The Role of Financialized Loss-Making Companies of a Science-Based Industry in the Hybridization of Capitalisms: The Case of the Biotech Industry in France Versus the UK

Friday, 3 July 2015: 4:00 PM-5:30 PM
CLM.2.05 (Clement House)
Pauline Gleadle, Open University, Milton Keynes, United Kingdom; University of Westminster, London, United Kingdom
Matthieu Montalban, university of bordeaux, bordeaux, France
The role of financialized loss-making companies of a science-based industry in the hybridization of capitalisms: the case of the biotech industry in France versus the UK

Comparative capitalism (CC) studies focus on the links between firms’ innovative capabilities on the one hand, and corporate governance and financial systems, inter-firm networks, labour market regimes, the state and qualities of education and training programmes on the other (Allen, 2013). Within the CC literature, the varieties of capitalism (VOC) (Hall & Soskice, 2001) framework has emerged as an influential version of idea that sector-specific competitive advantages of companies and countries depend to a significant extent on country-specific institutional conditions (Schneider & Paunescu, 2012). Importantly, complementarities in these institutional configurations lead to systematic differences between Coordinated Market Economies (CMEs) and Liberal Market Economies (LME) (Schneider & Paunescu, 2012). These complementarities, defined as the systematic combinations of particular institutions are viewed as remaining stable over time. Such stability arises from the fact that investments are channelled into economic activities involving either radical or incremental innovation, in which the specific institutions grant comparative advantage. In turn, these investments reinforce existing institutions with the result that institutional configurations tend to gravitate to either the CME or LME model. The important phenomena of path-dependent institutional change (Thelen, 1999) and institutional complementarities (Aoki, 2001; Amable, Ernst and Palombarini, 2002; Amable, 2003) tend to lead to stability and reproduction of systemic relations between institutions in different economies.

In this paper, we question the LME/CME typology at a sectoral level in particular, because of the specificities of the science-based industry (e.g. Pisano, 2010) by comparing the institutional characteristics and business models of French biotech industry to those of the UK. We analyse a possible hybridization of capitalisms through sectoral constraints to ensure the long run survival of innovative SMEs. We then conclude as to relevance of the VoC as explored in later debates for a science-based industry such as biotech.

Key words: comparative capitalisms, path-dependency, science-based industry.


Allen, MMC (2013), ‘Comparative capitalisms and the institutional embeddedness of innovative capabilities,’ Socio-Economic Review, 11, 771-794.

Amable B. (2003), ‘The diversity of modern capitalism,’ Oxford; Oxford University Press.

Amable B., Ernst E. and Palombarini S. (2002), « Comment les marchés financiers peuvent affecter les relations industrielles? Une approche par les complémentarités institutionnelles », L’Année de la Régulation, 6, 271-289.

Aoki M. (2001), ‘Foundations of Comparative Institutional Analysis,’ MIT Press.

Hall, P & Soskice, D (eds.) (2001), ‘Varieties of capitalism: the institutional foundations of comparative advantage,’ New York: Oxford University Press.

Pisano, GP (2010), ‘The evolution of science-based business: innovating how we innovate,’ Industrial and Corporate Change, 19, 2, 465-482.

Schneider, MR & Paunescu, M (2012), ‘Changing varieties of capitalism and revealed comparative advantages from 1990 to 2005: a test of the Hall and Soskice claims,‘ Socio-Economic Review, 10, 4, 731-753.

Thelen K. (1999), ‘Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Politics,’ Annual Review of Political Science, 2,  369-404.