The Role of Intermediary Institutions in the Emergence of Biopharma Industry in Iran

Authors

1 Faculty of Management Tehran university Tehran Iran

2 PhD Candidate in Science and Technology Policy University of Tehran Iran

3 Faculty of Management School University of Tehran Iran

4 Ph.D Candidate in Management, Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, Iran

10.22034/jstp.2018.10.3.539498

Abstract

Currently about 20 recombinants of biopharmaceuticals are produced in Iran only after less than 20 years of the beginning of sporadic activities in this field. Iran has exceptional growth in this area which led to the emergence of an independent industry. In these twenty years several companies have been established and Iran managed to be the second ranked in the world in the production of some of the special biopharmaceuticals. In this article, we considered the emergence of the biopharma industry in Iran as a special case study and investigated the case through a qualitative exploratory study. We collected the experimental data conducting 30 exploratory semi-structured interviews and analyzed it using thematic analysis methodology. Our results show small and powerful communities among middle managers at university and government has led to the collective institutional entrepreneurship between government and academics, and this is the starting point for the emergence of the biopharma industry in Iran. In addition, the present paper shows that intermediary institutions played three important roles in the emergence of this industry in Iran: 1) Creating a state – academic society embeddedness; 2) Building community among institutional entrepreneurs; 3) Facilitating the financing processes and establishing international networks.

Keywords

References

[1] Lee, K. (2013). How can Korea be a role model for catch-up development? A ‘capability-based’view. Achieving Development Success: Strategies and Lessons from the Developing World, 25.
[2] Lawrence, T. B., & Phillips, N. (2004). From Moby Dick to Free Willy: Macro-cultural discourse and institutional entrepreneurship in emerging institutional fields. Organization, 11(5), 689-711.
[3] Hamidi, R., & Isaei, M., & Babaei, A. (2017). Embeddedness of State-Pioneer Entrepreneurs and Technological Change; The Case of Biopharmecutal Catch-Up in Iran. Journal of Science and Technology policy, 8(4), 1-19. {In Persian}.
[4] Fligstein, N., & McAdam, D. (2015). A theory of fields. Oxford University Press.
[5] Dorado, S. (2013). Small groups as context for institutional entrepreneurship: An exploration of the emergence of commercial microfinance in Bolivia. Organization Studies, 34(4), 533-557.
[6] Abernathy, W. J., & Utterback, J. M. (1978). Patterns of industrial innovation. Technology Review, 80(7), 40-47.
[7] Cusumano, M. A., Kahl, S. J., & Suarez, F. F. (2015). Services, industry evolution, and the competitive strategies of product firms. Strategic Management Journal, 36(4), 559-575.
[8] Carroll, G. R., & Hannan, M. T. (2004). The demography of corporations and industries. Princeton University Press.
[9] Malerba, F., Nelson, R., Orsenigo, L., & Winter, S. (2016). Innovation and the Evolution of Industries: History-Friendly Models. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI:10.1017/CBO9781107280120
[10] DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (Eds.). (1991). The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (Vol. 17). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
[11] Scott, W. R. (2013). Institutions and organizations: Ideas, interests, and identities. Sage Publications.
[12] Maguire, S., Hardy, C., & Lawrence, T. B. (2004). Institutional entrepreneurship in emerging fields: HIV/AIDS treatment advocacy in Canada. Academy Of Management Journal, 47(5), 657-679.
[13] Garud, R., & Karnøe, P. (2003). Bricolage versus breakthrough: distributed and embedded agency in technology entrepreneurship. Research Policy, 32(2), 277-300.
[14] Lounsbury, M., Ventresca, M., & Hirsch, P. M. (2003). Social movements, field frames and industry emergence: a cultural–political perspective on US recycling. Socio-Economic Review, 1(1), 71-104.
[15] Lawrence, T., Suddaby, R., & Leca, B. (2011). Institutional work: Refocusing institutional studies of organization. Journal of Management Inquiry, 20(1), 52-58.
[16] Rizvandi, M. A., Sahabi, B., Yavari, K., & Momeni, F. (2017). A critical assessment of neoclassical economics in the problem transition to the knowledge- based economy: an institutional approach. Journal Of Science and Technology Policy, 9(1), 17-30. {In Persian}.
[17] Mahoney, J., & Thelen, K. (2010). A theory of gradual institutional change. Explaining institutional change: Ambiguity, agency, and power, 1.
[18] Battilana, J. (2006). Agency and institutions: The enabling role of individuals’ social position. Organization, 13(5), 653-676.
[19] Hargrave, T. J., & Van de Ven, A. H. (2006). A collective action model of institutional innovation. Academy of Management Review, 31(4), 864-888.
[20] Dorado, S. (2005). Institutional entrepreneurship, partaking, and convening. Organization studies, 26(3), 385-414.
[21] Schrank, A., and Whitford, J. (2009). Industrial Policy in the United States: A NeoPolanyian Interpretation. Politics & Society, 37(4), 521-553.
[22] Lester, R., and Piore, M. J. (2004). Innovation: The Missing Dimension. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
[23] Hung, S. C., & Whittington, R. (2011). Agency in national innovation systems: Institutional entrepreneurship and the professionalization of Taiwanese IT. Research Policy, 40(4), 526-538.
[24] Battelle Memorial Institute. (2004). Positioning Arizona for the Next Big Technology Wave: Investment Prospectus to Create a Sustainable Systems Industry in Arizona. Cleveland: BMI.
[25] Van de Ven, A. H., & Garud, R. (1994). The coevolution of technical and institutional events in the development of an innovation. Evolutionary dynamics of organizations, 425, 443.
[26] Fuchs, E. R. (2010). Rethinking the role of the state in technology development: DARPA and the case for embedded network governance. Research Policy, 39(9), 1133-1147.
[27] Lindquist, E. A. (2001). Discerning Policy Influence: Framework for a Strategic Evaluation of IDRC-Supported Research.
[28] Fisher, C. (2010). Knowledge Brokering and Intermediary concepts. Impact and Learning Team, Institute of Development Studies.
[29] Hoppe, R. (2010). From “knowledge use” towards “boundary work”: sketch of an emerging new agenda for inquiry into science-policy interaction. In Knowledge Democracy (pp. 169-186). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
[30] Lawrence, T. B., Hardy, C., & Phillips, N. (2002). Institutional effects of interorganizational collaboration: The emergence of proto-institutions. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1), 281-290.
[31] Suddaby, R. (2010). Challenges for institutional theory. Journal of Management Inquiry, 19(1), 14-20.
[32] Hardy, C., & Maguire, S. (2017). Institutional entrepreneurship and change in fields (pp. 261-280). London: Sage Publications.
[33] Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews: an introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA.
[34] https://bit.ly/2Qs7Phl
[35] Evans, P. (2010). Constructing the 21st century developmental state:potentialities and pitfalls, constructing a democratic developmnetal state in south Africa. edited by edigheji, O. HSRC Press.
[36] Rodrik, D. (2009). Industrial policy: don't ask why, ask how. Middle East Development Journal, 1(1), 1-29.
[37] Mintzberg, H. (2015). Rebalancing society: radical renewal beyond left, right, and center. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Journal of Science and Technology Policy
Volume 11, Issue 3
October 2018
Pages 29-44

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics