Skip Navigation

Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society 2008 1(2):265-284; doi:10.1093/cjres/rsn007
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Lowe, N.
Right arrow Articles by Feldman, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Related Collections
Right arrow L50 - General
Right arrow L26 - Entrepreneurship
Right arrow O10 - General
Right arrow O30 - General
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2008. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Cambridge Political Economy Society. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

This article appears in the following Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society issue: Knowledge Networks and Innovation [View the issue table of contents]

Constructing entrepreneurial advantage: consensus building, technological uncertainty and emerging industries

Nichola Lowea and Maryann Feldmanb

a City and Regional Planning, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA. nlowe{at}unc.edu
b Institute of Higher Education, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602, USA. maryann.feldman{at}gmail.com


  Abstract

In 1976, Cambridge, MA, and Berkeley, CA, responded to concerns about the environmental effects of recombinant DNA by adopting identical biosafety ordinances. This paper explores the mediating factors that explain how scientists and entrepreneurs came to view these regulatory interventions in diametrically distinct ways. We argue that although the regulations were the same, the process behind their adoption and implementation and, in particular, differences in citizen engagement and technology education account for these divergent outcomes. The paper suggests ways that contemporary regulatory responses can result in a constructive (rather than combative) approach to entrepreneurial accountability and thus contribute to constructed jurisdictional advantage.

Keywords: biotechnology, regulation, entrepreneurship, economic development, jurisdictional advantage

Received on August 3, 2007. Accepted on February 14, 2008.

JEL classification: L5, L26, O1, O3


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.