Middle-ground players in dynamic imitative markets: global entry strategies of Korean firms in the biosimilars market

ABSTRACT This study examines the strategies used to enter the biosimilars market – the emerging biogeneric market – by five Korean biopharmaceutical firms. The analysis is based on a conceptual framework that characterises the use of imitative innovation by middle-ground firms. These middle-ground firms are positioned between globally innovative firms from major developed economies and latecomer firms from large emerging economies. The study finds that the five Korean firms used three entry modes that resemble the typology of strategies commonly used in the previous catch-up stage: exploiting scale economies and specialisation. The study also reveals the risk and potential of each entry mode.

[1]  Jenn-Hwan Wang,et al.  From technological catch-up to innovation-based economic growth: South Korea and Taiwan compared , 2007 .

[2]  Maurizio Zollo,et al.  Deliberate Learning and the Evolution of Dynamic Capabilities , 2002 .

[3]  Poh-Kam Wong.  National Innovation Systems for Rapid Technological Catch-up : An analytical framework and a comparative analysis of Korea , Taiwan and Singapore , 1999 .

[4]  P. Chang,et al.  Finding the niche position — competition strategy of Taiwan's IC design industry , 2002 .

[5]  Markus Pudelko,et al.  Three Potential Role Models for the Korean Innovation System: USA, Japan and Germany , 2012 .

[6]  R. Vongsaroj.  The Determinants of Health Improvements in Developing Countries: The Case of Thailand , 2004 .

[7]  SeongWoong Hwang,et al.  Latecomers' science-based catch-up in transition : the case of the Korean pharmaceutical industry , 2015 .

[8]  E. B. Viotti.  National Learning Systems - A new approach on technological change in late industrializing economies and evidences from the cases of Brazil and South Korea , 2002 .

[9]  J. Niosi.  National systems of innovations are “x-efficient” (and x-effective): Why some are slow learners , 2002 .

[10]  S. Athrey,et al.  Experimentation with strategy and the evolution of dynamic capability in the Indian pharmaceutical sector , 2010 .

[11]  S. L. Croix,et al.  Product Patent Reform and its Impact on Korea's Pharmaceutical Industry , 1996 .

[12]  Kathleen M. Eisenhardt,et al.  DYNAMIC CAPABILITIES, WHAT ARE THEY? , 2000 .

[13]  Michael Hobday,et al.  Latecomer Catch-up Strategies in Electronics: Samsung of Korea and ACER of Taiwan , 1998, Korean Businesses:.

[14]  S. Natesh,et al.  Biotechnology sector in India: strengths, limitations, remedies and outlook , 2009 .

[15]  Werner Pascha,et al.  Innovation and technology in Korea Challenges of a newly advanced economy , 2007 .

[16]  Steve Little,et al.  From Imitation to Innovation: The Evolution of R&D Capabilities and Learning Processes in the Indian Pharmaceutical Industry , 2007, Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag..

[17]  S. Verma,et al.  BIOBETTERS: THE BETTER BIOLOGICS AND THEIR REGULATORY OVERVIEW , 2018 .

[18]  P. Intarakumnerd,et al.  National innovation system in less successful developing countries: the case of Thailand , 2002 .

[19]  Linsu Kim,et al.  Imitation to Innovation: The Dynamics of Korea's Technological Learning , 1997 .

[20]  J. Mathews.  A Silicon Valley of the East: Creating Taiwan's Semiconductor Industry , 1997 .

[21]  Shiu-Wan Hung,et al.  The IC fabless industry in Taiwan: current status and future challenges , 2003 .

[22]  Peter A Singer,et al.  Emergence of biopharmaceutical innovators in China, India, Brazil, and South Africa as global competitors and collaborators , 2012, Health Research Policy and Systems.

[23]  A. Daar,et al.  South Korean biotechnology—a rising industrial and scientific powerhouse , 2004, Nature Biotechnology.

[24]  John Bessant,et al.  Approaching the innovation frontier in Korea: the transition phase to leadership , 2004 .