Driven by technological race, the survival of the firms largely depends upon the technological proximity they possess. Evolutionary theories emphasized that ‘technology’ is a source of growth and its accumulation is a continuous and path-dependent process that require specific and strategic policies. The hypothesis of the article is, thus that ‘both investments in indigenous research and development (R&D) and royalty payments’ are the dominant sources of technology accumulation in the successful firms. For the analysis, the case study of Indian pharmaceutical industry was done for the period from 2000 to 2011 and the multinomial logit model is used for the analysis. However, both the descriptive and econometric analysis refute the hypothesis. Further, the article tried to estimate the dominant choice of technology accumulation in the sector and to find the characteristics of the firms that lead it to make those specific choices.
AroraA.GambardellaA. (1990) Complementarity and external linkages: The strategies of the large firms in biotechnology.The Journal of Industrial Economics, 38(4), 361–379.
2.
ArrowK.J. (1962) The economic implications of learning by doing.Review of Economic Studies, 29(3), 155–173.
3.
AthreyeS.GodleyA. (2009) Internationalization and technological leapfrogging in the pharmaceutical industry.Industrial and Corporate Change, 18(2), 295–323.
4.
BasantR. (1997a) Technology strategy of large enterprises in Indian industry: Some explorations.World Development, 25(10), 1683–1700.
5.
BasantR. (1997b) Analysing technology strategy: Some issues.Economic and Political Weekly, 32(48), M111–M120.
6.
BasantR.ChandraP. (2002) Building technological capabilities in a liberalizing developing economy: Firm strategies and public policy.Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 11(4–5), 399–421.
7.
BasantR.FikkertB. (1996) The effects of R&D, foreign technology purchase, and domestic and international spillovers on productivity in Indian firms.The Review of Economics and Statistics, 78(2), 187–199.
8.
BeneitoP. (2003) The innovative performance of in-house and contracted R&D in terms of patents and utility models.Research Policy, 35(4), 502–517.
9.
BragaH.WillmoreL. (1991) Technological imports and technological effort: An analysis of their determinants in Brazilian firms.The Journal of Industrial Economics, 39(4), 421–432.
10.
Breschi, & Malerba (1997) Sectoral system of innovation: Technological regimes, Schumpeterian dynamics and spatial boundaries. In EdquistC. (Ed.), System of innovation (pp. 130–152). London: Pinter.
11.
ChadhaA. (2009a) Product cycles, innovation, and exports: A study of Indian pharmaceuticals.World Development, 37(9), 1478–1483.
12.
ChadhaA. (2009b) TRIPs and patenting activity: Evidence from the Indian pharmaceutical industry.Economic Modelling, 26(2), 499–505.
13.
ChaudhuriS. (2007) Is product patent protection necessary in developing countries for innovation? R&D by Indian Pharmaceutical Companies after TRIPS.Working Paper Series, 614. Calcutta: Indian Institute of Management.
14.
ChaudhuriS. (2013) Manufacturing trade deficit and industrial policy in India.Economic and Political Weekly, XLVIII(8), 41–50.
15.
CimoliM.DosiG.NelsonR.StiglitzJ. (2013) Policies and institutional engineering in developing economies, Globelics Working Paper Series No. 2007-2004. Retrieved March22, 2013 from http://www.globelics.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/wpg0704.pdf
16.
CoeD.T.HelpmanE. (1995) International R&D spillovers.European Economic Review, 39(5), 859–887.
CohenW.M.LevinthalD.A. (1989) Innovation and learning: The two faces of R&D.The Economic Journal, 99(397), 569–596.
19.
DeolalikarA.EvensonR. (1989) Technology production and technology purchase in Indian industry: An econometric analysis.Review of Economics and Statistics, 71(4), 687–692.
20.
FergusonP.FergusonG. (1998) Industrial economics issues and perspectives. NewYork: New York University Press.
21.
FinkC. (2000) How stronger patent protection in India might affect the behavior or transnational pharmaceutical industries.The World Bank Working Paper no. 2352. Washington, DC: The World Bank.
22.
FreemanC. (1989) The economics of technical change. In ArchibugiD.MichieJ. (Eds), Trade, growth and technical change (pp. 16–54). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
23.
GhoshS. (2009) R&D in Indian manufacturing enterprises: What shapes it?Economics of Technology and New Technology, 18(4), 337–352.
24.
GoedhuysM.VeugelersR. (2012) Innovation strategies, process and product innovations and growth: Firm-level evidence from Brazil.Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 23(4), 516–529. doi:10.1016/j.strueco.2011.01.004
25.
GrossmanG.M.HelpmanE. (1991) Innovation and growth in the global economy. Cambridge: MIT Press.
26.
KaleD.LittleS. (2007) From imitation to innovation: The evolution of R&D capabilities and learning processes in the Indian pharmaceutical industry.Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 19(5), 589–609.
27.
KatrakH. (1985) Imported technology, enterprise size and R&D in a newly industrializing country: The Indian experience.Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 47(3), 213–229.
28.
KellerW. (2004) International technology diffusion.Journal of Economic Literature, 42(3), 752–782.
29.
KimL. (1997) Imitation to innovation the dynamics of Korea’s technological learning. Cambridge: Harvard Business School Press.
30.
KumarN.AggarwalA. (2005) Liberalization, outward orientation and in-house R&D activity of multinational and local firms: A quantitative exploration for Indian manufacturing.Research Policy, 34(4), 441–460.
31.
KumarN.SaqibM. (1996) Firm size, opportunities for adaptation, and in-house R&D activity in developing countries: The case of Indian manufacturing.Research Policy, 25(5), 712–722.
32.
KurokawaS. (1997) Make-or-Buy decisions in R&D: Small technology based forms in the United States and Japan.IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 44(2), 124–134.
33.
LallS. (1983) Determinants of R&D in LDC: The Indian engineering industry.Economics Letters, 13(4), 379–383.
34.
LallS. (1993) Promoting technology development: The role of technology transfer and indigenous effort.Third World Quarterly, 14(1), 95–108.
35.
LallS. (2001) Competitiveness, technology and skills. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
36.
LiuX.WhiteS. (1997) The relative contribution of foreign technology and domestic inputs to innovation in Chinese manufacturing industries.Technovation, 17(3), 119–125.
37.
Lundvall (1992) Introduction. In LundvallB.K. (Ed.), National systems of innovation towards a theory of innovation and interactive learning (pp. 1–17). London: Pinter.
38.
Maharajh & Kraemer-MbulaE. (2010) Innovation strategies in developing countries. In Kraemer-MbulaE.WamaeW. (Eds), Innovation and the development agenda (pp. 133–147). New Delhi: OECD.
39.
MehtaS. (2010) Technology dynamism: Analyses of changing structure of trade in organised manufacturing industries in India.Man and Development, 32(1), 17–48.
40.
MehtaS. (2011) Technological intensity and industrial development in India.Economic and Political Weekly, 46(17), 60–68.
41.
NarayananK. (2004) Technology acquisition and growth of firms: Indian automobile sector under changing policy regimes.Economic and Political Weekly, 39(5), 461–470.
42.
NarulaR.MarinA. (2005) Exploring the relationship between direct and indirect spillovers from FDI in Argentina.Merit-Infonomics Research Memorandum Series 2005-024. Retreived July16, 2012 from www.merit.unu.edu/publications/rmpdf/2005/rm2005-024.pdf
43.
National Pharmaceutical Policy (2006) Draft National Pharmaceutical Policy, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, GOI.
44.
NayyarD. (2008) Trade and globalization. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
45.
NelsonR.R.WinterS.G. (1982) An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
46.
OdagiriH. (1983) R&D expenditure, royalty payments, and sales growth in Japanese manufacturing corporations.The Journal of Industrial Economics, 32(1), 61–71.
47.
OECD (2007) Science, technology and industry scoreboard. Paris: OECD.
48.
PackH. (1988) Industrialization and trade. In CheneryH.SrinivasanT.N. (Eds), Handbook of development economics (Vol. 1). Amsterdam: North Holland.
49.
PradhanJ.P. (2003) Liberalization, firm size and R&D performance: A firm level study of Indian pharmaceutical industry.Journal of Indian School of Political Economy, 14(4), 647–666.
50.
RomerP. (1986) Increasing returns and long-run growth.Journal of Political Economy, 94(5), 1002–1037.
51.
ShellK. (1967) A model of inventive activity and capital accumulation. In ShellK. (Ed.) Essays on the theory of optimal growth (pp. 67–85). Cambridge: MIT press.
52.
SiddharthanN.S. (1988) In-house R&D, imported technology and firm size: Lessons from Indian experience.The Developing Economies, 26(3), 212–221.
53.
SolowR. (1956) A contribution to the theory of economic growth.Quarterly Journal of Economics, 70(1), 65–94.
54.
UzawaH. (1965) Optimal technical change in an aggregative model of economic growth.International Economic Review, 6(1), 18–31.
55.
VerspagenB. (2005) Innovation and economic growth. In FagerbergJ.MoweryD.C.NelsonR.R. (Eds), The Oxford handbook of innovation (pp. 487–513). New York: Oxford University Press.
