NATIONAL INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORKS AND THE HYBRIDIZATION OF ENTREPRENEURIAL BUSINESS MODELS: THE GERMAN AND UK BIOTECHNOLOGY SECTORS

By Steven Casper, H. Kettler. 2001

145 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Regional and sectoral varieties of capitalism (2009, background): “However, the outcome of this was rather surprising: the stronger academic embeddedness of the Munich cluster seems to have been leading to better performance in developing radically innovative products there than in Cambridge.”
Careers and Clusters: Analyzing the Career Network Dynamic of Biotechnology Clusters (2005, background): “These communities are distinctive because they bring the firm different knowledge and different social ties and yet both have been shown to be important for the commercialization of biotechnology (Casper and Kettler, 2001; Murray, 2004; Owen-Smith and Powell, 2004; Powell et al., 1996, 2002).”
Managing competences in entrepreneurial technology firms: a comparative institutional analysis of Germany, Sweden and the UK (2004, result): “These data support a number of consulting reports and previous academic studies concluding that the UK has Europe’s strongest biotechnology sector (see e.g. Senker, 1996; Ernst and Young, 1999; Cooke, 1999; Casper and Kettler, 2001).”
Developing Biotechnology Clusters in Non‐high Technology Regions—The Case of Austria (2007, background): “Casper and Kettler ( 2001 ) and Casper and Karamanos ( 2003 ), for instance, assert that the German biotechnology industry face severe difficulties as only few firms have developed in‐depth scientific capabilities and promising therapeutic products.”