No. 47 (2017)
Artículos

Estrategias de apropiación en contextos de colaboración público-privada en la biotecnología argentina

PDF (Español (España)) HTML (Español (España)) XML (Español (España))
  • Vladimiro Verre,
  • Darío Milesi,
  • Natalia Petelski
Vladimiro Verre
Universidad Nacional de General Sarmiento
Darío Milesi
Universidad Nacional de General Sarmiento
Natalia Petelski
Universidad Nacional de General Sarmiento
DOI: https://doi.org/10.24275/ETYPUAM/NE/472017/Verre
Published December 1, 2017

Copyright (c) 2017 Economía teoría y práctica

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Abstract

La actividad innovadora es crítica para una empresa, así como la posibilidad de beneficiarse de sus resultados. Para alcanzar dicho objetivo las firmas elaboran una estrategia de apropiación, basada en el uso de varios mecanismos de apropiación existentes. Este trabajo estudia nueve firmas del sector biofarmacéutico argentino, que se caracteriza por una intensa actividad innovadora que es intrínsecamente cooperativa, ya que las firmas recurren sistemáticamente a fuentes externas y públicas de conocimiento. La colaboración público-privada genera necesariamente efectos sobre las estrategias de apropiación de las empresas, que deben considerar riesgos y ventajas implícitos en un proceso de innovación de tales características. Los rasgos que asume la colaboración entre las partes son críticos para identificar las especificidades de la relación entre colaboración y apropiación, en un sector intensivo en ciencia y tecnología que es estratégico para Argentina por las capacidades acumuladas a nivel científico y empresarial.
PDF (Español (España)) HTML (Español (España)) XML (Español (España))

References

  1. Aguiar, Diego (2011), Análisis de los procesos socio técnicos de construcción de tecnologías intensivas en conocimiento en la Argentina: un abordaje desde la sociología de la tecnología sobre una empresa de biotecnología en el sector salud: el caso de Biosidus S.A. 1975–2005, tesis de doctorado, Buenos Aires, flacso, Sede Académica Argentina.
  2. Anlló, Guillermo; Bisang, Roberto y Stubrin, Lilia (2010), “Las empresas de biotecnología en Argentina”, Documento de Trabajo-Cepal, núm. 51.
  3. Arrow, Kenneth (1962), “Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention”, en Richard Nelson (ed.), The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity (pp. 609-625), Princeton, Princeton University Press.
  4. Arundel, Anthony (2001), “The Relative Effectiveness of Patents and Secrecy for Appropriation”, Research Policy, 30, pp. 611-624.
  5. Arza, Valeria (2010), “Channels, benefits and risks of public–private interactions for knowledge transfer: conceptual framework inspired by Latin America”, Science and Public Policy, 37 (7), pp. 473-484.
  6. Belderbos, René; Carree, Martin y Lokshin, Boris (2004), “Cooperative R&D and firm performance”, Research Policy, 33, pp. 1477-1492.
  7. Bercovitz, Janet y Feldman, Maryann (2007), “Fishing upstream: Firm innovation strategy and university research alliances”, Research Policy, 36, pp. 930-948.
  8. Bisang, Roberto; Gutman, Graciela; Lavarello, Pablo; Sztulwark, Sebastián y Díaz, Alberto (comps.) (2006), Biotecnología y desarrollo. Un modelo para armar en la economía argentina, Buenos Aires, Prometeo y ungs.
  9. Bonaccorsi, Andrea y Piccaluga, Andrea (1994), “A theoretical framework for the evaluation of university-industry relationships”, R&D Management, 24 (3), pp. 229-247.
  10. Brouwer, Erik y Kleinknecht, Alfred (1999), “Innovative output and a firm’s propensity to patent. An exploration of cis micro data”, Research Policy, 28, pp. 615-624.
  11. Bureth, Antoine; Levy, Rachel; Pénin, Julien y Wolff, Sandrine (2005), “Strategic Reasons for Patenting: Between Exclusion and Coordination Rationales”, Rivista di Politica Economica, 95 (5), pp. 19-46.
  12. Caloghirou, Yannis; Aggelos, Tsakanikas y Vonortas, Nicholas (2001), “University-Industry Cooperation in the Context of the European Framework Programmes”, Journal of Technology Transfer, 26 (1-2), pp. 153-161.
  13. Carayol, Nicolas (2003), “Objectives, agreements and matching in science-industry collaborations: Reassembling the pieces of the puzzle”, Research Policy, 32, pp. 887-908.
  14. Cassier, M., (1997), “Compromis institutionnels et hybridations entre recherche publique et recherche privée”, Revue d’Economie Industrielle, 79, pp. 191-212.
  15. Cassiman, Bruno y Veugelers, Reinhilde (2002), “R&D cooperation and spillovers: Some empirical evidence from Belgium”, American Economic Review, 44 (3), pp. 1169-1184.
  16. Cimoli, Mario y Primi, Annalisa (2008), “Technology and Intellectual Property: A Taxonomy of Contemporary Markets for Knowledge and Their Implications for Development”, lem Papers Series, pp. 1-24.
  17. Cohen, Wesley; Nelson, Richard y Walsh, John (2000), Protecting Their Intellectual Assets: Appropriability Conditions and Why Us Manufacturing Firms Patent (or Not), Cambridge, National Bureau of Economic Research.
  18. D’Este, Pablo y Patel, Parimal (2007), “University–industry linkages in the UK: What are the factors determining the variety of interactions with industry?”, Research Policy 36 (9), pp. 1295-1313.
  19. Dosi, Giovanni; Marengo, Luigi y Pasquali, Corrado (2006), “How much should society fuel the greed of innovators? On the relations between appropriability, opportunities and rates of innovation”, Research Policy, 35, pp. 1110-1121.
  20. Eisenhardt, Kathleen (1989), “Building Theories from Case Study Research”, Academy of Management Review, 14 (4), pp. 532-550.
  21. Eom, Boo y Lee, Keun (2009), “Modes of Knowledge Transfer from pros and Firm Performance: The Case of Korea”, Seoul Journal of Economics, 22 (4), pp. 499-528.
  22. Eun, Jong-Hak; Lee, Keun y Wu, Guisheng, (2006), “Explaining the ‘University–run enterprises’ in China: A theoretical framework for university–industry relationship in developing countries and its application to China”, Research Policy, 35 (9), pp. 1329-1346.
  23. Fernández Sánchez, Esteban; Montes Peón, José Manuel; Pérez-Bustamante, Guillermo y Vázquez Ordás, Camilo José (1998), “Acumulación, naturaleza e imitación del conocimiento tecnológico: una revisión de la literatura”, Investigaciones Europeas de Dirección y Economía de la Empresa, 4 (1), pp. 11-34.
  24. Fernández Sánchez, Esteban (2004), “Formas de apropiación de las ganancias de una innovación”, Universia Business Review, primer trimestre, núm. 1, pp.70-81.
  25. Galende del Canto, Jesús (2006), “La apropiación de los resultados de la actividad innovadora. Universidad de Salamanca”, mimeo.
  26. González-Álvarez, Nuria y Nieto-Antolín, Mariano (2007), “Appropriability of innovation results: An empirical study in Spanish manufacturing ?rms”, Technovation, núm. 27, pp. 280-295.
  27. Griliches, Zvi (1990), “Patent Statistics as Economic Indicators: A Survey”, Journal of Economic Literature, 28 (4), pp. 1661-1707.
  28. Gutman, Graciela y Lavarello, Pablo (2010), “Desarrollo reciente de la moderna biotecnología en el sector de salud humana”, documento del Proyecto ceur-Conicet “Potencialidades de la biotecnología para el desarrollo industrial de Argentina”, Buenos Aires.
  29. Hall, Bronwyn; Link, Albert y Scott, John (2001), “Barriers inhibiting industry from partnering with universities: evidence from the advanced technology program”, Journal of Technology Transfer, 26, pp. 87-98.
  30. Harabi, Najib (1995), “Appropriability of technical innovations: An empirical analysis”, Research Policy, 24 (6), pp. 981-992.
  31. Hurmelinna–Laukkanen, Pia y Puumalainen, Kaisu (2007), “Nature and Dynamics of Appropriability: Strategies for Appropriating Returns on Innovation”, R&D Management, 37 (2), pp. 95-112.
  32. Hussinger, Katrin (2006), “Is silence golden? Patents versus secrecy at the firm level”, Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 15 (8), pp. 735-752.
  33. Joly, Pierre-Benoit y Mangematin, Vincent (1996), “Profile of public laboratories, industrial partnerships and organisation of R&D: the dynamics of industrial relationships in a large research organisation”, Research Policy, 25, pp. 901-922.
  34. Laursen, Keld, y Salter, Ammon (2006), “Open for innovation: the role of openness in explaining innovation performance among U.K. manufacturing firms”, Strategic Management Journal, 27 (2), pp. 131-150.
  35. Lee, Yong (1996), “Technology transfer and the research university: a search for the boundaries of university–industry collaboration”, Research Policy, 25, pp. 843-863.
  36. Levin, Richard; Klevorick, Alvin; Nelson, Richard; Winter, Sidney; Gilbert, Richard y Griliches, Zvi (1987), “Appropriating the Returns from Industrial Research and Development”, Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, vol. 1987, núm. 3, pp. 783-831.
  37. Levy, Rachel; Roux, Pascale y Wolff, Sandrine (2009), “An analysis of science–industry collaborative patterns in a large European University”, The Journal of Technology Transfer, 34 (1), pp. 1-23.
  38. Lhuillery, Stéphane y Pfister, Etienne (2009), “R&D cooperation and failures in innovation projects: Empirical evidence from french cis data”, Research Policy, 38, pp. 45-57.
  39. Lööf, Hans y Broström, Anders (2008), “Does knowledge diffusion between university and industry increase innovativeness?”, The Journal of Technology Transfer, 33 (1), pp. 73-90.
  40. Lopez, Alberto (2008), “Determinants for R&D cooperation: Evidence from spanish manufacturing firms”, International Journal of Industrial Organization, 26, pp. 113-136.
  41. Mansfield, Edwin (1986), “Patents and Innovation: an empirical study”, Management Science, 32 (2), pp. 173-181.
  42. Meyer–Krahmer, Frieder y Schmoch, Urich (1998), “Science–based technologies: university–industry interactions in four fields”, Research Policy, 27, pp. 835-851.
  43. Miotti, Luis y Sachwald, Frédérique (2003), “Cooperative R&D: why and with whom? An integrated framework of analysis”, Research Policy, 32, pp. 1481-1499.
  44. Milesi, Darío; Verre, Vladimiro; Petelski, Natalia y Aggio, Carlos (2011), “Apropiación privada de las rentas de la innovación: elementos para la discusión conceptual y el abordaje metodológico”, Universidad Nacional de General Sarmiento, mimeo.
  45. Milesi, Darío, Petelski, Natalia y Verre, Vladimiro, (2013), “Innovation and appropriation mechanisms: Evidence from Argentine microdata”, Technovation, 33 (2-3), pp. 78-87.
  46. Perkmann, M. y Walsh, K. (2007), “University–industry relationships and open innovation: Towards a research agenda”, International Journal of Management Reviews, 9 (4), pp. 259-280.
  47. Perkmann, M. y Walsh, K. (2009), “The two faces of collaboration: impacts of university–industry relations on public research”, Industrial and Corporate Change, 18 (6), pp. 1033-1065.
  48. Perkmann, Marcus; Tartari, Valentina; McKelvey, Maureen; Autio, Erkko; Broström, Anders; D’Este, Pablo; Fini, Ricardo; Geuna, Aldo; Grimaldi, Rosa; Hughes, Alan; Krabel, Stefan; Kitson, Michael; Llerena, Patrick; Lissoni, Franceso; Salter, Ammon y Sobrero, Maurizio (2013), “Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of the literature on university-industry relations”, Research Policy, 42 (2), pp. 423-442.
  49. Ramos-Vielba, Irene y Fernández–Esquinas, Manuel (2012), “Beneath the tip of the iceberg: exploring the multiple forms of university–industry linkages”, Higher Education 64 (2), pp. 237-265.
  50. Schartinger, Doris; Rammer, Christian; Fischer, Manfred y Fröhlich, Josef, (2002), “Knowledge interactions between universities and industry in Austria: sectoral patterns and determinants”, Research Policy, 31 (3), pp. 303-328.
  51. Schumpeter, Joseph (1942), Capitalism Socialism and Democracy, Nueva York, Harper and Row.
  52. Teece, David (1986), “Profiting from Technological Innovation: Implications for Integration, Collaboration, Licensing and Public Policy”, Research Policy, 15 (6), pp. 285-305.
  53. Tether, Bruce (2002), “Who Co–operates for Innovation, and Why?”, Research Policy, 31 (6), pp. 947-67.
  54. Verre, Vladimiro; Petelski, Natalia y Milesi, Darío (2014), “Colaboración y estrategia de apropiación en alta tecnología: el caso de una empresa biofarmacéutica argentina”, Innovar, 24 (edición especial), pp. 41-53.
  55. Yin, Robert (1981a), “The case study as a serious research strategy”, Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization, 3, pp. 97-114.
  56. Yin, Robert (1981b), “The case study crisis: Some answers”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 26, pp. 58-65.
  57. Yin, Robert (2003), Case study research: design and methods, 3a. ed., Applied Social Research Methods Series, vol. 5, Thousand Oaks, ca: sage Publications.