1 - Introduction
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 September 2009
Summary
This book addresses, from a variety of perspectives, the patterns of innovation through the history of the pharmaceutical industry (which we take to include nowadays both pharmaceutical and biotechnology firms) and the ways that knowledge has coevolved with the dynamics of firm growth, industry structure and the broader socio-economic environment.
Ever since it began the pharmaceutical industry has indeed been an example of a “science-based” industry, whereby innovation is driven, to a large extent, by joint advances in pure and applied sciences, together with complementary progress in research technologies – undertaken both within public research institutions and business firms. As such, it is a fascinating industry to study. And it is even more so in the light of the profound changes that have occurred recently in the underlying knowledge bases – associated with the so-called “biotech” revolution – as well as in the broad institutional regimes governing the generation and appropriation of the economic benefit of innovations. The welfare and policy implications are equally paramount, given the socio-economic importance of the industry for health, agriculture and food production.
Let us start with a brief overview of the history of the industry, in order to give some background for the analyses that follow, and then proceed by flagging some of the central issues addressed by the chapters below.
The evolution of the industry: an overview
The history of the international pharmaceutical industry has already been extensively analyzed by several scholars.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Knowledge Accumulation and Industry EvolutionThe Case of Pharma-Biotech, pp. 1 - 18Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2006
References
(1959), History of the International Chemical Industry, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
(2004), The Truth about the Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What to Do about It, Random House, New York.Google Scholar
, and (1994), “The changing technology of technical change: general and abstract knowledge and the division of innovative labour,” Research Policy, 23, 523–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , and (1998), Chemicals and Long-Term Economic Growth: Insights from the Chemical Industry, Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
Arrow, K. J. (1962), “Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for innovation,” in (ed.), The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 609–25.Google Scholar
Bottazzi, G. (2001), Firm Diversification and the Law of Proportionate Effects, Working Paper no. 2001/01, Laboratory of Economics and Management, Sant' Anna School for Advanced Studies, Pisa.
, , and (2002), “Corporate growth and industrial structures: some evidence from the Italian manufacturing industry,” Industrial and Corporate Change, 11 (4), 705–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , , , and (2001), “Innovation and corporate growth in the evolution of the drug industry,” International Journal of Industrial Organization, 19, 1161–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1988), Une Chemie qui Guérit: Histoire de la Découverte des Sulfamides, Editions Payot, Paris.Google Scholar
(2003), “Is there persistence in innovative activities?,” International Journal of Industrial Organization, 21, 489–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, W. M., and R. Levin (1989), “Empirical studies of innovation and market structure,” in and (eds.), The Handbook of Industrial Organization, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1060–107.Google Scholar
, , and (1987), “Firm size and R&D intensity: a re-examination,” Journal of Industrial Economics, 35 (4), 543–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1982), “Technological paradigms and technological trajectories,” Research Policy, 11, 147–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1988), “Sources, procedures and microeconomic effects of innovation,” Journal of Economic Literature, 26 (3), 1120–71.Google Scholar
Dosi, G., and L. Marengo (2000), “On the tangled intercourses between transaction cost economics and competence-based views of the firm: a comment,” in and (eds.), Competence, Governance and Entrepreneurship, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 80–92.Google Scholar
, , and (eds.) (2000), The Nature and Dynamics of Organizational Capabilities, Oxford University Press, Oxford and New York.Google Scholar
(1995), Science and Innovation: The US Pharmaceutical Industry in the 1980s, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1994), Market Structure, Corporate Performance and Innovative Activity, Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
, and (2002), “Learning and the sources of corporate growth,” Industrial and Corporate Change, 11 (4), 623–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , and (1997), “How persistently do firms innovate?,” Research Policy, 26 (1), 33–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and (1987), “Pioneers, imitators, and generics: a simulation model of Schumpeterian competition,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 102 (3), 491–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and (2000), “The determinants of pharmaceutical research and development expenditures,” Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 10, 201–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and (1998), “Can patents deter innovation? The anti-commons in biomedical research,” Science, 280, 698–701.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Henderson, R. M., L. Orsenigo, and G. Pisano (1999), “The pharmaceutical industry and the revolution in molecular biology: exploring the interactions between scientific, institutional, and organizational change,” in and (eds.), Sources of Industrial Leadership: Studies of Seven Industries, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 267–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and (1977), Skew Distributions and Sizes of Business Firms, North-Holland, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
(1997), “Industry life cycles,” Industrial and Corporate Change, 6 (1), 145–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , , and (1995), “On the sources and interindustry differences in technological opportunities,” Research Policy, 24, 185–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , and (1985), “R&D appropriability, opportunity, and market structure: new evidence on some Schumpeterian hypotheses,” American Economic Review, 75 (May), 20–4.Google Scholar
, , , and (1999), “History-friendly models of industry evolution: the case of the computer industry,” Industrial and Corporate Change, 8 (1), 3–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and (2002), “Innovation and market structure in the dynamics of the pharmaceutical industry and biotechnology: toward a history-friendly model,” Industrial and Corporate Change, 11 (4), 667–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2002), “The PC industry: new economy or early life-cycle,” Review of Economic Dynamics, 5, 318–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2003), “Risk, variety and volatility: innovation, growth and stock prices in old and new industries,” Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 13 (5), 491–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1995), Resource-Based and Evolutionary Theories of the Firm: Toward a Synthesis, Kluwer Academic, Boston.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1959), “The simple economics of basic economic research,” Journal of Political Economy, 67 (3), 297–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1991), “Why do firms differ, and why does it matter?,” Strategic Management Journal, 12 (8), 61–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and (1982), An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
, and (2004), “The myth of the biotech revolution,” Trends in Biotechnology, 22 (11), 564–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, , and (2001), “Technological change and network dynamics: lessons from the pharmaceutical industry,” Research Policy, 30, 485–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pádua, M., and L. Orsenigo (2003), Is Biotechnology an Ill-Structured or a Complex Problem? Towards a Methodology for the Analysis of Properties underlying Knowledge Production within Ill-Structured Problems and Implications for Industrial Dynamics, paper presented at the third European Meeting on Applied Evolutionary Economics, 9–12 April, University of Augsburg.
(1996), Innovazione, Concorrenza e Strategie di Sviluppo nell'Industria Farmaceutica, Guercini, Milan.Google Scholar
(1984), “Sectoral patterns of technological change: towards a taxonomy and a theory,” Research Policy, 3, 343–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1976), Innovation in the Pharmaceutical Industry, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.Google Scholar
, , and (1997), “Dynamic capabilities and strategic management,” Strategic Management Journal, 18 (7), 509–33.3.0.CO;2-Z>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , , and (1994), “Understanding corporate coherence: theory and evidence,” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 23 (1), 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 7
- Cited by