A breath of fresh air? Firm type, scale, scope, and selection effects in drug development

Management Science

Volumn 55, Issue 10, 2009, Pages 1638-1653

  Arora, Ashish ^a,b   Gambardella, Alfonso ^c   Magazzini, Laura ^d   Pammolli, Fabio ^e,f  

^a DUKE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH   (United States)

^c BOCCONI UNIVERSITY   (Italy)

^d UNIVERSITY OF VERONA   (Italy)

^e IMT SCHOOL FOR ADVANCED STUDIES LUCCA   (Italy)

^f Fondazione CERM   (Italy)

Author keywords

Drug development process; Firm capabilities; Market for technology

Indexed keywords

BIOTECH COMPANY; BIOTECH FIRMS; CLINICAL TRIAL; DRUG DEVELOPMENT; DRUG DEVELOPMENT PROCESS; DRUG RESEARCH; FIRM CAPABILITIES; FRESH AIR; INNOVATION PERFORMANCE; MARKET FOR TECHNOLOGY; PHARMACEUTICAL FIRMS; SCALE AND SCOPE; STRUCTURAL MODELS;

BIOTECHNOLOGY; COMMERCE; INNOVATION; MODEL STRUCTURES; PROFITABILITY;

RESEARCH;

EID: 70350322148     PISSN: 00251909     EISSN: 15265501     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.1090.1055     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Abrantes-Metz, R., C. Adams, A. Metz. 2006. Pharma development phases: A duration analysis. J. Pharma Finance, Econom. Policy 14(4) 19-41.
2. Acemoglu, D., J. Linn. 2004. Market size in innovation: Theory and evidence from the pharmaceutical industry. Quart. J. Econom. 119(3) 1049-1090.
3. Acs, Z., D. Audretsch. 1990. Innovation and Small Firms. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
4. Adams, C., V. Brantner. 2003. New drug development: Estimating entry from human clinical trials. FTC Bureau of Economics Working Paper 262, Federal Trade Commission, Washington, DC.
5. Akerlof, G. A. 1970. The market for "lemons": Quality uncertainty and the market mechanism. Quart. J. Econom. 84(3) 488-500.
6. Arora, A., A. Gambardella. 1994. Evaluating technological information and utilizing it. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 24(1) 91-114.
7. Arora, A., A. Fosfuri, A. Gambardella. 2001. Markets for Technology: The Economics of Innovation and Corporate Strategy. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
8. Arrow, K. J. 1962. Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for invention. R. R. Nelson, ed. The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 609-624.
9. Arrow, K. J. 1983. Innovation in large and small firms. J. Ronen. ed. Entrepreneurship. Lexington Books, Lexington, MA, 15-28.
10. Braunwald, E., A. S. Fauci, D. L. Kasper, S. L. Hauser, D. L. Longo, J. L. Jameson. 2001. Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine, 15th ed. McGraw-Hill, New York.
11. Chandy, R., B. Hopstaken, O. Narasimhan, J. Prabhu. 2006. From invention to innovation: Conversion ability in product development. J. Marketing Res. 43(3) 494-508.
12. Chesbrough, H. 2003. Open Innovation. Harvard Business School Press, Boston.
13. Chesbrough, H., D. J. Teece. 1996. When is virtual virtuous? Organizing for innovation. Harvard Bus. Rev. 74(1) 65-72.
14. Christensen, C. 1997. The Innovator's Dilemma. Harvard Business School Press, Boston.
15. Cohen, W. M., D. Levinthal. 1989. Innovation and learning: The two faces of R&D. Econom. J. 99(397) 569-596.
16. Dahan, E., H. Mendelson. 2001. An extreme-value model of concept testing. Management Sci. 47(1) 102-116.
17. Danzon, P. M., S. Nicholson, N. S. Pereira. 2005. Productivity in pharma-biotechnology R&D: The role of experience and alliances. J. Health Econom. 24(2) 317-339.
18. DiMasi, J. A., R. W. Hansen, H. G. Grabowski. 2003. The price of innovation: New estimates of drug development costs. J. Health Econom. 22(2) 151-186.
19. Gambardella, A. 1995. Science and Innovation in the U.S. Pharma Industry. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
20. Giarratana, M. S. 2004. The birth of a new industry: Entry by startup and the drivers of firm growth. The case of encryption software. Res. Policy 33(5) 787-806.
21. Grabowski, H., J. Vernon, J. DiMasi. 2002. Returns on R&D for 1990s new drug introductions. Pharmacoeconomics 20(Supplement 3) 11-29.
22. Guedj, I. 2005. Ownership vs. contract: How vertical integration affects investment decisions in pharmaceutical R&D. Working paper, University of Texas, Austin. http://www.aeaweb. org/annual-mtg-papers/2006/0106-0800-0202.pdf.
23. Guedj, I., D. Scharfstein. 2005. Organizational scope and investment: Evidence from the drug development strategies and performance of biopharmaceutical firms. NBERW orking Paper 10933, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.
24. Henderson, R., K. Clark. 1990. Architectural innovation: The reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of established firms. Admin. Sci. Quart. 35(1) 9-30.
25. Henderson, R., I. Cockburn. 1996. Scale, scope, and spillovers: The determinants of research productivity in drug discovery. RAND J. Econom. 27(1) 32-59.
26. Higgins, M. J., D. Rodriguez. 2006. The outsourcing of R&D through acquisition in the pharmaceutical industry. J. Financial Econom. 80(2) 351-383.
27. Holmstrom, B. 1989. Agency costs and innovation. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 12(3) 305-327.
28. Klepper, S., P. Thompson. 2006. Submarkets and the evolution of market structure. RAND J. Econom. 37(4) 861-886.
29. Levinthal, D., J. March. 1993. The myopia of learning. Strategic Management J. 14(S2) 95-112.
30. Macher, J. T., C. S. Boerner. 2006. Experience and scale and scope economies: Trade-offs and performance in development. Strategic Management J. 27(9) 845-865.
31. Nerkar, A. 2003. The folly of rewarding patents and expecting FDA approved drugs. Working paper, Columbia University, New York. http://bschool.washington.edu/departments/mo/PDF/Nerkar-UW.pdf.
32. Nerkar, A., P. Roberts. 2004. Technological and product-market experience and the success of new product introductions in the pharma industry. Strategic Management J. 25(8-9) 779-799.
33. Owen-Smith, J., W. Powell. 2006. Accounting for emergence and novelty in Boston and Bay Area biotechnology. P. Braunerhjelm, M. Feldman, eds. Cluster Genesis: The Emergence of Technology Clusters and Their Implications for Government Policy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 61-85.
34. Pisano, G. 1997. R&D performance, collaborative arrangements, and the market for know-how: A test of the "lemons" hypothesis in biotechnology. Working paper, Harvard Business School, Cambridge, MA.
35. Pisano, G. 2006. Can science be a business? Lessons from biotech. Harvard Bus. Rev. 84(10) 114-124.
36. Reddy, K. A. 2003. The agony and ecstasy of drug discovery. CRIPS 4(1) 10-12.
37. Rosenberg, N. 1990. Why do firms do basic research (with their own money)? Res. Policy 19(2) 165-174.
38. Shaver, J. M. 1998. Accounting for endogeneity when assessing strategy performance: Does entry mode choice affect FDI survival? Management Sci. 44(4) 571-585.
39. Stiglitz, J. E., A. Weiss. 1981. Credit rationing in markets with imperfect information. Amer. Econom. Rev. 71(3) 393-410.
40. Thompke, S., W. Kuemmerle. 2002. Asset accumulation, interdependence and technological change: Evidence from pharmaceutical drug discovery. Strategic Management J. 23(7) 619-635.
41. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment (OTA). 1993. Pharmaceutical R&D: Costs, risks and rewards. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
42. U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. 1999. From test tube to patient: Improving health through human drugs (special report). U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
43. Zeckhauser, R. 1996. The challenge of contracting for technological information. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 93(23) 12743-12748.