The Competencies of Regions – Canada's Clusters in Biotechnology

Knowledge-intensive industries tend to concentrate geographically, because of the many spillovers that they generate. Thus new biotechnology firms often set up in regions that have innovative firms, government laboratories and universities, which attract them to enter. In this paper we unveil some of the characteristics of Canadian clusters in biotechnology: the key regions, their relative importance, and the main firms and government laboratories that attract new entrants. Moreover, we develop the concept of regions as nexus of competencies, a notion already put forward for firms, but that may be relevant to regions within nations and, ultimately, to nations as well. Capabilities of organizations and regions vary, and a thorough study of organizational and regional capabilities should precede the analysis of knowledge spillovers.Toronto is the main center of biotechnology in Canada, followed by Montreal, and Vancouver. The total population of the metropolitan area (a proxy for immediate market size and venture capital) explains the size, location and characteristics of most Canadian clusters. University research is also a key factor explaining the size of the biotechnology clusters, once population is held constant.Within nations, scientific and technical competencies vary strongly among regions. Some regions within countries concentrate a disproportionate share of the capabilities of all developed and developing nations. Moreover, regions tend to concentrate competencies on a few domains of expertise. This is what literature calls "agglomeration effects": companies active in the same field of technology tend to cluster geographically. They do so in order to share a common labor pool, and to obtain ready access to research institutions such as government laboratories and universities, or to key markets and customers, such as large assemblers or government facilities (Feldman et al., 1999). The specialized literature calls these institutions and key markets/customers "entry attractors" (Swan et al., 1998).In many types of science-based industries (SBIs), such as biotechnology, information technology and advanced materials, the major attractors are universities and government laboratories. In a few more mature SBIs, including aerospace and aircraft, large assemblers tend to naturally attract smaller producers of, components and specialized software.In this respect Canada is similar, to other nations (Niosi, 2000). Its competencies cluster around a few large and medium-sized urban agglomerations, such as Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, Ottawa, Edmonton, and Calgary. Specialized clusters have also developed around smaller cities. This study builds a theory of the competencies of regions using biotechnology as a case study. Government laboratories, as well as universities and a few large firms, attract entry. The goal of the paper is to examine – using quantitative data – the relative competencies of regions in biotechnology, and the role of NRC laboratories and university research.     

The international diffusion of biotechnology: the arrival of developing countries

According to conventional economic theory, countries tend to converge in economic and technological terms towards the leader. More recently, empirical approaches by economic historians (Abramovitz, Landes, Madison, Reinert) have found that while some countries are catching up, others are falling increasingly behind. Several theories compete to explain the precise mechanisms that explain how technological diffusion takes place. The paper reviews them and draws testable hypotheses for the study of international biotechnology diffusion. Biotechnologies are one of the leading sets of technologies developed in the late 20th century. They encompass applications in agriculture, chemicals, environment and pharmaceuticals. The United States has led the way in both scientific and industrial development of biotechnologies and these have quickly spread to Canada, Japan and Western Europe. Are the main developing countries adopting biotechnology? A study of the adoption of human health biotechnology in eight developing countries in Asia (China, India, Korea, and Singapore) and Latin America (Argentina, Brazil, Chile and Mexico) was conducted, based on the analysis of in situ interviews, patents and scientific publication. The study shows a marked process of adoption and learning in science: each of the above-mentioned developing countries is increasing its share of world publication between 1996 and 2008. However, their share of biotechnology patents for the same period has barely increased. There are also regional differences in terms of sectoral concentration; Latin America, Argentina and Brazil are eager adopters of agricultural biotechnology and are moving up in the pharmaceutical records. Several Argentinean, Chinese, Indian, and South Korean pharmaceutical companies have been particularly active in the development of biogenerics.     

Relating business model innovations and innovation cascades: the case of biotechnology

This article conceptualizes innovation as a process, where the scientific and industrial application of technological knowledge nurtures new routines and institutions, in order to relate changing business model innovations to innovation cascades. Innovation in science-based, high-tech sectors is changing its tempo, from the evolutionary pace of incremental novelties punctuated by occasional radical novelties, to innovation cascades. These cascades involve a long series of interlinked radical innovations, which can be traced through various scientific and technological indicators like patents and publications. Innovation cascades are relevant to industry, because they make the future less predictable. They are particularly interesting because these changes also enable the testing an abundance of new business models. Innovation cascades have a major impact on the number and sustainability of business models and on strategy. Business model innovations are visible not only in the existing organizations that undergo change, but also new organizational models appear. The case of biotechnology after the 1980s is used to illustrate our conceptualization.     

Biosimilars in North America

ABSTRACT

The United States (US) is the world leader in the development of biopharmaceutical products. These new drugs, numbering about 200, are now losing patent protection and imitators are entering the market of comparable drugs, called biosimilars. According to a popular belief, these producers of biosimilars (erroneously called copycats) are everywhere, except in the United States. In North America, on both sides of the US border, the increase in the number of biosimilar producers is evident. In addition, although the US federal government tries to erect barriers against the entry of foreign-made biosimilars in the country, many states are lobbying the federal government and allowing the use of biosimilars. And biosimilars represent a very convenient ladder for emergent and industrial countries to learn the enigmatic routines of the pharmaceutical industry. Where this segment of the industry will be located is another matter.     

The evolution and performance of biotechnology regional systems of innovation

The paper maintains that biotechnology regions develop as complexsystems: they start with star scientists in research universities,generating knowledge spillovers, then move progressively towardsregional technology markets. In the process they attract venturecapital (or modify the behaviour of existing venture capitalfirms with the addition of biotechnology portfolios). The routinesof universities are also modified with the addition of intellectualproperty and technology transfer offices intervening as sellersin the newly created knowledge markets. The paper also considerswhether companies located in regional agglomerations grow fasterthan isolated ones, and whether companies spun-off from universitieshave a better performance than start-ups. The study is basedon about 90 Canadian-based publicly quoted biotechnology companies.     

Imitation and innovation new biologics,biosimilars and biobetters

ABSTRACT

Biopharmaceutical drugs are the future of the pharmaceutical industry. The United States is the world leader in the development of new biopharmaceutical products. These original new drugs, numbering close to 200, are now losing patent protection and imitators from several countries are entering the markets of comparable drugs, called biosimilars. Some companies are improving the original product, and these drugs are called biobetters. Even among the producers of biosimilars one finds different strategies, and these are linked to different government regulations concerning the approval of these products. Some biosimilar companies are aiming at developed-country markets (North America, the European Union and Japan), while other producers are targeting emerging, less-regulated markets. This introduction will present the dynamic picture of an industry in transition. The paper has a double aim: discuss the fuzzy frontier between imitation and innovation, and track the new contours of the pharmaceutical industry.     

Strategic partnerships in Canadian advanced materials

The analysis of technical (R&D) collaborations in Canadian advanced materials industries show strong interactions between producers, users, government laboratories and universities. Management patterns show the predominance of flexible governance structures: long-term agreements instead of joint ventures, two-member partnerships, and collective management. Most of the alliances involve two or three partners, usually a producer, a user and/or a university or government laboratory. Advantages (gaining complementary assets, accelerated innovation, financing and R&D economies of scale among others) outnumber difficulties, thus bringing some evidence against the usefulness of the transaction cost approach to the study of technical alliances in advanced materials. The vast majority of the partnerships were entirely domestic (i.e. did not include foreign partners). The study was conducted on a sample of 30 Canadian private firms (both producers and users) and 6 government corporations and public research laboratories.