This handbook looks to provide academics and students with a comprehensive and holistic understanding of the phenomenon of innovation. Innovation spans a number of fields within the social sciences and humanities: Management, Economics, Geography, Sociology, Politics, Psychology, and History. Consequently, the rapidly increasing body of literature on innovation is characterized by a multitude of perspectives based on, or cutting across, existing disciplines and specializations. Scholars of innovation can come from such diverse starting points that much of this literature can be missed, and so constructive dialogues missed. The editors of The Oxford Handbook of Innovation have carefully selected and designed twenty-one contributions from leading academic experts within their particular field, each focusing on a specific aspect of innovation. These have been organized into four main sections, the first of which looks at the creation of innovations, with particular focus on firms and networks. Section Two provides an account of the wider systematic setting influencing innovation and the role of institutions and organizations in this context. Section Three explores some of the diversity in the working of innovation over time and across different sectors of the economy, and Section Four focuses on the consequences of innovation with respect to economic growth, international competitiveness, and employment. An introductory overview, concluding remarks, and guide to further reading for each chapter, make this handbook a key introduction and vital reference work for researchers, academics, and advanced students of innovation. Contributors to this volume - Jan Fagerberg, University of Oslo William Lazonick, INSEAD Walter W. Powell, Stanford University Keith Pavitt, SPRU Alice Lam, Brunel University Keith Smith, INTECH Charles Edquist, Linkoping David Mowery, University of California, Berkeley Mary O'Sullivan, INSEAD Ove Granstrand, Chalmers Bjorn Asheim, University of Lund Rajneesh Narula, Copenhagen Business School Antonello Zanfei, Urbino Kristine Bruland, University of Oslo Franco Malerba, University of Bocconi Nick Von Tunzelmann, SPRU Ian Miles, University of Manchester Bronwyn Hall, University of California, Berkeley Bart Verspagen , ECIS Francisco Louca, ISEG Manuel M. Godinho, ISEG Richard R. Nelson, Mario Pianta, Urbino Bengt-Ake Lundvall, Aalborg

The Oxford Handbook of Innovation

Introduction: Thinking Big Again 1. From Crisis Ideology to the Division of Innovative Labour 2. Technology, Innovation and Growth 3. Risk-Taking State: From 'De-risking' to 'Bring It On!' 4. The US Entrepreneurial State 5. The State behind the iPhone 6. Pushing vs. Nudging the Green Industrial Revolution 7. Wind and Solar Power: Government Success Stories and Technology in Crisis 8. Risks and Rewards: From Rotten Apples to Symbiotic Ecosystems 9. Socialization of Risk and Privatization of Rewards: Can the Entrepreneurial State Eat Its Cake Too? 10. Conclusion

/pdf/the-entrepreneurial-state-debunking-public-vs-private-sector-jyupjn05iq.pdf

The Entrepreneurial State: Debunking Public vs. Private Sector Myths

Business Models: Origin, Development and Future Research Perspectives

The Social Transformation of American Medicine is one of the most comprehensive studies on the rise of the medical profession and the development of the health care industry published to date, Starr is able to span the fields of medicine so that he discusses intelligently the economic, political, and historical developments in medical care. His wri ting is clear and succinct, his arguments are copiously footnoted, and the inferences he draws are sound. In Book I, he covers \"the rise of medical authority and the shaping of the medical system\"; in Book II, \"doctors, the State, and the coming of the corporation.\" Reviews by Daniel Bell of Harvard and George Silver of Yale call Starr's work brilliant-I would agree. I would recommend this book to anyone who wants to understand the current health care system. Starr describes the movement of the medical profession from one that was initially viewed skeptically to one that was later embraced; and now, coming full circle, to one that is viewed critically. Starr maintains that the current status of American medicine is the result of our history of accommodating professional interests while failing to exercise control over health programs, and then needing to adopt piecemeal regulations and cut-backs on programs that become too inflationary, One of the primary messages I take from this book is the importance of a com bination of forces: a profession's authority, the political climate, and the current philosophy about health care. Starr illustrates how these forces coalesce to defeat or achieve medical improvements. As occupational therapists, we are dependent on the development of the health care industry. It is wise for us to understand the forces that have an impact on medical care and what they could mean for our profession, Kay Barbara Schwartz, M.S., OTR

The social transformation of american medicine.

The prevailing opinion on public spending is that the state must be cut back to make room for entrepreneurship and innovation, to prevent the public sector ‘crowding out’ the private sector. This draws on the belief that the private sector is dynamic, innovative and competitive, in contrast to the sluggish and bureaucratic public sector.

The Entrepreneurial State challenges this minimalist view of economic policy. It finds that successful economies result from government doing more than just creating the right conditions for growth. Instead, government has a key role to play in developing new technologies whose potential is not yet understood by the business community. State-funded organisations can be nimble and innovative, transforming economies forever — the algorithm behind Google was funded by a public sector National Science Foundation grant.

This pamphlet forces the debate to go beyond the role of the state in stimulating demand, or crudely ‘picking winners’ in industrial policy. Instead, it argues for a proactive, entrepreneurial state: a state that is able to take risks and harness the best of the private sector. It imagines the state as a catalyst, sparking the initial reaction that will cause innovation to spread.

/pdf/the-entrepreneurial-state-58af1kwx9f.pdf

The Entrepreneurial State

In the decade before the 2008 economic crisis, the US biotechnology industry was booming. In a 2006 book, Science Business: The Promise, the Reality, and the Future of Biotech, Gary Pisano implies that, given the 10–20 year time-frame for developing biotech products and the lack of profitability of the industry as a whole, the US biotech boom should not have happened. Yet the biotech industry has received substantial funding from venture capital firms as well as from established companies through R&D alliances. Why would money from venture capitalists and big pharma flow into an industry in which profits are so hard to come by? The purpose of this article is to work toward a solution of what might be called the “Pisano puzzle”, and in the process to provide a basis for analyzing the industrial and institutional conditions under which the growth of the US biopharmaceutical (BP) industry is sustainable. One part of the answer has been the willingness of stock-market investors to absorb the initial public offerings (IPOs) of a BP venture that has not yet generated a commercial product, and indeed may never do so. The other part of the answer is that the knowledge base that BP companies can tap to develop products comes much more from government investments and spending than from business finance. Indeed, we show that, through stock buybacks and dividends, established corporations in the BP industry have been distributing substantial sums of cash to shareholders that may be at the expense of R&D. We use the framework that we have developed for analyzing the sustainability of the US BP business model to pose a number of key areas for future research and policy, with an emphasis on the implications of the financialization of this business model for the generation of safe and affordable BP drugs as well as the need for a theory of innovative enterprise.

US Biopharmaceutical Finance and the Sustainability of the Biotech Business Model

http://www.theairnet.org/files/research/lazonick/Lazonick-Tulum%20US%20BP%20Finance-WebVersion.20110921%20(posted.on.theAIRnet).pdf

US biopharmaceutical finance and the sustainability of the biotech business model

There are widespread claims that a productivity crisis afflicts the U.S. pharmaceutical industry despite the fact that the U.S. institutional environment provides unique advantages for drug R&D. We...

Financialized Corporations in a National Innovation System: The U.S. Pharmaceutical Industry

Apple Inc. stands out as the world’s most famous, and currently richest, company. To the general public, Apple is known for three things: its intriguing CEO Steve Jobs, who has achieved iconic status in death as in life; its amazing iOS products, especially the iPhone and the iPad, and their predecessor the iPod, which have literally placed sophisticated technology in the hands of the masses; and its stratospheric stock price, which even when in March 2013 it had dropped to 63 percent of its September 2012 peak, gave Apple the highest market capitalization of any company in the world. As a result of its phenomenal success, at the end of fiscal 2012 Apple had $121 billion in liquid assets. In April 2013 the company committed to distributing as much as $100 billion to shareholders in stock buybacks and cash dividends by the end of fiscal 2015. By employing the theory of innovative enterprise to analyze how over the course of its 37-year history Apple became so profitable, we argue that there is no economic justification from a risk-reward perspective for this distribution to Apple’s shareholders. Taxpayers and workers have superior claims on these profits. In analyzing by whom value is created as a basis for considering for whom value should be extracted, we raise the implications of Apple’s changing business model for the future of innovation at this heretofore exceptional American company and even in the U.S. economy as a whole.

/pdf/apple-s-changing-business-model-what-should-the-world-s-1q48zryvg2.pdf

Apple's Changing Business Model: What Should the World's Richest Company Do with All Those Profits?

Price gouging in the US pharmaceutical drug industry goes back more than three decades 
In 1985 US Representative Henry Waxman, chair of the House Subcommittee on Health and the Environment, accused the pharmaceutical industry of “gouging the American public” with “outrageous” price increases, driven by “greed on a massive scale” Even in the wake of the many Congressional inquiries that have taken place since the 1980s, including one inspired by the extortionate prices that Gilead Sciences has placed on its Hepatitis-C drugs Sovaldi since 2013 and Harvoni since 2014, the US government has not seen fit to regulate drug prices UK Prescription Price Regulation Scheme data for 1996 through 2010 show that, while drug prices in other advanced nations were close to the UK’s regulated prices, those in the United States were between 74 percent and 181 percent higher Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF) has produced abundant evidence that US drug prices are by far the highest in the world 
The US pharmaceutical industry’s invariable response to demands for price regulation has been that it will kill innovation US drug companies claim that they need higher prices than those that prevail elsewhere so that the extra profits can be used to augment R&D spending The result, they contend, is more drug innovation that benefits the United States, and indeed the whole world It is a compelling argument, until one looks at how major US pharmaceutical companies actually use the profits that high drug prices generate In the name of “maximizing shareholder value” (MSV), pharmaceutical companies allocate the profits generated from high drug prices to massive repurchases, or buybacks, of their own corporate stock for the sole purpose of giving manipulative boosts to their stock prices Incentivizing these buybacks is stock-based compensation that rewards senior executives for stock-price “performance” 
Like no other sector, the pharmaceutical industry puts a spotlight on how the political economy of science is a matter of life and death In this paper, we invoke “the theory of innovative enterprise” to explain how and why high drug prices restrict access to medicines and undermine medical innovation An innovative enterprise seeks to develop a high-quality product that it can sell to the largest possible market at the most affordable price In sharp contrast, the MSV-obsessed companies that dominate the US drug industry have become monopolies that restrict output and raise price These companies need to be regulated

/pdf/us-pharma-s-financialized-business-model-2bpbel7j65.pdf

Oner Tulum

Papers

US Biopharmaceutical Finance and the Sustainability of the Biotech Business Model

US biopharmaceutical finance and the sustainability of the biotech business model

Financialized Corporations in a National Innovation System: The U.S. Pharmaceutical Industry

Apple's Changing Business Model: What Should the World's Richest Company Do with All Those Profits?

US Pharma's Financialized Business Model