Industry Dynamics in Pharmaceuticals

Fariba Hashemi

.

DOI: 10.4236/pp.2012.31001                

Abstract

Pharmaceuticals is a relatively large and mature industry, and of growing significance. The industry has stimulated extensive research on determinants of its growth and development. Specifically, the distribution of firm size has attracted significant attention, due to tis relevance as an indicator of degree of industrial concentration. A large part of this literature has focused, since the early contributions, on the explanation of the shape of firm size distribution in the industry at a given point in time by reference to steady state arguments. The dynamics in question have been relatively neglected however. The main objective of this paper is to help fill this gap. It is shown that interesting issues arise when one considers how firm structure evolves over time, rather than simply attending to equilibrium implications of processes. Information on the shape and time-evolution of the size distribution of firms over an extended period of time can be used to make inferences about an underlying process; specifically, on which characteristics lead to which kinds of dynamics. To that end, we propose a diffusion model to examine the spatial dynamics of firm size. Instead of assuming a steady state as is standard practice, we consider that firm size fluctuates around its long run stationary equilibrium, according to a double process of temporal drift and random disturbance. An empirical application to real data from the Pharmaceutical industry helps fill a second gap in the literature, as only a few diffusion studies have employed real statistical data when analyzing firm size dynamics. Our empirical application confirms results presented elsewhere and offers some new insights.

Keywords

Pharmaceuticals; Industry Dynamics

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

[1]	M. Boldrin and D. Levine, “Against Intellectual Monopoly,” Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2008.
[2]	R. Axtell, “Zipf Distribution of U.S. Firm Sizes,” Science, Vol. 293, No. 5536, 2001, pp. 1818-1820. doi:10.1126/science.1062081
[3]	H. Elhanan, M. Melitz and S. Yeaple, “Export versus FDI with Heterogenous Firms,” American Economic Review, Vol. 94, 2004, pp. 300-316. doi:10.1257/000282804322970814
[4]	G. Bottazzi and A. Secchi, “Growth and Diversification Patterns of the Worldwide Pharmaceutical Industry,” Review of Industrial Organization, Vol. 26, No. 4, 2005, pp. 195-216. doi:10.1007/s11151-004-7296-5
[5]	E. Luttmer, “Se-lection, Growth, and the Size Distribution of Firms”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 122, No. 3, 2007, pp. 1103-1144. doi:10.1162/qjec.122.3.1103
[6]	R. Lucas, “On the Size-Distribution of Business Firms,” Bell Journal of Economics Vol. 9, No. 2, 1978, pp. 508- 523. doi:10.2307/3003596
[7]	B. Jovanovic, “Selection and the Evolution of Industry,” Econometrica, Vol. 50, No. 3, 1982, pp. 649-670. doi:10.2307/1912606
[8]	H. Hopenhayn, “Entry, Exit, and Firm Dynamics in Long Run Equilibrium,” Econometrica, Vol. 60, No. 5, 1992, pp. 1127-1150. doi:10.2307/2951541
[9]	K. Klette, T. Jakob and S. Kortum, “Innovating Firms and Aggregate Innovation,” Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 112, No. 5, 2004, pp. 986-1018. doi:10.1086/422563
[10]	S. Klepper and P. Thompson, “Submarkets and the Evolution of Market Structure,” Rand Journal of Economics, Vol. 37, No. 4, 2006, pp. 861-886. doi:10.1111/j.1756-2171.2006.tb00061.x
[11]	P. Krug-man, “The Self-Organizing Economy,” Blackwell Publishers, 1996.
[12]	M. Fujita, P. Krugman and T. Mori, “On the Evolution of Hierarchical Urban Systems,” European Economic Review, Vol. 43, No. 2, 1999, pp. 209-251. doi:10.1016/S0014-2921(98)00066-X
[13]	K. Arrow, “The Economic Implications of Learning-by-Doing,” Review of Economic Studies, Vol. 29, 3, 1962, pp. 155-173. doi:10.2307/2295952
[14]	A. Alchian, “Uncer-tainty, Evolution, and Economic Theory,” Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 58, No. 3, 1950, pp. 211-221. doi:10.1086/256940
[15]	D. Levine, “Neuroeconomics?” International Review of Economics, Vol. 58, No. 3, 2011, pp. 287-305. doi:10.1007/s12232-011-0128-7
[16]	D. Fudenberg and D. Levine, “Learning and Equilibrium,” Annual Review of Economics, Vol. 1, 2009, pp. 385-419. doi:10.1146/annurev.economics.050708.142930
[17]	M-O. Hongler, R. Filliger and P. Blanchard, “Soluble Models for Dynamics Driven by a Super-Diffusive Noise,” Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Vol. 370, No. 2, 2006, pp. 301-315.
[18]	M.-O. Hongler, H. Soner and L. Streit, “Stochastic Control for a class of Random Evolution Models,” Applied Mathematics and Optimization, Vol. 49, No. 2, 2004, pp. 113-121.
[19]	O. Besson and G. de Montmollin, “Spacetime integrated least squares: A time-marching approach,” International Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids, Vol. 44, No. 5, 2004, pp. 525-543. doi:10.1002/fld.655
[20]	F. Hashemi, “A Dynamic Model of Size Distribution of Firms Applied to U.S. Biotechnology and Trucking Industries,” Small Business Economics, Vol. 21, No. 1, 2003, pp. 27-36. doi:10.1023/A:1024433203253
[21]	F. Hashemi, “An Evolutionary Model of the Size Distribution of Firms,” Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Vol. 10, 5, 2000, pp. 507-521. doi:10.1007/s001910000048
[22]	J. Hirshleifer, “The Private and Social Value of Information and the Reward to Inventive Activity,” The American Economic Review, Vol. 61, No. 4, 1971, pp. 561-574.
[23]	M. Boldrin and D. Levine, “The Case against Intellectual Monopoly,” In-ternational Economic Review, Vol. 45, No. 2, 2004, pp. 327-350. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2354.2004.00128.x
[24]	M. Boldrin and D. Levine, “Does Intellectual Monopoly Help Inno-vation?” Review of Law and Economics, Vol. 5, No. 3, 2009, Article 2. doi:10.2202/1555-5879.1438
[25]	M. Boldrin and D. Levine, “A Model of Discovery,” Ameri-can Economic Review, Vol. 99, No. 2, 2009, pp. 337-342. doi:10.1257/aer.99.2.337
[26]	M. Boldrin and D. Levine, “What’s Intellectual Property Good for?” Revue Economique, Forthcoming