Innovation cycles and geographies of innovation: A study of healthcare innovation in Europe

Abstract

This paper examines place-specific factors affecting geographies of innovation, that is, the transfer of research from the laboratory to bedside in the healthcare sector in four European bioscience regions. These regions are Medical Delta (MD; Leiden, Rotterdam and Delft, Netherlands) Oxford and the Thames Valley (OTV; UK), Biocat (Catalonia, Spain) and Life Science Zurich (LSZ; Switzerland). Evidence is drawn from the European Union-funded Healthcare Technology and Innovation for Economic Success (HealthTIES) project (2010–2013). The analytical framework, the HealthTIES Innovation Cycle, is organised into resources (inputs), innovation system elements and outcomes. The paper shows that each region represents different positions within international value chains of innovation in the healthcare sector. They range from the highly research intensive but with relatively less in the way of commercial exploitation location (OTV) to the less research intensive but with more commercialisation (LSZ).

Keywords

Healthcare innovation cycles innovation geographies public policy regional development

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Asheim

Coenen

(2005) Knowledge bases and regional innovation systems: comparing Nordic Clusters. Research Policy 34(8): 1173–1190.

Audretsch

Keilbach

(2005) The knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship. Available at: http://web.mit.edu/iandeseminar/Papers/Fall2005/audretschkeilbach.pdf (accessed 19 May 2011).

Autio

Kennedy

Mustar

Siegel

Wright

(2014) Entrepreneurial innovation: the importance of context. Research Policy 43(7): 1097–1108.

Bagchi-Sen

Lawton Smith

Hall

(2004) The U.S. biotechnology industry – policy and practice. Environment and Planning C 22(2): 199–216.

Balas

Elkin

(2013) Technology transfer from biomedical research to clinical practice: measuring Innovation performance. Evaluation & the Health Professions 36(4): 505–517.

Birch

(2008) Alliance-driven governance: applying a global commodity chains approach to the U.K. biotechnology industry. Economic Geography 84(1): 83–103.

Birch

(2017) Innovation, Regional Development and the Life Sciences beyond Clusters. London: Routledge.

BIS (2013) Strength and opportunity: the landscape of the medical technology, medical biotechnology, industrial biotechnology and pharmaceutical sectors in the UK. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/298819/bis-14-p90-strength-opportunity-2013.pdf (accessed 15 August 2016).

Breschi

Lissoni

(2001) Knowledge spillovers and local innovation systems: a critical survey. Industrial and Corporate Change 10(4): 975–1005.

10.

Breschi

Malerba

(1997) Chapter 6. Sectoral innovation systems: technological regimes, Schumpeterian dynamics, and spatial boundaries. In: Edquist

(ed.) Systems of Innovation – Technologies, Institutions and Organizations. London: Pinter, pp. 130–156.

11.

Breznitz

Anderson

(2006) Boston metropolitan area biotechnology cluster. Canadian Journal of Regional Science/Revue canadienne des sciences régionales XXVIII(2): 249–264.

12.

Breznitz

(2013) Cluster sustainability: the Israeli life sciences industry. Economic Development Quarterly 27(1): 29–39.

13.

Carlsson

Jacobsson

Holmén

Rickne

(1999) Innovation systems: analytical and methodological issues. Available at: http://www.druid.dk/conferences/summer1999/conf-papers/carlsson.pdf (accessed 10 November 2014).

14.

Casper

(2013) The spill-over theory reversed: the impact of regional economies on the commercialization of university science. Research Policy 42(8): 1313–1324.

15.

Coenen

Moodysson

Asheim

(2004) Nodes, networks and proximities: on the knowledge dynamics of the Medicon Valley biotech cluster. European Planning Studies 12(7): 1003–1018.

16.

Coenen

Moodysson

Ryan

Asheim

Phillips

(2006) Knowledge bases and spatial patterns of collaboration: comparing the pharma and agro-food bioregions Scania and Saskatoon. Industry and Innovation 13(4): 393–414.

17.

Cooke

(1992) Regional innovation systems: competitive regulation in the new Europe. Geoforum 23(3): 365–382.

18.

Cooke

(2005) Rational drug design, the knowledge chain and bioscience megacentres. Cambridge Journal of Economics 29(3): 325–341.

19.

Cooke

(2013) Growth Cultures: The Global Bioeconomy and Its Bioregions. London: Routledge.

20.

Feldman

(2014) The character of innovative places: entrepreneurial strategy, economic development and prosperity. Small Business Economics 43(1): 9–20.

21.

Feldman

Francis

(2006) Chapter 6. Entrepreneurs as agents in the formation of industrial clusters. In: Asheim

Cooke

Martin

(eds) Clusters and Regional Development. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 115–136.

22.

Freeman

(1995) The ‘National System of Innovation’ in historical perspective. Cambridge Journal of Economics 19(1): 5–24.

23.

Fritsch

Schindele

(2011) The contribution of new businesses to regional employment—an empirical analysis. Economic Geography 87(2): 153–180.

24.

Fritsch

Wyrwich

(2014) The long persistence of regional levels of entrepreneurship: Germany, 1925 to 2005. Regional Studies 48(6): 955–973.

25.

Gebhardt

(2015) Chapter 7. Island of bliss? University technology commercialisation practices in the Swiss Innovation system. In: Breznitz

Etzkowitz

(eds) University Technology Transfer. London: Routledge, pp. 149–178.

26.

Goldstein

(2009) Chapter 2. What we know and what we don’t know about the regional economic impacts of universities. In: Varga

(ed.) Universities, Knowledge Transfer and Regional Development. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 11–35.

27.

Grimshaw

Eccles

Lavis

Hill

Squires

(2012) Knowledge translation of research findings. Implementation Science 7(50): 1–17.

28.

Hekkert

Suurs

RAA

Negro

Kuhlmann

Smits

REHM

(2007) Functions of innovation systems: a new approach for analysing technological change. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 74(4): 413–432.

29.

Howells

(2006) Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation. Research Policy 35(5): 715–728.

30.

Kenney

(1986a) Biotechnology: The University-Industrial Complex. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

31.

Kenney

(1986b) Schumpeterian innovation and entrepreneurs in capitalism: a case study of the U.S. biotechnology industry. Research Policy 15(1): 21–31.

32.

Kline

Rosenberg

(1986) An overview of innovation. In: Landau

Rosenberg

(eds) The Positive Sum Strategy: Harnessing Technology for Economic Growth. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, pp. 275–305.

33.

Lawton Smith

Waters

( 2015) Regional synergies in triple helix regions: the case of local economic development policies Oxfordshire. Industry and Higher Education 29(1): 25–36. ISSN 0950-4222.

34.

Lendel

(2010) The impact of research universities on regional economies: the concept of university products. Economic Development Quarterly 24(3): 210–230.

35.

Lundvall

B-Å

(1988) Innovation as an interactive process – from user-producer interaction to national systems of innovation. In: Dosi

Freeman

Nelson

Silverberg

Soete

LLG

(eds) Technical Change and Economic Theory. London: Pinter Publishers, pp. 349–367.

36.

Lundvall

B-A

(1992) National systems of innovation, Pinter.

37.

Malerba

(2002) Sectoral systems of innovation and production. Research Policy 1(2): 247–264.

38.

Malerba

(2005) Sectoral systems: how and why innovation differs across sectors. In Fagerberg: David and Nelson, (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Innovation. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 380–406.

39.

Malmberg

(2003) Beyond the cluster: local milieus and global connections. In: Peck

(ed.) Remaking the Global Economy: Economic-Geographical Perspectives. London: SAGE, pp. 145–162.

40.

Malmberg

Maskell

(2006) Localised learning revisited. Growth and Change 37(1): 1–18.

41.

Malmberg

Power

(2005) (How) do (firms in) clusters create knowledge? Industry and Innovation 12(4): 409–431.

42.

Mazzucato

(2013) The Entrepreneurial State: Debunking Public vs Private Sector Myth. London: Anthem Press.

43.

Moodysson

Jonsson

(2007) Knowledge collaboration and proximity the spatial organization of biotech innovation projects. European Urban and Regional Studies 14(2): 115–131.

44.

Nelson

(1993) National Innovation Systems: A Comparative Analysis. Oxford; New York: University Press.

45.

Rothwell

(1994) Towards the fifth generation innovation process. International Marketing Review 11(1): 7–31.

46.

Spigel

(2015) The relational organisation of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. Epub ahead of print 25 June. DOI: 10.1111/etap.12167.

47.

SQW (2013) The Oxford innovation engine. Available at: http://www.sqw.co.uk/files/2613/8690/7243/Oxford_engine.pdf (accessed 15 August 2016).

48.

Sternberg

Müller

(2005) Entrepreneurship in regional innovation systems – a case study of the biotechnology industry in Shanghai. Available at: http://www2.druid.dk/conferences/viewpaper.php?id=2707&cf=18 (accessed 24 April 2016).

49.

Swiss Biotech (2016) Swiss Biotech report. Available at: www.swissbiotechreport.ch (accessed 17 March 2016).

50.

Tödtling

Trippl

(2015) How do firms acquire knowledge in different sectoral and regional contexts? Papers in Innovation Studies 2015/25, Lund University, CIRCLE - Center for Innovation. Research and Competences in the Learning Economy. (accessed August 15 2016).

51.

Wharton (2014) Available at: http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/spain-adopts-israel-model-engineer-biotech-resurgence/ (accessed June 18 2017).

52.

Woolthuis

Lankhuizen

Gilsing

(2005) A system failure framework for innovation policy design. Technovation 25(6): 609–619.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.11 MB