This paper analyzes the R&D and exports profile of Indian drug and pharmaceutical industry during the period 2000–2014. The present paper examines how R&D expenditure and patent impact export performance of the Indian drug and pharmaceutical firms. The study period from 2000 to 2014 has been characterized by a rapid growth in industry’s innovative activity, as part of the strategic shift, induced by the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005. Using the real financial data for the top 91 publicly listed Indian domestic pharmaceutical companies, the study provides new evidence on firm-level export performance of the Indian drugs and pharmaceutical industry. Generalized Method of Movements estimator developed by Blundell and Bond is applied. The empirical findings of the study reveal that increased R&D intensity, higher patent count and firm’s size are important determinants of firm-level export performance.
Esteve-PérezSRodríguezD. The dynamics of exports and R&D in SMEs. Small Bus Econ2013; 41: 219–240.
2.
NevesaAAuroraACTeixeirabCet al.Exports-R&D investment complementarity and economic performance of firms located in Portugal. InvestigaciónEconómica2016; LXXV: 125–156.
3.
Aw BY, Roberts MJ and Winston T. The complementary role of exports and R&D investments as sources of productivity growth. No. w11774.2005. USA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
4.
LachenmaierSWössmannL. Does innovation cause exports? Evidence from exogenous innovation impulses and obstacles using German micro data. Oxf Econ Paper2006; 58: 317–350.
5.
Nauriyal DK and Sahoo D. The new IPR regime and Indian drug and pharmaceutical industry: an empirical analysis. In: Paper presented at the EPIP conference, Berne, Switzerland, 3–4 October 2008.
6.
ChaudhuriS. The WTO and India’s Pharmaceuticals Industry, New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2005.
7.
Pradhan JP. Global competitiveness of Indian pharmaceutical industry: trends and strategies. In: MPRA Paper 12340, University Library of Munich, Germany, 2006.
Pharmexil (2015) Annual Report 2015–2016. Pharmaceuticals Exports Promotion Council of India, New Delhi.
11.
TyagiSMahajanVNauriyalDK. Innovations in Indian drug and pharmaceutical industry: have they impacted exports?J Intellect Property Right2014; 19: 243–252.
12.
Grace C. The effect of changing intellectual property on pharmaceutical industry prospects in India and China, DFID Health Systems Resource Centre. 2004; 1–68.
13.
DiPietroWRAnoruoE. Creativity, innovation, and export performance. J Pol Model2006; 28: 133–139.
14.
FagerbergJ. International competitiveness. Econ J1988; 98: 355–374.
15.
GreenhalghC. Innovation and trade performance in the United Kingdom. Econ J1990; 100: 105–118.
Leon-LedesmaMA. Exports, product differentiation and knowledge spillovers. Open Econ Rev2005; 16: 363–379.
18.
NarulaRWakelinK. Technological competitiveness, trade and foreign direct investment. Struct Change Econ Dynam1998; 9: 373–387.
19.
SalimRABlochH. Business expenditures on R&D and trade performances in Australia: is there a link?Appl Econ2009; 41: 351–361.
20.
VerspagenBWakelinK. International competitiveness and its determinants. Int J Appl Econ1997; 11: 177–190.
21.
NauriyalDK. TRIPS-Compliant New Patents Act and Indian Pharmaceutical Sector Directions in Strategy and R&D. Indian J Econ Bus2006; 22: 1–18.
22.
HirschSBijaouiI. R&D intensity and export performance: a micro view. Weltwirtschaftlichesarchive1985; 121: 238–251.
23.
BonnalM. Economic growth and labor standards: evidence from a dynamic panel data model. Rev Dev Econ2010; 14: 20–33.
24.
GolovkoEValentiniG. Exploring the complementarity between innovation and export for SMEs growth. J Int Bus Stud2011; 42: 362–380.
25.
Santos-PaulinoAU. Trade liberalisation and export performance in selected developing countries. J Dev Stud2002; 39: 140–164.
26.
Blundell R and Bond S. Initial conditions and moment restrictions in dynamic panel data models. J Econom 1998; 87: 115–143.
27.
Bond S, Elston JA, Mairesse J, et al. Financial factors and investment in Belgium, France, Germany, and the United Kingdom: A comparison using company panel data. Rev Econ Stat 2003; 85: 153–165.
ArellanoMBondS. Some tests of specification for panel data: Monte Carlo evidence and an application to employment equations. Rev Econ Stud1991; 58: 277–297.
30.
Behr A. A comparison of dynamic panel data estimators: Monte Carlo evidence and an application to the investment function. Discussion Paper Series 1/Volkswirtschaftliches Forschungszentrum der Deutschen Bundesbank, 2003.
31.
Wakelin K. Innovation and export behaviour at the firm level. Res Policy 1998; 26: 829–841.
32.
Caldera A. Review of world economics, Vol. 146, Springer, USA, 2010, p.657. DOI: 10.1007/s10290-010-0065-7.
33.
LabeagaJMMartínez-RosE. Estimación de unmodelo de ecuacionessimultáneas con variables dependienteslimitadas: Una aplicacióncondatos de la industriaespañola. InvestigacionesEconómicas1994; 18: 465–490.
34.
MartinCVelázquezJ. El capital extranjero y el comercio exterior de las empresasmanufactureras. Papeles de Economía Española1993; 56: 221–234.
35.
Rodil O and Vence X. Tipo de innovación y comportamientoexportador de las empresasgallegas. Vol. XXXIV, reunión de estudiosregionales. Jaén: asociaciónandaluza de ciencia regional, 2008.
36.
RodríguezDR. Relación entre innovación y exportaciones de las empresas: Unestudioempírico. Papeles de Economía Española1999; 81: 167–180.
37.
Becker SO and Egger PH. Endogeneous product versus process innovation and a firm’s propensity to export. In: Working Paper 1906, Munich, Germany: CESIFO, 2007.
38.
Suárez-PortoVGuisado-GonzálezM. Analysis of the determinants of exporting intensity in the field of innovation. InvestigacionesEuropeas de Dirección y Economía de la Empresa2014; 20: 79–86.
39.
HarrisRLiQC. Exporting, R&D, and absorptive capacity in UK establishments. Oxf Econ Paper2009; 61: 74–103.
ZimmermanKF. Trade and dynamic efficiency. Kyklos1987; 40: 73–87.
42.
GoldarB. R&D intensity and exports: a study of Indian pharmaceutical firms. Innov Dev2013; 3: 151–167.
43.
Wagner J. Exports, R&D and productivity: A test of the Bustos-model with German enterprise data. University of Lüneburg Working Paper Series in Economics, 2012.
44.
AnderssonMLööfH. Learning‐by‐exporting revisited: the role of intensity and persistence. Scand J Econ2009; 111: 893–916.
45.
Hahn CH and Park CG. Direction of causality in innovation-exporting linkage: evidence on Korean manufacturing. In: ERIA Discussion Paper, 2012. Jakarta, Indonesia: Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asia (ERIA).
46.
SalmonRMShaverJM. Learning by exporting: new insights from examining firm innovation. J Econ Manag Strat2005; 14: 431–460.
47.
GirmaSGörgHHanleyA. R&D and exporting: a comparison of British and Irish firms. Rev World Econ2008; 144: 750–773.
Ebling G and Norbert J. Export and innovation activities in the german service sector: Empirical evidence at the firm level. Discussion Paper No. 99-53. Mannheim, Germany: ZEW – Centre for European Economic Research, https://ssrn.com/abstract=376220 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.376220 (1999).
51.
SoeteLLG. A general test of the technological gap trade theory. WeltwirtschaftlichesArchiv1981; 117: 638–666.
52.
DosiGPavittKLRSoeteLLG. The economics of technical change and international trade, Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1990.
53.
SterlacchiniA. Do innovative activities matter to small firms in non-R&D-intensive industries? An application to export performance. Res Pol1999; 28: 819–832.
54.
VerspagenB. Uneven growth between interdependent economies: an evolutionary view on technology gaps, trade and growth, Maastricht: UniversitairePers Maastricht, 1992.
55.
WIPO. Study on the use of intellectual property and export performance of Brazilian firms. CDIP/14/INF/5, Committee on Development and Intellectual Property (CDIP), Geneva, 2014.
VernonR. International investments and international trade in the product life cycle. Q J Econ1966; 80: 190–207.
58.
Grossman GM and Helpman E. Technological determinants of trade. In: Papers: 44–95, Tel Aviv, 1995.
59.
Di MasiJGrabowskiHVernonJ. R&D costs, innovative output and firm size in the pharmaceutical industry. Int J Econ Bus1995; 2: 201–219.
60.
KumarNSaqibM. Firm size, opportunities for adaptation and in-house R&D activity in developing countries: the case of Indian Manufacturing. Res Pol1996; 25: 713–722.
61.
Pradhan JP. Liberalization, firm size and R&D performance: a firm level study of Indian Pharmaceutical Industry. In: MPRA Paper No. 17079, University Library of Munich, Germany, 2003.
62.
Arias-ArandaDMinguela-RataBRodríguez-DuarteA. Innovation and firm size: an empirical study for Spanish engineering consulting companies. Eur J Innov Manag2001; 4: 133–142.
63.
SalomonRMShaverJM. Export and domestic sales: their interrelationship and determinants. Strat Manag J2005; 26: 855–871.
64.
Bhat S and Narayanan K. Technological efforts, firm size and exports in the basic chemical industry in India. Oxford Dev Stud 2009; 37: 145–169.
65.
Pradhan JP and Sahu PP. Defining the role of government in transnationalization efforts of Indian SMEs: a case study of Indian pharmaceutical industry, www.dsir.gov.in/reports/ittp_sme/PharmaReport2008.pdf (2008, accessed 20 May 2013).
66.
WilliamsDA. Impact of firm size and age on the export behaviour of small locally owned firms: fresh insights. J Int Entrepren2011; 9: 152–174.
67.
AbdelmoulaMEtienneJM. Determination of R&D investment in French firms: a two-part hierarchical model with correlated random effects. Econ Innovat New Tech2010; 19: 53–70.
68.
LallS. Technological development and export performance in LDCs: leading engineering and chemical firms in India. Rev World Econ1986; 122: 80–92.
69.
CassimanBMartinez-RosE. Product innovation and exports. Evidence from Spanish manufacturing, Barcelona: IESE Business School, 2007, pp. 1–36.
