We contend that two important, nonrelational, features of formal interorganizational networks-geographic propinquity and organizational form-fundamentally alter the flow of information through a network. Within regional economies, contractual linkages among physically proximate organizations represent relatively transparent channels for information transfer because they are embedded in an ecology rich in informal and labor market transmission mechanisms. Similarly, we argue that the spillovers that result from proprietary alliances are a function of the institutional commitments and practices of members of the network. When the dominant nodes in an innovation network are committed to open regimes of information disclosure, the entire structure is characterized by less tightly monitored ties. The relative accessibility of knowledge transferred through contractual linkages to organizations determines whether innovation benefits accrue broadly to membership in a coherent network component or narrowly to centrality. We draw on novel network visualization methods and conditional fixed effects negative binomial regressions to test these arguments for human therapeutic biotechnology firms located in the Boston metropolitan area.

/pdf/knowledge-networks-as-channels-and-conduits-the-effects-of-1nwvbl3zbi.pdf

Knowledge Networks as Channels and Conduits: The Effects of Spillovers in the Boston Biotechnology Community

A recursive analysis of network and institutional evolution is offered to account for the decentralized structure of the commercial field of the life sciences Four alternative logics of attachment—accumulative advantage, homophily, follow‐the‐trend, and multiconnectivity—are tested to explain the structure and dynamics of interorganizational collaboration in biotechnology Using multiple novel methods, the authors demonstrate how different rules for affiliation shape network evolution Commercialization strategies pursued by early corporate entrants are supplanted by universities, research institutes, venture capital, and small firms As organizations increase their collaborative activities and diversify their ties to others, cohesive subnetworks form, characterized by multiple, independent pathways These structural components, in turn, condition the choices and opportunities available to members of a field, thereby reinforcing an attachment logic based on differential connections to diverse partners

/pdf/network-dynamics-and-field-evolution-the-growth-of-516yrjpl9b.pdf

Network dynamics and field evolution : The growth of interorganizational collaboration in the life sciences

We define the knowledge economy as production and services based on knowledge-intensive activities that contribute to an accelerated pace of technical and scientific advance, as well as rapid obsolescence. The key component of a knowledge economy is a greater reliance on intellectual capabilities than on physical inputs or natural resources. We provide evidence drawn from patent data to document an upsurge in knowledge production and show that this expansion is driven by the emergence of new industries. We then review the contentious literature that assesses whether recent technological advances have raised productivity. We examine the debate over whether new forms of work that embody technological change have generated more worker autonomy or greater managerial control. Finally, we assess the distributional consequences of a knowledge-based economy with respect to growing inequality in wages and high-quality jobs.

/pdf/the-knowledge-economy-4oy10klahl.pdf

The Knowledge Economy

V T enture capital has developed as an important intermediary in financial markets, providing capital to firms that might otherwise have difficulty attracting financing. These firms are typically small and young, plagued by high levels of uncertainty and large differences between what entrepreneurs and investors know. Moreover, these firms typically possess few tangible assets and operate in markets that change very rapidly. Venture capital organizations finance these high-risk, potentially high-reward projects, purchasing equity or equity-linked stakes while the firms are still privately held. The venture capital industry has developed a variety of mechanisms to overcome the problems that emerge at each stage of the investment process. At the same time, the venture capital process is also subject to various pathologies from time to time, which can create problems for investors or entrepreneurs. The primary focus of this article is on drawing together the empirical academic research on venture capital and highlighting what is still not known. With this focus in mind, four limitations should be acknowledged at the outset. First, this paper will not address the many theoretical papers that examine various aspects of the venture capital market, much of it examining the role that venture capitalists play in mitigating agency conflicts between entrepreneurial firms and outside investors.' Second, this article does not focus on the intricacies of the

https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.15.2.145

The Venture Capital Revolution

Entrepreneurial ecosystems have emerged as a popular concept to explain the persistence of high–growth entrepreneurship within regions. However, as a theoretical concept ecosystems remain underdeve...

/pdf/the-relational-organization-of-entrepreneurial-ecosystems-1misslns1x.pdf

The relational organization of entrepreneurial ecosystems

This paper focuses on the spatial concentration of two essential factors of production in the commercial field of biotechnology: ideas and money. The location of both research-intensive biotech firms and the venture capital firms that fund biotech is highly clustered in a handful of key US regions. The commercialization of a new medicine and the financing of a high-risk start-up firm are both activities that have an identifiable timeline, and often involve collaboration with multiple participants. The importance of tacit knowledge, face-to-face contact, and the ability to learn and manage across multiple projects are critical reasons for the continuing importance of geographic propinquity in biotech. Over the period 1988-99, more than half of the US biotech firms received locally-based venture funding. Those firms receiving non-local support were older, larger and had moved research projects further along the commercialization process. Similarly, as venture capital firms grow older and bigger, they invest...

/pdf/the-spatial-clustering-of-science-and-capital-accounting-for-2he1bmy4ak.pdf

James I. Bowie

Papers

The Spatial Clustering of Science and Capital: Accounting for Biotech Firm-Venture Capital Relationships