Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of figures
- List of tables
- List of contributors
- Acknowledgments
- 1 Introduction
- Part I Innovation and industry evolution
- Part II Firm growth and market structure
- Part III Policy implications
- 10 The effects of research tool patents and licensing on biomedical innovation
- 11 Upstream patents and public health: the case of genetic testing for breast cancer
- 12 Competition, regulation, and intellectual property management in genetically modified foods: evidence from survey data
- 13 Governance, policy, and industry strategies: pharmaceuticals and agro-biotechnology
- 14 The dynamics of knowledge accumulation, regulation, and appropriability in the pharma-biotech sector: policy issues
- Index
- References
14 - The dynamics of knowledge accumulation, regulation, and appropriability in the pharma-biotech sector: policy issues
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 September 2009
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of figures
- List of tables
- List of contributors
- Acknowledgments
- 1 Introduction
- Part I Innovation and industry evolution
- Part II Firm growth and market structure
- Part III Policy implications
- 10 The effects of research tool patents and licensing on biomedical innovation
- 11 Upstream patents and public health: the case of genetic testing for breast cancer
- 12 Competition, regulation, and intellectual property management in genetically modified foods: evidence from survey data
- 13 Governance, policy, and industry strategies: pharmaceuticals and agro-biotechnology
- 14 The dynamics of knowledge accumulation, regulation, and appropriability in the pharma-biotech sector: policy issues
- Index
- References
Summary
The contributions to this book enrich from a variety of angles our understanding of how the dynamics of knowledge affect the dynamics of firms and industry structures. In this concluding chapter, we discuss some associated policy implications regarding the future of the innovation process in the pharmaceutical industry and the institutional setup supporting it.
Institutions, industry organization, and innovation: a bird's-eye view
The policy debate in this arena has become extremely intense and often bitter in recent years. The issues at stake concern an area – health care – the importance of which for society is fundamental and rapidly increasing; indeed, they are becoming crucial elements in the very definition of notions such as welfare, justice, and democracy in the new century.
Many fundamental issues in the policy debate on the pharmaceutical industry, however, are certainly not new. Ever since its inception the market for drugs has been (almost) always and everywhere regulated, albeit for different reasons and in different ways. At the same time, the extent and the forms of the regulation have most often sparked discussion and conflict. For example, considerations linked to consumer protection led, throughout most of the twentieth century, to increasingly stringent requirements for the approval of new drugs, and implied larger and more costly clinical trials. The presence of significant information asymmetries in the market for drugs coupled with fundamental considerations of social and economic equity have often been used to justify the introduction of various forms of price regulation.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Knowledge Accumulation and Industry EvolutionThe Case of Pharma-Biotech, pp. 402 - 431Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2006
References
(2004), The Truth About the Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What to Do About It, Random House, New York.Google Scholar
Arrow, K. (1962), “Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for inventions,” in (ed.), The Rate and Direction of Innovative Activity: Economic and Social Factors, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 609–26.Google Scholar
(1986), “The political economy of the pharmaceutical industry,” Journal of Economic Literature, 24, 1178–217.Google ScholarPubMed
(1990), “The dynamo and the computer: an historical perspective on the modern productivity paradox,” American Economic Review, 80 (2), 355–61.Google Scholar
(2004), “Understanding the emergence of open science institutions: functionalist economics in historical context,” Industrial and Corporate Change, 13 (3), 571–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dosi, G., P. Llerena, and M. Sylos Labini (2005), Science–Technology–Industry Links and the “European Paradox”: Some Notes on the Dynamics of Scientific and Technological Research in Europe, Working Paper no. 2005/02, Laboratory of Economics and Management, Sant'Anna School for Advanced Studies, Pisa.
Dosi, G., P. Llerena, and M. Sylos LabiniEconomist (2005), special report on “The drugs industry,” 19–25 March, 89.
Dosi, G., L. Orsenigo, and M. Sylos Labini (2005), “Technology and the economy,” in and (eds.), The Handbook of Economic Sociology, 2nd edn., Princeton University Press and Russell Sage Foundation, Princeton, NJ, 678–702.Google Scholar
(1995), “The national systems of innovation in historical perspective,” Cambridge Journal of Economics, 19, 5–24.Google Scholar
, and (1998), “Pharmaceutical firms and the transition to biotechnology: a study in strategic innovation,” Business History Review, 72, 250–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1995), Science and Innovation: The US Pharmaceutical Industry in the 1980s, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and (1983), The Regulation of Pharmaceuticals, American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, Washington, DC, and London.Google Scholar
, and (1998), “Can patents deter innovation? The anticommons in biomedical research,” Science, 280, 698–701.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
(2002), “Why drug makers are failing in quest for new blockbusters,” Wall Street Journal, 18 March.Google Scholar
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
(1986), Biotechnology: The Industry–University Complex, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and (1997), “Technological extinctions of industrial firms: an inquiry into their nature and causes,” Industrial and Corporate Change, 6 (2), 379–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and (1997), Stronger Protection or Technological Revolution: What is Behind the Recent Surge in Patenting?, Working Paper no. 6204, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kumar, N. (1998), “Technology generation and transfers in the world economy: recent trends and prospects for developing countries,” in (ed.), Globalization, Foreign Direct Investment and Technology Transfer: Impacts on and the Prospects for Developing Countries, Routledge, London and New York, 11–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2002), Intellectual Property Rights, Technology and Economic Development: Experiences of Asian Countries, paper prepared for the Commission of Intellectual Property Rights, London.Google Scholar
, and (2002), Political and Technological Regimes in the Evolution of the Pharmaceutical Industry in the USA and in Europe, 2nd draft of paper prepared for the “Conference on Evolutionary Economics,” Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, 30–31 March 2001.Google Scholar
(1998), The Introduction of Pharmaceutical Product Patents in India: Heartless Exploitation of the Poor and Suffering?, Working Paper no. 6366, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
, and (1998), “The benefits and costs of strong patent protection: a contribution to the current debate,” Research Policy, 27, 273–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKelvey, M., L. Orsenigo, and F. Pammolli (2005), “Pharmaceuticals analysed through the lens of a sectoral innovation system,” in (ed.), Sectoral Systems of Innovation, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 11–42.Google Scholar
, and (1990), “The complex economics of patent scope,” Columbia Law Review, 839, 890–4.Google Scholar
, , , and (2001), “The growth of patenting and licensing by US universities: an assessment of the effects of the Bayh–Dole Act of 1980,” Research Policy, 30, 99–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2003), Knowledge and Competitive Advantage, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1959), “The simple economics of basic scientific research,” Journal of Political Economy, 67, 297–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2004), “The market economy and the scientific commons,” Research Policy, 33, 455–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and (2004), “The myth of the biotech revolution,” Trends in Biotechnology, 22 (11), 564–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, , and (2001), “Technological change and the dynamics of networks of collaborative relations: the case of the bio-pharmaceutical industry,” Research Policy, 30, 485–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and (2001), “Do stronger patents induce more innovation? Evidence from the 1988 Japanese patent law reforms,” RAND Journal of Economics, 32, 77–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scherer, F. M. (2000), “The pharmaceutical industry,” in , and (eds.), Handbook of Health Economics, Vol. I, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1297–336.Google Scholar
Schweitzer, S. O., and W. S. Comanor (2000), “Pharmaceutical prices and expenditures,” in and (eds.), Changing the U.S. Health Care System, 2nd ed., Jossey Bass Publishers, San Francisco, 100–24.Google Scholar
(1994), “Implicit industrial policy: the triumph of Britain and the failure of France in global pharmaceuticals,” Industrial and Corporate Change, 3 (2), 451–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2005), “Is biotech in the midst of a fifty-year cycle?,” Genetic Engineering News, 25 (5), 60.Google Scholar
- 8
- Cited by