The enabling role of the public sector in innovation: A case study of drug development in India
Kavita Mehra
National Institute of Science, Technology and Development Studies, New Dehli, India
Kirti Joshi
National Institute of Science, Technology and Development Studies, New Dehli, India
PP: 227 - 237
Abstract
The paper explores the role of various actors and their interactions in biotechnology based antifungal drug development within the perspective of National Innovation Systems. It portrays the type of involvement of differential actors, their linkages and how such relationships evolve.
It also analyses the role of decision makers (as individuals) in the ambit of organizational and institutional settings in influencing the innovation process. The case confirms the key role played by the public sector in facilitating the successful commercialization of indigenously developed drug.
Keywords
National Innovation System; government role; drug development; biotechnology
References
Chaturvedi S (2002) Status and development of biotechnology in India: An analytical overview. RIS working papers, p.47. Available at www.ris.org.in/dp28_pap.pdf
Chung S (2002) Building a national innovation system through regional innovation system, Technovation 22(8): 485-491.
Dodgson M, Gann D and Salter A (2005) Think, Play, Do, Oxford University Press, Oxford
Fagerberg J (2006) Innovation, a guide to the literature, in Fagerberg J, Mowery DC and Nelson RR (eds) Oxford Handbook of Innovation, pp.1-26. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Fransman M and Tanaka S (1995) The strengths and weaknesses of the Japanese innovation system in biotechnology, in Fransman M et al. (eds) The biotechnological revolution? Blackwell, London.
Fransman M (1991) Biotechnology: Generation, diffusion and policy: An imperative survey, Unu/intech Working paper No.1.
Freeman C (1987) Technology policy and economic performance: lessons from Japan. Pinter, London.
Freeman C (1995) Technological revolutions: historical analogies, in Fransman M et al. (eds) The biotechnological revolution? Blackwell, London.
Freeman C (1997) Technology policy and economic performance, Pinter, London
Freeman C (2004) Technological infrastructure and international competitiveness, Industrial and Corporate Change 13(3): 540-552.
Fritsch M (2003) Does R&D-cooperation behavior differ between regions? Industry and Innovation 10: 25-39.
Giuliani E (2007) Networks and heterogeneous performance or cluster firms, in Frenken K (ed) Applied evolutionary economics and economic geography. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
Gokhale PC, Kshirsagar NA and Pandya SK (1993) Development and therapeutic application of liposomal Amphotericin B. Current Science 65(6): 448-454.
Johnson B (1988) An institutional approach to the small country problem, in Freeman C and Lundvall B-Å (eds.) Small countries facing the technological revolution, Pinter, London. Johnson B (1992) Institutional learning, in
Lundvall B-Å (ed) National systems of innovation: towards a theory of innovation and interactive learning, pp.23-44, Pinter, London.
Joseph K (2005) National innovation system: Experience of select Asian countries. Available at www.ris.org.in/Report_NIS.pdf
Kshirsagar N and Kirodian B (2002) Liposomal drug delivery system from laboratory to patients: our experience, Proceedings of Indian National Science Academy, B68(4): 333-348.
Lanjouw J (2004) The introduction of pharmaceutical product patents in India: 'Heartless exploitation of the poor and suffering'? NBER Working Paper No. 6366.
Leyden D and Link A (1992) Government's role in innovation, Kluwer, Boston.
Link A (2002) Private-sector and public sector strategies to encourage technological alliances. In De la Mothe J and Link A (eds) Networks, alliances and partnerships in the innovation process, pp.7-28, Kluwer, Boston.
Lundvall B-Å (ed) (1992) National systems of innovation: Towards a theory of innovation and interactive learning. Pinter, London.
Lundvall B-Å (2007) National innovation system: Analytical focusing device and policy learning tool. Working Paper R2007:004, ITPS, Swedish Institute for Growth Policy Studies.
Mehra K (2001) Indian system of innovation in biotechnology: A case study of cardamom. Technovation 21: 15-23.
Mehra K (2009) Role of intermediary organisations in innovation systems: A case from India. Paper presented in 6th Asialics 2009 'Linkages in innovation systems: Global and local perspectives' July 2009 Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Hong Kong.
Nelson RR (1993) National system of innovation: A comparative study. Oxford University Press, New York.
Nieto MJ and Santamaria L (2007) The importance of diverse collaborative networks for the novelty of product innovation, Technovation 27: 367-377.
OECD (1997) National Innovation Systems, OECD, Paris.
Powell W (1998) Learning from collaboration: knowledge and networks in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries, California Management Review 40(3): 28-240.
Rothwell W (1994) Effective succession planning: Ensuring leadership continuity and building talent from within, AMACOM, New York.
Sakakibara M (1997) Evaluating government-sponsored R&D consortia in Japan: Who benefits and how, Research Policy 26: 447-473.
Sanath S, Gogtay NJ and Kshirsagar NA (2005) Post-marketing study to assess the safety, tolerability and effectiveness of FungisomeTM: An Indian liposomal Amphotericin B preparation, Journal of Postgraduate Medicine 51: 58-63.
Schon DA (1963) Champions of radical new inventions, Harvard Business Review 41: 77-86.
Tödtling F, Lehner P and Kaufmann A (2009) Do different types of innovation rely on specific kinds of knowledge interactions? Technovation 29: 59-71.
Tripsas M, Schrader S and Sobrero M (1995) Discouraging opportunistic behavior in collaborative R&D: A new role for government, Research Policy 24(3): 367-389.
World Health Organization (2006) Update on the status of visceral leishmaniasis (Kala-azar), available at http://www.searo.who.int/en/Section10/Section2163_13267.htm
eContent Home
