IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ohe/monogr/000468.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Consolidation and Competition in the Pharmaceutical Industry

Author

Listed:
  • Hannah Kettler

Abstract

A number of potentially important structural developments are taking place in the pharmaceutical industry. On the one hand, we are witnessing a large number of mergers and acquisitions between companies across countries, suggesting a move towards a small number of large global players. On the other hand, a large number of new companies have entered in the industry over the past 15 years. Many are biotechnology companies that specialise in research and/or developing technologies for the discovery and pre-clinical stages of the research and development (R&D) process. Many new contract sales organisations (CSO) and contract research organisations (CRO) have also been created, a number with global reach, to provide specialised services to the large pharmaceutical companies. Empirical analyses of these trends highlight a series of important questions of particular interest to industrial economists and policy makers. What changes in the industry are motivating the major companies to become larger but at the same time allowing new groups of small, specialised companies to flourish? Are the global leaders and the small specialist biotechs rivals or collaborators? Is there a move away from the traditional vertically integrated model of R&D towards something new? What role do scale and scope play in this move? Finally, do policy makers need to rethink how they assess competitive conditions in the pharmaceutical industry? On October 16th, 2000, the Office of Health Economics hosted a conference entitled 'Consolidation and Competition in the Pharmaceutical Industry' which set out to debate these questions, drawing on the expertise of representatives from academia, industry, investors and government. This volume of papers draws on the presentations made at that conference. The participants presented a broad range of information and opinions but a number of key themes did emerge. There was a general consensus that the traditional large pharmaceutical companies are undergoing a transformation but to what end was less clear. To explain the move towards 'global oligopoly', Galambos focuses on the major changes in the innovation process over time, while Walton identifies the growth in both R&D and marketing costs relative to the growth in markets as a key motivator for companies to seek larger scale. Grabowski shows that returns from new pharmaceuticals are highly skewed, with only 30 percent of products launched in the early 1980s recovering average R&D costs. The skewness in net present value for products launched in the 1990s may be even greater given estimates of increases in R&D costs. Grabowski suggests that only large companies can afford the investment needed to bring innovative blockbusters to market. It is unclear, however, whether larger companies are more effective than smaller ones at R&D. Galambos argues in favour of important scale and scope economies in R&D but Walton's empirical analysis found significant economies only in marketing. At the same time as larger pharmaceutical companies are merging, they are also increasing their expenditure and involvement with biotechnology and other specialised research companies by way of alliances and licence deals. Kettler analyses the nature and the implications for R&D of the growing interactions between these segments. She finishes by investigating whether the increasing amounts spent on external partnerships represent a temporary strategy by major companies, undertaken while they catch up with the new technologies and fill temporary gaps in their R&D pipelines. This is a position supported by Galambos. Or does the increase in external partnerships represent a real shift towards a new R&D model? Pammolli uses data and analysis of the alliances and networks between universities, major companies, and biotechs to show that there are key performance advantages in conducting R&D via a network rather than solely in-house. Kay also predicts a substantive transformation where technological developments mean that large companies increasingly act in the manner of book publishers: coordinating the process, financing production and marketing the output; with most of the value added coming from the 'originators' — the discovery companies. In the final three chapters, competition policies in the US and EU are explored. In addition to assessing the competitive implications of traditional merger and acquisition activity, both Levy and Langeheine point out that regulators on both sides of the Atlantic are increasingly having to tackle competitive issues relating to new types of research collaborations and sales arrangements. Assessing the impact on competition of innovation is becoming a key policy issue alongside the traditional concern with competition between existing products in final markets. Yarrow makes another key point, which is that the need for the additional layers of sector specific regulations in pharmaceuticals that exist in most EU countries is not proven. It may well be that competition policy on its own provides a comprehensive framework for the regulation of new and existing activity within the sector.

Suggested Citation

  • Hannah Kettler, 2001. "Consolidation and Competition in the Pharmaceutical Industry," Monograph 000468, Office of Health Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:ohe:monogr:000468
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.ohe.org/publications/consolidation-and-competition-pharmaceutical-industry/attachment-271-2001_consolidation_and_competition_kettler/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. DiMasi, Joseph A. & Hansen, Ronald W. & Grabowski, Henry G. & Lasagna, Louis, 1991. "Cost of innovation in the pharmaceutical industry," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 107-142, July.
    2. Rebecca Henderson & Iain Cockburn, 1996. "Scale, Scope, and Spillovers: The Determinants of Research Productivity in Drug Discovery," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 27(1), pages 32-59, Spring.
    3. F. M. Scherer & Dietmar Harhoff & J, rg Kukies, 2000. "Uncertainty and the size distribution of rewards from innovation," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 10(1), pages 175-200.
    4. Hannah Kettler, 1999. "Updating the Cost of a New Chemical Entity," Monograph 000456, Office of Health Economics.
    5. Grabowski, Henry & Mullins, C. Daniel, 1997. "Pharmacy benefit management, cost-effectiveness analysis and drug formulary decisions," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 45(4), pages 535-544, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Bruce Rasmussen, 2010. "Innovation and Commercialisation in the Biopharmaceutical Industry," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 13680.
    2. Billette de Villemeur, Etienne & Scannell, Jack & Versaevel, Bruno, 2021. "Biopharmaceutical R&D outsourcing: Short-term gain for long-term pain?," MPRA Paper 108233, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    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. Albert N. Link & John T. Scott, 2018. "Propensity to Patent and Firm Size for Small R&D-Intensive Firms," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 52(4), pages 561-587, June.
    2. Steven Casper;Hannah Kettler, 2000. "The Road to Sustainability in the UK and German Biotechnology Industries," Monograph 000466, Office of Health Economics.
    3. Billette de Villemeur, Etienne & Versaevel, Bruno, 2019. "One lab, two firms, many possibilities: On R&D outsourcing in the biopharmaceutical industry," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 260-283.
    4. Patricia M. Danzon & Eric L. Keuffel, 2014. "Regulation of the Pharmaceutical-Biotechnology Industry," NBER Chapters, in: Economic Regulation and Its Reform: What Have We Learned?, pages 407-484, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. Daron Acemoglu & Joshua Linn, 2004. "Market Size in Innovation: Theory and Evidence from the Pharmaceutical Industry," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 119(3), pages 1049-1090.
    6. Danzon, Patricia M. & Nicholson, Sean & Pereira, Nuno Sousa, 2005. "Productivity in pharmaceutical-biotechnology R&D: the role of experience and alliances," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 317-339, March.
    7. Bruce Rasmussen, 2010. "Innovation and Commercialisation in the Biopharmaceutical Industry," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 13680.
    8. Tannista Banerjee & Ralph Siebert, 2013. "The Impact of R&D Cooperation on Drug Variety Offered on the Market: Evidence from the Pharmaceutical Industry," Auburn Economics Working Paper Series auwp2013-20, Department of Economics, Auburn University.
    9. Banerjee, Tannista & Siebert, Ralph, 2017. "Dynamic impact of uncertainty on R&D cooperation formation and research performance: Evidence from the bio-pharmaceutical industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(7), pages 1255-1271.
    10. Hannah Kettler, 2000. "Narrowing the Gap between provision and need for medicines in developing countries," Monograph 000461, Office of Health Economics.
    11. Catherine Matraves, 1998. "Market Structure, R&D and Advertising in the Pharmaceutical Industry," CIG Working Papers FS IV 98-17, Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin (WZB), Research Unit: Competition and Innovation (CIG).
    12. Tannistra Banerjee & Stephen Martin, 2015. "Pharmaceutical Regulation and Innovative Performance: A Decision‐theoretic Model," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 36(3), pages 177-190, April.
    13. Tannista Banerjee & Ralph Siebert, 2017. "The Impact of R&D Cooperations and Mergers in Pharmaceuticals on Research Activities and Drugs Offered on the Market," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 84(1), pages 202-228, July.
    14. Bertoni, Fabio & Tykvová, Tereza, 2012. "Which form of venture capital is most supportive of innovation?," ZEW Discussion Papers 12-018, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    15. Jörg Mahlich & Thomas Roediger-Schluga, 2006. "The Determinants of Pharmaceutical R&D Expenditures: Evidence from Japan," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 28(2), pages 145-164, March.
    16. Steven Casper & Catherine Matraves, 1997. "Corporate Governance and Firm Strategy in the Pharmaceutical Industry," CIG Working Papers FS IV 97-20, Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin (WZB), Research Unit: Competition and Innovation (CIG).
    17. Barrenho, E & Smith, PC & Miraldo, M, 2013. "The determinants of attrition in drug development: a duration analysis," Working Papers 12204, Imperial College, London, Imperial College Business School.
    18. Mary K. Olson, 2000. "Regulatory Reform and Bureaucratic Responsiveness to Firms: the Impact of User Fees in the FDA," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 9(3), pages 363-395, June.
    19. de Rassenfosse, Gaétan, 2013. "Do firms face a trade-off between the quantity and the quality of their inventions?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(5), pages 1072-1079.
    20. Zhang, Feng & Jiang, Guohua & Cantwell, John A., 2015. "Subsidiary exploration and the innovative performance of large multinational corporations," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 224-234.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Consolidation and Competition in the Pharmaceutical Industry;

    JEL classification:

    • I1 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health

    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:ohe:monogr:000468. 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: Publications Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ohecouk.html .

    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.