution géographique différente. Dieser Aufsatz befaßt sich mit der räumlichen Konzentration zweier wesentlicher Faktoren bei der Produktion auf dem kommerziellen Gebiet der Biotechnologie: Ideen und Geldmittel. In den USA treten Standorte forschungsintensiver Biotechnologiefirmen und der Risikokapitalunternehmen, die ihre finanzielle Grundlage bereitstellen, stark gehäuft in wenigen Schlüsselregionen der USA auf. Die Kommerzialisierung eines neuen Arzneimittels und die Finanzierung eines hochriskanten 'start-up's' stellen Aktivitäten in einer klaren zeitlichen Abfolge dar, die oft die Zusammenarbeit mit mehreren Teilnehmern verlangt. 'Tacit knowledge', persönlicher Kontakt und die Fähigkeit, zu lernen und mit mehreren Projekten gleichzeitig zurecht zu kommen, sind dabei entscheidende Gründe für die Bedeutung räumlicher Nähe im biotechnologischen Bereich. Im Zeitraum 1988-1999 wurden mehr als der Hälfte der Biotechnikfirmen der USA Finanzmittel von lokalen Risikokapitalunternehmen zur Verfügung gestellt. Firmen, die nicht lokale Unterstützung genossen, waren älter, größer und hatten ihre Forschungsprojekte bereits weitgehend kommerzialisiert. Auch Risikokapitalunternehmen investieren mit zunehmendem Alter und zunehmender Größe mehr in nicht-lokale Firmen. Doch diese Muster variieren regional deutlich und zeigen klare Unterschiede zwischen Bosten, New York und den Finanzinstituten der Westküste. Biotechnologie ist ungewöhnlich in ihrer Doppelabhängigkeit von Grundlagenwissenschaften und der Finanzierung durch Risikokapital; andere Sektoren, in denen die Produktionsentwicklung nicht so stark von Grundlagenforschung abhängt, mögen durchaus andere räumliche Muster aufweisen.

[1]  Walter W. Powell,et al.  A Comparison of U.S. and European University-Industry Relations in the Life Sciences , 2001 .

[2]  Stephen M. Horan.  The Interaction between Product Market and Financing Strategy: The Role of Venture Capital , 2001 .

[3]  Paul A. Gompers,et al.  The Venture Capital Revolution , 2001 .

[4]  Toby E. Stuart,et al.  Syndication Networks and the Spatial Distribution of Venture Capital Investments1 , 1999, American Journal of Sociology.

[5]  Samuel Kortum,et al.  Assessing the Contribution of Venture Capital to Innovation , 2000 .

[6]  S. Smith,et al.  Intraracial Diversity and Relations among African‐Americans: Closeness among Black Students at a Predominantly White University1 , 2000, American Journal of Sociology.

[7]  Cynthia Robbins-Roth.  From Alchemy to IPO , 2000 .

[8]  M. Kenney.  Understanding silicon valley : the anatomy of an entrepreneurial region , 2000 .

[9]  Paul A. Gompers,et al.  The venture capital cycle , 1999 .

[10]  B. Uzzi,et al.  Embeddedness in the Making of Financial Capital: How Social Relations and Networks Benefit Firms Seeking Financing , 1999, The New Economic Sociology.

[11]  Manju Puri,et al.  The Interaction between Product Market and Financing Strategy: The Role of Venture Capital , 1999 .

[12]  R. Gulati,et al.  Where Do Interorganizational Networks Come From?1 , 1999, American Journal of Sociology.

[13]  John Freeman,et al.  Venture Capital as an Economy of Time , 1999 .

[14]  M. Feldman.  The New Economics Of Innovation, Spillovers And Agglomeration: Areview Of Empirical Studies , 1999 .

[15]  M. Porter.  Clusters and the new economics of competition. , 1998, Harvard business review.

[16]  Toby E. Stuart.  Network Positions and Propensities to Collaborate: An Investigation of Strategic Alliance Formation in a High-Technology Industry , 1998 .

[17]  真彦 水野,et al.  Storper, M. and Salais, S.: Worlds of production: the action frameworks of the economy. (生産の世界経済行動の枠組), Harvard University Press, Cambridge (U.S.A.), 1997年, 370頁, $45.00 , 1998 .

[18]  Mike Wright,et al.  Venture Capital and Private Equity: A Review and Synthesis , 1998 .

[19]  Martha Prevezer,et al.  The Dynamics of Industrial Clustering in Biotechnology , 1997 .

[20]  B. Kogut,et al.  The Exploration of Technological Diversity and the Geographic Localization of Innovation , 1997 .

[21]  R. Gilson,et al.  Venture Capital and the Structure of Capital Markets: Banks Versus Stock Markets , 1997 .

[22]  A. Saxenian.  Regional Advantage , 1996 .

[23]  Paul A. Gompers.  Grandstanding in the venture capital industry , 1996 .

[24]  M. Feldman,et al.  R&D spillovers and the ge-ography of innovation and production , 1996 .

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

[26]  Gavin C. Reid,et al.  Financial structure and the growing small firm: Theoretical underpinning and current evidence , 1996 .

[27]  Walter W. Powell,et al.  Inter-Organizational Collaboration in the Biotechnology Industry , 1996 .

[28]  Paula E. Stephan,et al.  Company-Scientist Locational Links: The Case of Biotechnology , 1996 .

[29]  Paul A. Gompers.  Optimal Investment, Monitoring, and the Staging of Venture Capital , 1995 .

[30]  R. Gulati.  Does Familiarity Breed Trust? The Implications of Repeated Ties for Contractual Choice in Alliances , 1995 .

[31]  Joel Podolny.  Market Uncertainty and the Social Character of Economic Exchange , 1994 .

[32]  J. Lerner,et al.  VENTURE CAPITALISTS AND THE DECISION TO GO PUBLIC , 1994 .

[33]  von HippelEric.  "Sticky Information" and the Locus of Problem Solving , 1994 .

[34]  E. Hippel.  Sticky Information and the Locus of Problem Solving: Implications for Innovation , 1994 .

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

[36]  William D. Bygrave,et al.  Venture capital at the crossroads , 1992 .

[37]  D. Angel.  High-Technology Agglomeration and the Labor Market: The Case of Silicon Valley , 1991 .

[38]  Joel A. C. Baum,et al.  Institutional Linkages and Organizational Mortality , 1991 .

[39]  Philip R. Reilly.  Gene Dreams: Wall Street, Academia, and the Rise of Biotechnology , 1991 .

[40]  W. A. Sahlman,et al.  The structure and governance of venture-capital organizations , 1990 .

[41]  W. Arthur.  Positive feedbacks in the economy , 1990 .

[42]  Robert M. Cook-Degan.  Invisible Frontiers: The Race to Synthesize the Human Gene , 1989 .

[43]  R. Teitelman.  Gene dreams : Wall Street, academia, and the rise of biotechnology , 1989 .

[44]  Martin Kenney,et al.  Venture Capital, High Technology and Regional Development , 1988 .

[45]  Stephen S. Hall.  Invisible Frontiers: The Race to Synthesize a Human Gene , 1987 .

[46]  Mark S. Granovetter.  Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of Embeddedness , 1985, American Journal of Sociology.

[47]  S. Winter,et al.  An evolutionary theory of economic change , 1983 .

[48]  Gavin J. Wright.  An evolutionary theory of economic change , 1982 .

[49]  F. E..  Principles of Economics , 1890, Nature.