This article examines dynamics underlying the growth of a flourishing bioscience cluster in San Diego, California, to illustrate the construction of an innovative environment and the matching of place characteristics with a specific economic activity. Extensive interviews explore the formation of synergistic connections promoting the political, economic, and social networks of entrepreneurial individuals at the metropolitan scale. Spatial proximity is shaped by real estate considerations within and between local clusters in a volatile industry affected strongly by shifting access to financial and human capital. Five key factors underlying regional success are found to be access to an outstanding research university, advocacy leadership, risk financing, an entrepreneurial culture, and appropriate real estate, knit by an intensive information exchange network.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Arthur Anderson. LLP and Indiana Chamber of Commerce. (2000). Indiana venture capital study. Indianapolis, IN: Indiana Chamber of Commerce. Available from www.indianachamber.com/Venture_Summary.pdf
2.
Audretsch, D. (1998). Agglomeration and the location of innovative activity. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 14, 18-29.
3.
Audretsch, D. , & Stephan, P. (2000). Company-scientist locational links: The case of biotechnology. The American Economic Review, 86, 641-652.
4.
Aydalot, P. , & Keeble, D. (1988). High technology industry and innovative environments: The European experience. London: Routledge.
5.
Barnes, T. (1989). Structure and agency in economic geography and theories of economic value. In A. Kobayashi & S. Mackenzie (Eds.), Remaking human geography (pp. 134-148). London: Unwin Hyman.
6.
Blakely, E. , & Nishikawa, N. (1992). Incubating high technology firms: State economic development strategies for biotechnology. Economic Development Quarterly, 6, 241-254.
7.
Bowie, N. (1994). University-business partnerships: An assessment. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
8.
California Department of Commerce, Office of Economic Research . (1988, May). Technology transfer: The California experience. Sacramento: State of California Press.
9.
California Healthcare Institute and KPMG . (1998). The biomedical frontier: 1998 report on California’s biomedical R&D industry. La Jolla, CA: KPMG.
10.
Camagni, R. (1995). The concept of innovative milieu and its relevance for public policies in European lagging regions. Papers in Regional Science: The Journal of the Regional Science Association, 74, 317-340.
11.
Castells, M. , & Hall, P. (1994). Technopoles of the world: The making of 21st century industrial complexes. London: Routledge.
12.
Collins, O. , & Moore, D. (1970). The organization makers: A behavioral study of independent entrepreneurs. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
13.
Cooke, P. , Uranga, M., & Etxebarria, G. (1998). Regional systems of innovation: An evolutionary perspective. Environment and Planning A, 30, 1563-1584.
14.
Crabtree, P. (1998, February 17). Venture capital finds home here. San Diego Union-Tribune, pp. C1, C3.
15.
Cresswell, J. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
16.
Feldman, M. P. (1994). The university and economic development: The case of Johns Hopkins University and Baltimore. Economic Development Quarterly, 8, 67-76.
17.
Fried, V. , & Hisrich, R. (1995). The venture capitalist: A relationship investor. California Management Review, 37, 101-113.
18.
Glaeser, E. (1998). Are cities dying?Journal of Economic Perspectives, 12, 139-160.
19.
Glaeser, E. , Kallal, H., Scheinkman, J., & Shleifer, A. (1992). Growth in cities. Journal of Political Economy, 100, 1126-1152.
20.
Goetz, S. , & Morgan, R. (1995). State-level locational determinants of biotechnology firms. Economic Development Quarterly, 9, 174-185.
21.
Goldstein, H. , & Luger, M. (1993). Theory and practice in high-tech economic development. In R. Bingham & R. Mier (Eds.), Theories of local economic development: Perspectives from the disciplines (pp. 147-171). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
22.
Gordon, I. , & McCann, P. (2000). Industrial clusteers: Complexes, agglomeration and/or social networks?Urban Studies, 37, 513-532.
23.
Grabowski, H. , & Vernon, J. (1994). Innovation and structural change in pharmaceuticals and biotechnology. Industrial and Corporate Change, 4, 435-449.
24.
Griliches, Z. (1992). The search for R&D spillovers. In National Bureau of Economic Research (Working Paper #3768).
25.
Hall, P. (1990). The generation of innovative milieu: An essay in theoretical synthesis (Working Paper #505). Berkeley: University of California, Institute of Urban and Regional Development.
26.
Hall, P. , Bornstein, L., Grier, R., & Webber, M. (1988). Biotechnology: The next industrial frontier. Berkeley: University of California Press.
27.
Hall, S. (1987). Invisible frontiers: The race to synthesize a human gene. London: Sidgwick & Jackson.
28.
Haug, P. (1995). Formation of biotechnology firms in the Greater Seattle region: An empirical investigation of entrepreneurial, financial, and educational perspectives. Environment and PlanningA, 27, 249-267.
29.
Haug, P. , & Ness, P. (1993). Industrial location decisions of biotechnology organizations. Economic Development Quarterly, 7, 390-402.
30.
Kenney, M. (1986). Biotechnology: The university-industry complex. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
31.
Krugman, P. (1991). Increasing returns and economic geography. Journal of Political Economy, 99, 483-499.
32.
Llobrera, J. , Meyer, D., & Nammacher, G. (1999). Trajectories of industrial districts: Impact of strategic intervention in medical districts. Economic Geography, 76(1), 68-98.
33.
Malecki, E. (1985). Public sector research and development and regional economic performance in the United States. In A. Thwaites & R. Oakey (Eds.), The regional economic impact of technological change (pp. 115-131). New York: St. Martin’s.
34.
Malecki, E. (1991). Technology and economic development: The dynamics of local, regional, and national change. New York: Longman Scientific & Technical.
35.
Malecki, E. (1997). Technology and economic development: The dynamics of local, regional, and national competitiveness. London: Addison Wesley Longman.
36.
Malmberg, A. (1997). Industrial geography: Agglomeration and local milieu. Progress in Human Geography, 20, 392-403.
37.
Malmberg, A. , Solvell, O., & Zander, I. (1996). Spatial clustering, local accumulation of knowledge and firm competitiveness. Geografiska Annaler, 78 B, 85-97.
38.
Markoff, J. (1997, March 24). San Diego—the wireless valley: An information revolution revives its economy. The New York Times, pp. C1, C6.
39.
Markusen, A. , Lee, Y., & DiGiovanna, S. (Eds.). (1999). Second tier cities: Rapid growth beyond the metropolis. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.
40.
Morrison, S. , & Giovannetti, G. (1999). New directions 98. Palo Alto, CA: Ernst & Young.
41.
Morrison, S. , & Giovannetti, G. (2000). Convergence: The biotechnology industry report. Palo Alto, CA: Ernst & Young.
42.
Mowery, D. , & Rosenberg, N. (1989). Technology and the pursuit of economic growth. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
43.
Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development . (1987). Science parks and technology complexes in relation to regional development. Paris: OECD.
44.
Pisano, G. , Shan, W., & Teese, D. (1988). Joint ventures and collaboration in the biotechnology industry. In D. Mowery (Ed.), International collaborative ventures in U.S. manufacturing (pp. 183-222). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
45.
Porter, M.1990. The competitive advantage of nations. New York: Free Press.
46.
Powell, W. , & Owen, J. (1998). Universities and the market for intellectual property in the life sciences. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 17, 253-277.
47.
Prevezer, M. (1998). Clustering in biotechnology in the USA. In G. Swann, M. Prevezer, & D. Stout (Eds.), The dynamics of industrial clustering: International comparisons in computing and biotechnology (pp. 124-193). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
48.
PricewaterhouseCoopers . (2001). Insights and solutions: Money Tree survey report. Available from http://www.pwcmoneytree.com/region
49.
Rosenberg, N. (1982). Inside the black box: Technology and economics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
50.
Rosenberg, N. , & Nelson, R. (1994). American universities and technical advance in industry. Research Policy, 23, 323-348.
51.
San Diego Association of Governments . (1998, May/June). San Diego regional employment clusters: Engines of the modern economy. Info, pp. 2-31.
52.
San Diego Regional Economic Development Corporation , BIOCOM, & Price Waterhouse LLP. (1998). Barometer on the future of San Diego’s biomedical industry. San Diego: Regional Economic Development Corporation.
53.
Saxenian, A. (1994). Regional advantage: Culture and competition in Silicon Valley and Route 128. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
54.
Schoenberger, E. (1991). The corporate interview as a research method in economic geography. Professional Geographer, 43, 180-189.
55.
Scott, A. (1990). The technopoles of Southern California. Environment and PlanningA, 22, 1575-1605.
56.
Scott, A. , & Storper, M. (1992). Pathways to industrialization and regional development. London: Routledge.
57.
Simmie, J. (1998). Reasons for the development of “Island of Innovation”: Evidence from Hertfordshire. Urban Studies, 35, 1261-1289.
58.
Stephan, P. , Hawkins, R., & Audretsch, D. (2000). The knowledge production function: Lessons from biotechnology. International Journal of Technology Management, 19, 165-178.
59.
Sternberg, R. (1996). Regional growth theories and high-tech regions. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 20, 518-538.
60.
Stutz, F. (1992). Working the cities: The regional economic base. In P. Pryde (Ed.), San Diego: An introduction to the region (pp. 155-164). Dubuque, IA: Kendall.
61.
U.S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment . (1995). The technological reshaping of metropolitan America, OTA-ETI-643. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
62.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census . (1994). County business patterns: California. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
63.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census . (1997). County business patterns: California. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
64.
Walcott, S. (1999). High tech in the Deep South: Biomedical firm clusters in metropolitan Atlanta. Growth and Change, 30, 48-74.
65.
Welles, E. (1990, February 1). The Tokyo connection. Inc. Available from http://www.inc.com/articles/details/printable/0,3535,CID5030_PAG2/REG6,00.html
66.
Zucker, L. , Darby, M., & Brewer, M. (1998). Intellectual human capital and the birth of U.S. biotechnology enterprises. American Economic Review, 88, 290-306.
