Technological regimes and demand structure in the evolution of the pharmaceutical industry

This paper examines how the nature of the technological regime governing innovative activities and the structure of demand interact in determining market structure, with specific reference to the pharmaceutical industry. The key question concerns the observation that—despite high degrees of R&D and marketing-intensity—concentration has been consistently low during the whole evolution of the industry. Standard explanations of this phenomenon refer to the random nature of the innovative process, the patterns of imitation, and the fragmented nature of the market into multiple, independent submarkets. We delve deeper into this issue by using an improved version of our previous “history-friendly” model of the evolution of pharmaceuticals. Thus, we explore the way in which changes in the technological regime and/or in the structure of demand may generate or not substantially higher degrees of concentration. The main results are that, while technological regimes remain fundamental determinants of the patterns of innovation, the demand structure plays a crucial role in preventing the emergence of concentration through a partially endogenous process of discovery of new submarkets. However, it is not simply market fragmentation as such that produces this result, but rather the entity of the “prize” that innovators can gain relative to the overall size of the market. Further, the model shows that emerging industry leaders are innovative early entrants in large submarkets.

[1]  David Belk,et al.  The Pharmaceutical Industry , 1965, Nature.

[2]  D Schwartzman "Innovation in the Pharmaceutical Industry". , 1978, British medical journal.

[3]  S. Winter,et al.  An evolutionary theory of economic change , 1983 .

[4]  Sidney G. Winter,et al.  Schumpeterian Competition in Alternative Technological Regimes , 1983 .

[5]  Araújo,et al.  An Evolutionary theory of economic change , 1983 .

[6]  K. Pavitt Sectoral Patterns of Technical Change : Towards a Taxonomy and a Theory : Research Policy , 1984 .

[7]  W. S. Comanor,et al.  The political economy of the pharmaceutical industry. , 1986, Journal of economic literature.

[8]  Henry G. Grabowski,et al.  Innovation and Structural Change in Pharmaceuticals and Biotechnology , 1994 .

[9]  Alfonso Gambardella Science and innovation , 1995 .

[10]  L. Galambos,et al.  The pharmaceutical industry in the twentieth century: A reappraisal of the sources of innovation , 1996 .

[11]  P. Saviotti Technological Evolution, Variety and the Economy , 1996 .

[12]  S. Klepper Entry, Exit, Growth, and Innovation over the Product Life Cycle , 1996 .

[13]  Gary P. Pisano,et al.  The Development Factory: Unlocking the Potential of Process Innovation , 1996 .

[14]  Jean-Michel Dalle,et al.  Heterogeneity vs. externalities in technological competition: A tale of possible technological landscapes , 1997 .

[15]  S. Klepper Industry Life Cycles , 1997 .

[16]  C. Birchenhall,et al.  Is product life cycle theory a special case? Dominant designs and the emergence of market niches through coevolutionary-learning , 1998 .

[17]  John Sutton,et al.  Technology and Market Structure: Theory and History , 1998 .

[18]  F. Malerba 'History-friendly' Models of Industry Evolution: The Computer Industry , 1999 .

[19]  Rebecca Henderson,et al.  Sources of Industrial Leadership: The Pharmaceutical Industry and the Revolution in Molecular Biology: Interactions Among Scientific, Institutional, and Organizational Change , 1999 .

[20]  F. Malerba,et al.  Technological Regimes and Schumpeterian Patterns of Innovation , 2000 .

[21]  Steven Klepper,et al.  Dominance by birthright: entry of prior radio producers and competitive ramifications in the U. S. , 2000 .

[22]  Steven Klepper,et al.  The Making of an Oligopoly: Firm Survival and Technological Change in the Evolution of the U.S. Tire Industry , 2000, Journal of Political Economy.

[23]  F. Scherer The pharmaceutical industry , 2000 .

[24]  Daniel A. Levinthal,et al.  Demand Heterogeneity and Technology Evolution: Implications for Product and Process Innovation , 2001, Manag. Sci..

[25]  Massimo Riccaboni,et al.  Innovation and corporate growth in the evolution of the drug industry , 2001 .

[26]  Franco Malerba,et al.  Innovation and market structure in the dynamics of the pharmaceutical industry and biotechnology: towards a history‐friendly model , 2002 .

[27]  Ron Adner When Are Technologies Disruptive: A Demand-Based View of the Emergence of Competition , 2002 .

[28]  R. W. Hansen,et al.  The price of innovation: new estimates of drug development costs. , 2003, Journal of health economics.

[29]  Catherine Matraves,et al.  Market Structure, R&D and Advertising in the Pharmaceutical Industry , 2003 .

[30]  Paul Windrum,et al.  Structural change in the presence of network externalities: a co-evolutionary model of technological successions , 2004 .

[31]  S. Klepper,et al.  Submarkets and the evolution of market structure , 2006 .

[32]  Franco Malerba,et al.  A 'History-Friendly' Model of the Evolution of the Pharmaceutical Industry , 2010 .

[33]  S. Winter,et al.  Vertical Integration and Dis-integration of Computer Firms: A History Friendly Model of the Co-evolution of the Computer and Semiconductor Industries , 2008 .

[34]  S. Winter,et al.  Demand, innovation, and the dynamics of market structure: The role of experimental users and diverse preferences , 2007 .

[35]  Alfonso Gambardella,et al.  Science and innovation: Science and innovation in pharmaceutical research , 1995 .

[36]  Steven Klepper,et al.  Submarket Dynamics and Innovation: The Case of the U.S. Tire Industry , 2010 .

[37]  Christian Garavaglia,et al.  Modelling industrial dynamics with "History-friendly" simulations , 2010 .