The Indian Challenge: The Evolution of a Successful New Global Strategy in the Pharmaceutical Industry

Abstract

UK and European public policy has sought to encourage young biotechnology firms adopt American-inspired strategies. The venture-backed start-up associated with Silicon Valley and Route 128 in Boston, has been the preferred model. These policies have had limited success thus far. Indian companies are evolving indigenous business models that are achieving success within the pharmaceutical industry. Some Indian pharmaceutical firms, established initially as low cost suppliers, are investing in building innovative capabilities. This paper analyses the strategies and trajectories of a number of Indian pharmaceutical companies that are expanding successfully in Western markets. It assesses the local and international contextual factors that have underpinned the strategies and discusses relevant conceptual frameworks.

Notes

1. B. Kogut & U. Zander, Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities and the replication of technology, Organization Science, 3(3), 1993, pp. 383–397.

2. C. K. Prahalad, The blinders of dominant logic, Long Range Planning, 37(2), 2004, pp. 171–179.

3. G. Day & P. Schoemaker, Driving through the fog: managing at the edge, Long Range Planning, 37, 2004, pp. 27–42.

4. See, for example, R. Henderson, L. Orsenigo & G. Pisano, The pharmaceutical industry and the revolution in molecular biology: interactions among scientific, institutional and organisational change', in: D. C. Mowery & R. R. Nelson (Eds) Sources of Industrial Leadership (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2000), pp. 267–311.

5. H. Redwood, New Horizons in India: The Consequences of Pharmaceutical Patent Protection (Felixstowe, UK, Oldwicks Press, 1994); O. J. Lanjouw, The introduction of pharmaceutical product patents in India: heartless exploitation of the poor and suffering? NBER Working Paper No. 6366, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA, USA, 1997; S. Visalakshi & G. D. Sandhya, An analysis of biotechnology and non-biotechnology capabilities in the Indian pharmaceutical industry, R&D Management, 27(2), 1997, pp. 165–175; C. Fink, Patent protection, transnational corporations and market structure: a simulation study of the Indian pharmaceutical industry, Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, 1(1), 2001, pp. 101–121.

6. S. V. Ramani, Who is interested in biotech? R&D strategies, knowledge base and market sales of Indian biopharmaceutical firms, Research Policy, 31, 2002, pp. 381–398.

7. C. Levi Strauss, The Savage Mind (Chicago, IL, Chicago University Press, 1966).

8. T. Baker, A. Miner & D. T. Eesley, Improvising firms: bricolage, account giving and improvisational competencies in the founding process, Research Policy, 32, 2003, pp. 255–276.

9. D. W. Maris, K.-L. Vukhac, A. Friedrich & D. M. Lohman, The future of the generic drug industry: specialty pharmaceuticals industry overview, New York, Banc of America Securities, Summer 2003.

10. See, for example, Henderson, op. cit., Ref. 3.

11. A. Tanzer, Pill factory to the world, Forbes, 168, 10 December 2001, p. 070.

12. R. Keller, A resource-based study of new product development: predicting five year later commercial success and speed to market, International Journal of Innovation Management, 8(3), 2004, pp. 243–260.

13. D. Leonard-Barton, Core capabilities and core rigidities: a paradox in managing new product development, Strategic Management Journal, 13, 1992, pp.111–125.

14. S. Baisiwala, A. Baum, M. Goodman & J. Rubin, Implications from emerging Indian Pharma, Morgan Stanley Global Equity Research, 16 October 2003; V. Sahu, M. Tracey, J. Murphy, J Kelly, M. Readey, L. Balan & D. Saurymper, Global healthcare: Indian pharmaceuticals—passage from India, Goldman Sachs Global Investment Research, at www.gs.com/research/hedge.html (accessed 16 March 2004).

15. Organisation of Pharmaceutical Producers of India (OPPI), Trade-related intellectual property rights—a background note, OTTI, Bombay, 1994.

16. Process Engineering, 19 November 2003, p. 2

17. A. Wood, Microbia technology revs up bio-processing, Chemical Week, 165(11), 19 March 2004, pp. 42–43.

18. Maris et al., op. cit., Ref. 8.

19. Maris et al., op. cit., Ref. 8.

20. Ibid.

21. T. Saywell, High returns on drugs, Far Eastern Economic Review, 166, 4 December 2003, p. 43; J. Slater, India looks beyond borders, Wall Street Journal (Eastern Edition, NY), 31 December 2003, p. A7.

22. G. Harris & J. Slater, Bitter pills: drug makers see ‘branded generics’ eating into profits, Wall Street Journal (Eastern Edition, NY), 17 April 2003, p. A1.

23. Generic Pharmaceutical Association 2006, at www.gphaonline.org

24. M. Meadows, Greater access to generic drugs, Federal Drug Administration, 2003, at www.fda.gov/fdac/features/2003/503_drug.html

25. G. Pisano, The Development Factory: Unlocking the Potential of Process Innovation (Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA, 1996).

26. Maris et al., op. cit., Ref. 8.

27. D. Kale, D. Wield & J. Chataway, Diffusion of knowledge through migration of scientific labour in India, IKD Working Paper No. 17, ESRC Innogen Centre, The Open University, Milton Keynes, UK, 2006.

28. A. Gambardella, Science and Innovation in the US Pharmaceutical Industry (Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press, 1995).

29. W. M. Cohen & D. A. Levinthal, Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation, Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 1990, pp. 128–152.

30. N. Lin, Social Capital: A Theory of Social Structure and Action (Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press, 2001).

31. J.-Y. Hsu & A. L. Saxenian, The limits of Guangxi capitalism: transnational collaboration between Taiwan and the USA, Environment and Planning, 32(11), 2000, pp. 1991–2005.

32. A. L. Saxenian, Networks of immigrant entrepreneurs, in: C.-M. Lee, W. Miller, M. Hancock & H. Rowen (Eds) The Silicon Valley Edge (Stanford, CA, Stanford University Press, 2000), pp. 248–276.

33. T.-K. Leng, Economic globalization and IT talent flows across the Taiwan Strait: the Taipei/Shanghai/Silicon Valley triangle, Asian Survey, 42(2), 2002, pp. 230–250.

34. V. Chiesa & G. Toletti, Network of collaborations for innovation: the case of Biotechnology, Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 16(1), 2004, pp. 73–96; B. R. Koka & J. E. Prescott, Strategic alliances as social capital: a multi-dimensional view, Strategic Management Journal, 23, 2002, pp. 795–816.

35. D. B. Audretsch, The role of small firms in US biotechnology clusters, Small Business Economics, 17, 2001, pp. 3–15.

36. C. E. Pray, Public–private sector linkages in research and development: biotechnology and the seed industry in Brazil, China and India, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 83(3), 2001, pp. 742–747.

37. Maris et al., op. cit., Ref. 8.

38. R. Gulati, ‘Networks and learning: the influence of network resources and firm capabilities on alliance formation’, Strategic Management Journal, 20(5), 1999, pp. 397–420.

39. T. Kostova & K. Roth, Social capital in multinational corporations and a micro–macro model of its formation, American Management Review, 28(2), 2003, pp. 297–317.

40. M. Sakakibara & M. Dodgson, Strategic research partnerships: empirical evidence from Asia, Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 15(2), 2003, pp. 227–245.

41. M. Granovetter, The strength of weak ties, The American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1973, pp. 1360–1380.

42. W. W. McCutchen, P. M. Swamidass & T. Bing-Sheng, R&D risk taking in strategic alliances: new explanations for R&D alliances in the biopharmaceutical industry, Management International Review, 44(1), 2004, pp. 53–67.