Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

US biopharmaceutical finance and the sustainability of the biotech business model

Contents:

Author Info

  • Lazonick, William
  • Tulum, Öner
Registered author(s):

    Abstract

    In the decade before the 2008 economic crisis, the US biotechnology industry was booming. In a 2006 book, Science Business: The Promise, the Reality, and the Future of Biotech, Gary Pisano implies that, given the 10–20 year time-frame for developing biotech products and the lack of profitability of the industry as a whole, the US biotech boom should not have happened. Yet the biotech industry has received substantial funding from venture-capital firms as well as from established companies through R&D alliances. Why would money from venture capitalists and big pharma flow into an industry in which profits are so hard to come by? The purpose of this article is to work toward a solution of what might be called the “Pisano puzzle”, and in the process to provide a basis for analyzing the industrial and institutional conditions under which the growth of the US biopharmaceutical (BP) industry is sustainable. One part of the answer has been the willingness of stock-market investors to absorb the initial public offerings (IPOs) of a BP venture that has not yet generated a commercial product, and indeed may never do so. The other part of the answer is that the knowledge base that BP companies can tap to develop products comes much more from government investments and spending than from business finance. Indeed, we show that, through stock buybacks and dividends, established corporations in the BP industry have been distributing substantial sums of cash to shareholders that may be at the expense of R&D. We use the framework that we have developed for analyzing the sustainability of the US BP business model to pose a number of key areas for future research and policy, with an emphasis on the implications of the financialization of this business model for the generation of safe and affordable BP drugs as well as the need for a theory of innovative enterprise.

    Download Info

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733311001028
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

    Bibliographic Info

    Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Research Policy.

    Volume (Year): 40 (2011)
    Issue (Month): 9 ()
    Pages: 1170-1187

    as in new window
    Handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:40:y:2011:i:9:p:1170-1187

    Contact details of provider:
    Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/respol

    Related research

    Keywords: US biopharmaceutical innovation; R&D finance; Corporate governance; Orphan drug; Stock repurchase; Shareholder value;

    References

    References listed on IDEAS
    Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
    as in new window
    1. DiMasi, Joseph A. & Hansen, Ronald W. & Grabowski, Henry G., 2003. "The price of innovation: new estimates of drug development costs," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 151-185, March.
    2. William Lazonick, 2010. "Innovative Business Models and Varieties of Capitalism: Financialization of the U.S. Corporation," Business History Review, Harvard Business School, vol. 84(4), pages 675–702, December.
    3. Brian J. Hall & Jeffrey B. Liebman, 1998. "Are CEOs Really Paid Like Bureaucrats?," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 113(3), pages 653-691, August.
    4. McMillan, G. Steven & Narin, Francis & Deeds, David L., 2000. "An analysis of the critical role of public science in innovation: the case of biotechnology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 1-8, January.
    5. Véronique Bastin & Georges Hübner, 2006. "Concentrated Announcements on Clustered Data: An Event Study on Biotechnology Stocks," Financial Management, Financial Management Association, vol. 35(1), Spring.
    6. Gur Huberman, 2001. "Contagious Speculation and a Cure for Cancer: A Nonevent that Made Stock Prices Soar," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 56(1), pages 387-396, 02.
    7. Cockburn Iain M. & Stern Scott, 2010. "Finding the Endless Frontier: Lessons from the Life Sciences Innovation System for Technology Policy," Capitalism and Society, De Gruyter, vol. 5(1), pages 1-50, July.
    8. Josh Lerner & Alexander Tsai, 2000. "Do Equity Financing Cycles Matter? Evidence from Biotechnology Alliances," NBER Working Papers 7464, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    9. William Lazonick, 2009. "Sustainable Prosperity in the New Economy? Business Organization and High-Tech Employment in the United States," Books from Upjohn Press, W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, number spne, December.
    10. DiMasi, Joseph A. & Hansen, Ronald W. & Grabowski, Henry G., 2005. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(5), pages 1034-1044, September.
    11. DiMasi, Joseph A. & Hansen, Ronald W. & Grabowski, Henry G., 2005. "Setting the record straight on setting the record straight: Response to the Light and Warburton rejoinder," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(5), pages 1049-1053, September.
    12. William Lazonick, 2010. "The Chandlerian corporation and the theory of innovative enterprise," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, vol. 19(2), pages 317-349, April.
    13. Light, Donald W. & Warburton, Rebecca N., 2005. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(5), pages 1030-1033, September.
    14. Arora, Ashish & Gambardella, Alfonso, 1994. "The changing technology of technological change: general and abstract knowledge and the division of innovative labour," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 23(5), pages 523-532, September.
    15. Lazonick William, 2009. "The New Economy Business Model and the Crisis of U.S. Capitalism," Capitalism and Society, De Gruyter, vol. 4(2), pages 1-70, October.
    16. Michael E. Solt, 1993. "SWORD Financing of Innovation in the Biotechnology Industry," Financial Management, Financial Management Association, vol. 22(2), Summer.
    17. Light, Donald W. & Warburton, Rebecca N., 2005. "Setting the record straight in the reply by DiMasi, Hansen and Grabowski," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(5), pages 1045-1048, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as in new window

    Cited by:
    1. Kolympiris, Christos & Kalaitzandonakes, Nicholas & Miller, Douglas, 2014. "Public funds and local biotechnology firm creation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 121-137.
    2. Licht, Georg & Pfirrmann, Oliver & Strohmeyer, Robert & Heinrich, Stephan & Tonoyan, Vartuhi & Eckert, Thomas & Woywode, Michael & Crass, Dirk & Sellenthin, Mark O., 2012. "Ex-post-Evaluierung der Fördermaßnahmen BioChance und BioChancePlus im Rahmen der Systemevaluierung "KMU-innovativ": Begleit- und Wirkungsforschung zur Hightech-Strategie," ZEW Dokumentationen 12-05, ZEW - Zentrum für Europäische Wirtschaftsforschung / Center for European Economic Research.
    3. Olga Bruyaka & Hanko Zeitzmann & Isabelle Chalamon & Richard Wokutch & Pooja Thakur, 2013. "Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility and Orphan Drug Development: Insights from the US and the EU Biopharmaceutical Industry," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 117(1), pages 45-65, September.
    4. Lehoux, P. & Daudelin, G. & Williams-Jones, B. & Denis, J.-L. & Longo, C., 2014. "How do business model and health technology design influence each other? Insights from a longitudinal case study of three academic spin-offs," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(6), pages 1025-1038.

    Lists

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:40:y:2011:i:9:p:1170-1187. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Zhang, Lei).

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.