This study proposes a new Cluster Quotient (CQ) to highlight the cluster characteristics and their effect on regional innovation systems based on all US Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) in 2014. This study finds that San Diego, CA plays an important role in biotechnology industries, and the CQ index would be a better method to measure the degree of clusters than the Location Quotient index (LQ) given that the CQ method is based on the definition of a cluster and strongly correlated with high industry quotient MSAs. The study also highlights that biotechnology clusters have a positive impact on patents. An increase of 1% of the CQ generates an increase of 0.25% of patents. The result highlights that biotechnology clusters play an important role in regional innovation systems and need to be seriously taken into consideration in the field of urban planning.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
GibbsD.Globalization, the bioscience industry and local environmental responses. Global Environmental Change, 2000; 10(4):245–257.
2.
GüntherE, HüskeAK. How stakeholder shape innovation in controversial industries: The biotechnology industry in Germany. uwf UmweltWirtschaftsForum, 2015; 23(3):77–86.
3.
OehmeM, BortS. SME internationalization modes in the German biotechnology industry: The influence of imitation, network position, and international experience. J Int Busin Stud, 2015; 46(6):629–655.
4.
RoeslerC, BroekelT. The role of universities in a network of subsidized R&D collaboration: The case of the biotechnology-industry in Germany. Rev Regional Res, 2017; 37(2):135–160.
5.
BroekelT, BednarzM. Disentangling link formation and dissolution in spatial networks: An application of a two-mode STERGM to a project-based R&D network in the German biotechnology industry. Networks Spatial Econ, 2018; 18(3):677–704.
6.
HorvathB, KhazamiN, YmeriP, FogarassyC. Investigating the current business model innovation trends in the biotechnology industry. J Busin Econ Managem, 2019; 20(1):63–85.
7.
JohnsonH.The moderating effects of dynamic capability on radical innovation and incremental innovation teams in the global pharmaceutical biotechnology industry. J Inno Manage, 2020; 8(1):DOI: 10.24840/2183-0606_008.001_0006.
8.
AghmiuniSK, SiyalS, WangQ, DuanY. Assessment of factors affecting innovation policy in biotechnology. J Inno Knowled, 2020; 5(3):180–190.
9.
Battelle Memorial Institute and SSTI. Growing the nation's bioscience sector: State bioscience initiatives 2006. Washington, DC: Biotechnology Industry Organization Available at: http://bio.org/local/battelle2006/executive_summary.pdf (Last accessed September2017).
10.
CarlsonR.Estimating the biotech sector's contribution to the US economy. Nat Biotechnol, 2016; 34(3):247–255.
11.
HiltonM.Skills for work in the 21st century: What does the research tell us?. Acad Manage Perspect, 2008; 22(4):63–78.
12.
LokkoY, HeijdeM, SchebestaK, at al. Biotechnology and the bioeconomy—Towards inclusive and sustainable industrial development. New Biotechnol, 2018; 40:5–10.
13.
MurrayF, HisH. Knowledge workers in biotechnology: Occupational structures, careers, and skill demands (2007). Available at: http://www7.nationalacademies.org/cfe/Future_Skill_Demands_Fiona_Murray_Paper.pdf (Last accessed July2017).
14.
EuropaBio. Biotechnology in Europe the tax, finance and regulatory framework and global policy comparison. 2014. EYGM limited: London.
15.
Biotechnology Industry Organization. Bioscience economic development: legislative priorities, best practices, and return on investment (2012). Available at: http://www.ihif.org/File/Reports/State-Leg-Best-Practices_0.pdf (Last accessed September2017).
16.
AbbasiharoftehM, BroekelT. Still in the shadow of the wall? The case of the Berlin biotechnology cluster. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space 2020. 0308518X20933904.
17.
BstielerL, HemmertM, BarczakG. Trust formation in university–industry collaborations in the US biotechnology industry: IP policies, shared governance, and champions. J Prod Inno Manage, 2015; 32(1):111–121.
18.
SegersJP.Regional systems of innovation: Lessons from the biotechnology clusters in Belgium and Germany. J Small Bus Entrepreneur, 2016; 28(2):133–149.
19.
WalcottSM.Analyzing an innovative environment: San Diego as a bioscience beachhead. Economic Development Quarterly, 2002; 16(2):99–114.
20.
SengokuS. Consortium-based open innovation: Exploring a unique and optimal model for regional biotechnology industry. Springer, Singapore, 2019.
21.
DelerueH, CronjeT. Network technology adoption by us biotechnology firms: A contextual approach of social media applications. Int J Inno Manage, 2015; 19(05):1550047.
22.
KolympirisC, KalaitzandonakesN, MillerD. Location choice of academic entrepreneurs: Evidence from the US biotechnology industry. J Business Venturing, 2015; 30(2):227–254.
23.
PetruzzelliAM, RotoloD, AlbinoV. Determinants of patent citations in biotechnology: An analysis of patent influence across the industrial and organizational boundaries. Technol Forecasting Social Change, 2015; 91:208–221.
24.
SandinP, MoulaP. Modern biotechnology, agriculture, and ethics. J Agric Environ Ethics, 2015; 28(5):803–806.
25.
SmythSJ, KerrWA, PhillipsPW. Biotechnology regulation and trade. 2017. Springer: New York.
26.
SonmezZ.Interregional inventor collaboration and the commercial value of patented inventions: Evidence from the US biotechnology industry. The Annals of Regional Science, 2018; 61(2):399–438.
27.
ZhangF.Building biotech in Shanghai: A perspective of regional innovation system. European Planning Studies, 2015; 23(10):2062–2078.
28.
AustrianZ.Cluster case studies: The marriage of quantitative and qualitative information for action. Econom Dev Quarter, 2000; 14(1):97–110.
29.
BillingsSB, JohnsonEB. The location quotient as an estimator of industrial concentration. Region Sci Urban Econom, 2012; 42(4):642–647.
30.
CarrollMC, ReidN, SmithBW. Location quotients versus spatial autocorrelation in identifying potential cluster regions. The Annals of Regional Science, 2008; 42(2):449–463.
31.
FallickB, FleischmanCA, RebitzerJB. Job-hopping in Silicon Valley: Some evidence concerning the microfoundations of a high-technology cluster. Rev Econom Statist, 2006; 88(3):472–481.
32.
FernhaberSA, GilbertBA, McDougallPP. International entrepreneurship and geographic location: An empirical examination of new venture internationalization. J Int Bus Studies, 2008; 39(2):267–290.
33.
KeebleD, NachumL. Why do business service firms cluster? Small consultancies, clustering and decentralization in London and southern England. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 2002; 27(1):67–90.
34.
O'DonoghueD, GleaveB. A note on methods for measuring industrial agglomeration. Regional Studies, 2004; 38(4):419–427.
ZookMA.The web of production: The economic geography of commercial Internet content production in the United States. Environ Planning A, 2000; 32(3):411–426.
37.
AhujaG.Collaboration networks, structural holes, and innovation: A longitudinal study. Admin Sci Quarter, 2000; 45:425–455.
38.
BottazziL, PeriG. Innovation and spillovers in regions: Evidence from European patent data. Euro Econom Rev, 2003; 47(4):687–710.
39.
FritschM, SlavtchevV. Determinants of the efficiency of regional innovation systems. Regional Studies, 2011; 45(7):905–918.
40.
JaffeAB.Real effects of academic research. Amer Econom Rev, 1989; 79:957–970.
41.
SinghJ.Distributed R&D, cross-regional knowledge integration and quality of innovative output. Res Policy, 2008; 37(1):77–96.
42.
StuartTE.Interorganizational alliances and the performance of firms: A study of growth and innovation rates in a high-technology industry. Strat Manage J, 2000; 21:791–811.
43.
WhittingtonKB, SmithJO, PowellWW. Networks, propinquity, and innovation in knowledge-intensive industries. Admin Sci Quarter, 2009; 54:90–122.
44.
Maryland governor's workforce investment board. Maryland's bioscience industry sector: Workforce report and recommendations (2008). Available at: http://gwib.maryland.gov/pub/pdf/bioscireport.pdf (Last accessed August2018).
45.
RosenbloomJL, BurressD, OslundP. The Bioscience Industry in Douglas County: An Analysis of Economic Impacts Opportunities and Challenges (2004). Policy Research Institute University of Kansas.
46.
OECD. OECD science, technology and industry scoreboard 2013 (2013). OECD publishing, Paris.
47.
CookeP.Clusters as key determinants of economic growth. Cluster Policies, 2001; 2:23–38.
48.
HermansR, LofflerA, SternS. Biotechnology. In: MacherJT, Mowery DC (eds.), Innovation in global industries: U.S. firms competing in a new world. 2008. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
49.
PorterME.Cluster and the new economics of competition. Harvard Business Review, 1998; 1–16.
50.
RosenfeldSA.Bringing business clusters into the mainstream of economic development. European Planning Studies, 1997; 5(1):3–23.
51.
EllisonG, GlaeserE.L. Geographical Concentration in the US Manufacturing Industries. A Dartboard Approach. Working Paper no 4840. 1994. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER).
52.
MaskellP, KebirL. What qualifies as a cluster theory, Clusters and regional development: Critical reflections and explorations. 2006; Routledge: London.
53.
RichardsonGB.The organisation of industry. Economic J, 1972; 82:883–896.
54.
The UK Department of Trade andIndustry. Our competitive future: Building the knowledge driven economy, Cm 4176. 1998. London: HMSO.
55.
CasperS.How do technology clusters emerge and become sustainable? Social network formation and inter-firm mobility within the San Diego biotechnology cluster. Res Policy, 2007; 36(4):438–455.
56.
The San Diego Union Tribune. San Diego shows path to biotech success (2015). Available at: https://sandiegouniontribune.com/business/biotech/sdut-what-makes-a-biotech-hub-la-2015sep13-story.html (Last accessed September2017).
57.
Frierman-HuntG, SolbergJ. Careers in Biotechnology: A Counselor's Guide to the Best Jobs in the United States. 2008. Bio-Link 3rd edition.
58.
Northern California Center of Excellence. Biotechnology, Medical Devices, & Pharmaceutical Manufacturing in California (2010). Available at: www.coeccc.net/documents/biotech_custom_ca_10.pdf (Last accessed January2018).
59.
DurantonG, PugaD. Diversity and specialisation in cities: Why, where and when does it matter?. Urban Studies, 2000; 37(3):533–555.
60.
AcsZJ, AnselinL, VargaA. Patents and innovation counts as measures of regional production of new knowledge. Res Policy, 2002; 31(7):1069–1085.
61.
SpenderJC, GrantRM. Knowledge and the firm: Overview. Strategic Manage J, 1996; 17:5–9.
62.
FeserEJ.Tracing the sources of local external economies. Urban Studies, 2002; 39(13):2485–2506.
63.
GrilichesZ.Patent statistics as economic indicators: A survey. J Econom Lit, 1990; 28(4):1661–1707.
64.
TsvetkovaA.Innovation, entrepreneurship, and metropolitan economic performance: Empirical test of recent theoretical propositions. Econom Develop Quart, 2015; 29(4):299–316.
65.
BalistreriEJ, McDanielCA, WongEV. An estimation of US industry-level capital–labor substitution elasticities: Support for Cobb–Douglas. The North American Journal of Economics and Finance, 2003; 14(3):343–356.
66.
BlundellR, BondS. GMM estimation with persistent panel data: An application to production functions. Econometr Rev, 2000; 19(3):321–340.
67.
ECFIND. The production function approach to calculating potential growth and output gaps estimates for EU Member States and the US (2006). Available at: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.463.5612&rep=rep1&type=pdf (Last accessed September2017).
68.
Garcia-MilaT, McGuireTJ, PorterRH. The effect of public capital in state-level production functions reconsidered. Rev Econom Stat, 1996; 36:177–180.
69.
SternDI.A multivariate cointegration analysis of the role of energy in the US macroeconomy. Energ Econom, 2000; 22(2):267–283.
70.
ChristensenLR, JorgensonDW. The measurement of US real capital input, 1929–1967. Rev Income Wealth, 1969; 15(4):293–320.
71.
FeldsteinM.Underestimating the real growth of GDP, personal income, and productivity. J Econom Perspect, 2017; 31(2):145–164.
72.
LeeN, NathanM. Knowledge workers, cultural diversity and innovation: Evidence from London. Int J Knowledge-Based Develop, 2010; 1(1-2):53–78.
73.
NathanM.Same difference? Minority ethnic inventors, diversity and innovation in the UK. J Economic Geography, 2014; 15(1):129–168.
74.
WadhwaV, SaxenianA, RissingB, GereffiG. America's new immigrant entrepreneurs (2007). Kauffman Foundation report.
75.
BrunelloG, GaribaldiP, WasmerE. Higher education, innovation and growth. In Education and training in Europe. 2007. Oxford University Press: London.
76.
HuntJ, Gauthier-LoiselleM. How much does immigration boost innovation?. American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, 2010; 2(2):31–56.
77.
BenhabibJ, SpiegelMM. Human capital and technology diffusion. Handbook of Economic Growth, 2005; 1:935–966.
78.
DakhliM, De ClercqD. Human capital, social capital, and innovation: A multi-country study. Entrepr Regional Dev, 2004; 16(2):107–128.
79.
MathurVK.Human capital-based strategy for regional economic development. Econo Dev Quarter, 1999; 13(3):203–216.
80.
MorettiE. Human capital externalities in cities. In: Handbook of regional and urban economics. 2004. Elsevier.
81.
ColemanJS.Social capital in the creation of human capital. Amer J Sociol, 1988; 94:S95–S120.
82.
BadingerH, TondlG. Trade, human capital and innovation: The engines of European regional growth in the 1990s. In European Regional Growth, 2003; 215–239.
83.
BauerF, CoenenL, HansenT, McCormickK, PalganYV. Technological innovation systems for biorefineries: A review of the literature. Biof Bioprod Bioref, 2017; 11(3):534–548.
84.
NegroSO, HekkertMP. Explaining the success of emerging technologies by innovation system functioning: The case of biomass digestion in Germany. Technol Analys Strateg Managem, 2008; 20(4):465–482.
85.
US Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information. Available at: https://osti.gov (Last accessed March2021).
86.
PerlackRD, EatonLM, Turhollow JrAF, et al.US billion-ton update: Biomass supply for a bioenergy and bioproducts industry. Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering Technical Reports and White Papers. 2011; 16:1–237.
87.
US Energy Information Association. Available at: https://eia.gov (Last accessed March2021)
88.
US Energy Information Administration. Biomass explained (2020). Available at: https://eia.gov/energyexplained/biomass/ (Last accessed January2021).
89.
Department of Energy. Biomass Fueling America's Growing Clean Energy Economy (2014). Available at: https://energy.gov/eere/articles/biomass-fueling-america-s-growing-clean-energy-economy (Last accessed September2017).
90.
IBISWORLD. Biomass Power Industry in the US (2020). Available at: https://ibisworld.com/united-states/market-research-reports/biomass-power-industry/ (Last accessed January2021).
91.
National Research Council. Water implications of biofuels production in the United States. 2008. National Academies Press.
92.
DowningM, EatonLM, GrahamRL, et al. US billion-ton update: Biomass supply for a bioenergy and bioproducts industry (No. ORNL/TM-2011/224). 2011. Oak Ridge National Lab: Oak Ridge.
93.
IlesA, MartinAN. Expanding bioplastics production: Sustainable business innovation in the chemical industry. J Cleaner Prod, 2013; 45:38–49.
94.
WeiM, PatadiaS, KammenDM. Putting renewables and energy efficiency to work: How many jobs can the clean energy industry generate in the US?. Energ Policy, 2010; 38(2):919–931.
