IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/wirtsc/v101y2021i8d10.1007_s10273-021-2985-3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Pharmainnovationen: überragende Position der USA und Schwächen der deutschen Forschung
[Pharmaceutical Innovations: Superior Position of the USA and Weaknesses of German Research]

Author

Listed:
  • Andreas Eckert

    (Eckert Wagniskapital und)

  • Wolfgang Maennig

    (Universität Hamburg)

Abstract

Zusammenfassung Die Innovationskraft von Forschungsleistungen wird oft an Inputs wie Forschungsmitteln oder Outputs wie Patentanmeldungen gemessen. Hier wird ein neuartiger Indikator für pharmazeutische Innovationskraft vorgestellt, der sich auf die weltweiten medizinischen Durchbrüche und die assoziierten Patente konzentriert. Demnach sind US-Unternehmen von 2010 bis 2019 für 55 % der weltweiten medizinischen Durchbrüche verantwortlich, ihre deutschen Konkurrenten für rund 9 %. Bei den zugrundeliegenden Ankerpatenten ist die Dominanz der USA mit 62 % noch größer — aus Deutschland kommen nur 7 % der Ankerpatente. US-Universitäten halten 3,8 % aller Ankerpatente — deutsche Universitäten keine. Die Schwäche der deutschen Universitäten kann nicht durch die deutschen außeruniversitären Forschungsinstitute ausgeglichen werden.

Suggested Citation

  • Andreas Eckert & Wolfgang Maennig, 2021. "Pharmainnovationen: überragende Position der USA und Schwächen der deutschen Forschung [Pharmaceutical Innovations: Superior Position of the USA and Weaknesses of German Research]," Wirtschaftsdienst, Springer;ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 101(8), pages 652-659, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:wirtsc:v:101:y:2021:i:8:d:10.1007_s10273-021-2985-3
    DOI: 10.1007/s10273-021-2985-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10273-021-2985-3
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10273-021-2985-3?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Henry Grabowski, 2002. "Patents, Innovation and Access to New Pharmaceuticals," Journal of International Economic Law, Oxford University Press, vol. 5(4), pages 849-860, December.
    2. Grabowski, Henry, 2002. "Patents, Innovation and Access to New Pharmaceuticals," Working Papers 02-28, Duke University, Department of Economics.
    3. Manuel Trajtenberg & Rebecca Henderson & Adam Jaffe, 1997. "University Versus Corporate Patents: A Window On The Basicness Of Invention," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 5(1), pages 19-50.
    4. Scherer, F. M. & Harhoff, Dietmar, 2000. "Technology policy for a world of skew-distributed outcomes," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(4-5), pages 559-566, April.
    5. Eric Budish & Benjamin N. Roin & Heidi Williams, 2015. "Do Firms Underinvest in Long-Term Research? Evidence from Cancer Clinical Trials," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(7), pages 2044-2085, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lorenz, Steffi, 2015. "Diversität und Verbundenheit der unternehmerischen Wissensbasis: Ein neuartiger Messansatz mit Indikatoren aus Innovationsprojekten," Discussion Papers on Strategy and Innovation 15-01, Philipps-University Marburg, Department of Technology and Innovation Management (TIM).
    2. Luiz Andrade & Catherine Sermet & Sylvain Pichetti, 2016. "Entry time effects and follow-on drug competition," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 17(1), pages 45-60, January.
    3. Neel U. Sukhatme & Judd N. L. Cramer, 2013. "Optimal Patent Term and Cross-Industry Measures of Patent Term Sensitivity," Working Papers 1484, Princeton University, Department of Economics, Industrial Relations Section..
    4. Tania Babina & Alex Xi He & Sabrina T. Howell & Elisabeth Ruth Perlman & Joseph Staudt, 2020. "The Color of Money: Federal vs. Industry Funding of University Research," NBER Working Papers 28160, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. Higham, Kyle & de Rassenfosse, Gaétan & Jaffe, Adam B., 2021. "Patent Quality: Towards a Systematic Framework for Analysis and Measurement," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(4).
    6. Layne-Farrar, Anne & Lerner, Josh, 2011. "To join or not to join: Examining patent pool participation and rent sharing rules," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 294-303, March.
    7. Angelo Kenneth S. Romasanta & Peter Sijde & Jacqueline Muijlwijk-Koezen, 2020. "Innovation in pharmaceutical R&D: mapping the research landscape," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(3), pages 1801-1832, December.
    8. Khanna, Rajat, 2023. "Passing the torch of knowledge: Star death, collaborative ties, and knowledge creation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(1).
    9. Langinier, Corinne, 2004. "Are patents strategic barriers to entry?," Journal of Economics and Business, Elsevier, vol. 56(5), pages 349-361.
    10. Margaret K. Kyle & Anita M. McGahan, 2012. "Investments in Pharmaceuticals Before and After TRIPS," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 94(4), pages 1157-1172, November.
    11. Xue Yang & Hao Zhang & Die Hu & Bingde Wu, 2023. "The timing dilemma: understanding the determinants of innovative startups’ patent collateralization for loans," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 60(1), pages 371-403, January.
    12. Maggie Hao & Dana A. Forgione & Liang Guo & Hongxian Zhang, 2017. "Improvement in clinical trial disclosures and analysts’ forecast accuracy: evidence from the pharmaceutical industry," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 49(3), pages 785-810, October.
    13. Kathryn Rudie Harrigan & Maria Chiara DiGuardo, 2017. "Sustainability of patent-based competitive advantage in the U.S. communications services industry," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 42(6), pages 1334-1361, December.
    14. Volman, Lucas, 2018. "The TRIPS Article 31 Tug of War Developing Country Compulsory Licensing of Pharmaceutical Patents and Developed Country Retaliation," LawArXiv 6cxaj, Center for Open Science.
    15. Sorisio, Enrico & Strøm, Steinar, 2006. "Innovation and market dynamics in the EPO market," Memorandum 12/2006, Oslo University, Department of Economics.
    16. Bonnin Roca, Jaime & O'Sullivan, Eoin, 2022. "The role of regulators in mitigating uncertainty within the Valley of Death," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    17. Leila Tahmooresnejad & Catherine Beaudry, 2019. "Capturing the economic value of triadic patents," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(1), pages 127-157, January.
    18. Peter Willemé & Michel Dumont, 2016. "Machines that go ‘ping’: Medical Technology and Health Expenditures in OECD Countries," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(3), pages 387-388, March.
    19. Marco Ceccagnoli & Matthew J. Higgins & Vincenzo Palermo, 2014. "Behind the Scenes: Sources of Complementarity in R&D," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 23(1), pages 125-148, March.
    20. Desai, Pranav, 2021. "Essays in corporate finance and innovation," Other publications TiSEM 1ef5fdc6-9c52-43df-be1a-d, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • H51 - Public Economics - - National Government Expenditures and Related Policies - - - Government Expenditures and Health
    • I23 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Education - - - Higher Education; Research Institutions
    • O32 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Management of Technological Innovation and R&D

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:wirtsc:v:101:y:2021:i:8:d:10.1007_s10273-021-2985-3. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.