Policy tools on the formation of new biotechnology firms in Taiwan

Abstract This research explores the contribution of policy tool toward the formation of Taiwanese biotechnology firms. The effect of technological policy for the formation of new biotechnology firms (NBFs) is complicated by the fact that biotechnology is new, and its development raises issues where there is a great deal of uncertainty. This research involved the evaluation of policy tools on the formation of NBFs and was based on a combination of fuzzy multiple criteria decision-making method (MCDM) and interviews with key actors in the field. The focus of this paper is how the users, biofirms, and venture capitalists perceive the contribution of policy tools toward the formation of NBFs. The evaluating hierarchy toward the formation of NBFs shows that two user groups perceive differently. Venture capitalists emphasize the importance of factors relating to technology and human resources, while biofirm groups emphasize those relating to market. The results of the evaluation reveal that: First, policy tools relating to technology and human capital are currently the main focus in Taiwan, a focus consistent with the perception of venture capitalists. However, from the perspective of biofirms, there are mismatches. Second, policy tools contribute to the formation of NBFs in different ways. Some contribute more widely across the criteria, while some are more specific. Third, the ranking of eight policy tools indicates that the role of public research institutes in economic development has become more sophisticated. Not only are they the source of initial capabilities of emerging firms, they are also important actors in industrial innovation, especially for a knowledge-intensive, industry-like biotechnology.

[1]  Marian Beise,et al.  Public research and industrial innovations in Germany , 1999 .

[2]  F.H.A. Janszen,et al.  A dynamic analysis of the relations between the structure and the process of National Systems of Innovation using computer simulation; the case of the Dutch biotechnological sector , 1998 .

[3]  S. Lall,et al.  “Market-stimulating” technology policies in developing countries: A framework with examples from East Asia , 1998 .

[4]  Linda A. Hall,et al.  A study of R&D, innovation, and business performance in the Canadian biotechnology industry , 2002 .

[5]  P. Swann,et al.  A comparison of the dynamics of industrial clustering in computing and biotechnology , 1996 .

[6]  David L. Deeds,et al.  An Analysis of the Critical Role of Public Science in Innovation: The Case of Biotechnology , 2000 .

[7]  Lotfi A. Zadeh,et al.  Fuzzy Sets , 1996, Inf. Control..

[8]  Ronald R. Yager,et al.  Operations on fuzzy numbers via fuzzy reasoning , 1997, Fuzzy Sets Syst..

[9]  M. Sharp,et al.  Developments in new biotechnology firms in Germany. , 1999 .

[10]  Neal Gersony,et al.  Sectoral effects on strategic alliance performance for new technology firms , 1996 .

[11]  Amalya L. Oliver,et al.  Three Levels of Networking for Sourcing Intellectual Capital in Biotechnology , 1997 .

[12]  Gwo-Hshiung Tzeng,et al.  FUZZY MULTICRITERIA RANKING OF URBAN TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENT ALTERNATIVES. , 1996 .

[13]  Sydney Gregory,et al.  Industrial innovation and public policy: R Rothwell and W Zegveld London (1981) 251 pp , 1982 .

[14]  Jacqueline Senker,et al.  National systems of innovation, organizational learning and industrial biotechnology , 1996 .

[15]  William J. Abernathy,et al.  Patterns of Industrial Innovation , 1978 .

[16]  M. Fontes,et al.  The conditions for the development of a biotechnology industry in Portugal: the impact of country specific factors , 1998 .

[17]  T. Saaty,et al.  The Analytic Hierarchy Process , 1985 .

[18]  R. Nelson,et al.  National Innovation Systems , 1993 .

[19]  David J. Storey,et al.  Public Policy Measures to Support New Technology-Based Firms in the European Union , 1998 .

[20]  Richard Bellman,et al.  Decision-making in fuzzy environment , 2012 .

[21]  Kimberly S. Hamilton,et al.  The increasing linkage between U.S. technology and public science , 1997 .

[22]  M. Berry Technical entrepreneurship, strategic awareness and corporate transformation in small high-tech firms , 1996 .

[23]  Philip Wegloop Linking firm strategy and government action: Towards a resource-based perspective on innovation and technology policy , 1995 .

[24]  S. Bartholomew National Systems of Biotechnology Innovation: Complex Interdependence in the Global System , 1997 .

[25]  Vivien Walsh,et al.  Small-firm formation in biotechnology: A comparison of France, Britain and Canada , 1995 .

[26]  Rakesh Govind,et al.  Algebraic characteristics of extended fuzzy numbers , 1991, Inf. Sci..

[27]  Roy Rothwell,et al.  The role of small firms in the emergence of new technologies , 1984 .