Explaining divergence in catching-up in pharma between India and Brazil using the NSI framework
Since the mid-twentieth century, the national objective of India and Brazil has been to develop industrial capabilities in essential sectors such as pharmaceuticals. At the outset they shared some common features: a considerable period of lax intellectual property rights regimes, a large internal market and a reasonably strong cadre of scientists and engineers. However, over sixty years, India has had much more success in building indigenous capabilities in pharmaceuticals than Brazil, at least to date. Why? In exploring the answer to this question we show that in both countries the design of State policy played a crucial role and the endogenous responses in the national system of innovation consisted of two parts. On the one hand, most of the time, the predicted and desired outcome was partially realized and on the other hand, there were invariably, other unpredicted responses that emerged. The latter unexpected elements, which were specific to the two countries, pushed them along distinctive trajectories.
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.:
- André Nassif, 2007. "National Innovation System And Macroeconomic Policies: Brazil And India In Comparative Perspective," UNCTAD Discussion Papers 184, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development.
- Richard Nelson, 2008.
"Economic Development from the Perspective of Evolutionary Economic Theory,"
Oxford Development Studies,
Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 36(1), pages 9-21.
- Richard R. Nelson, 2006. "Economic Development from the Perspective of Evolutionary Economic Theory," The Other Canon Foundation and Tallinn University of Technology Working Papers in Technology Governance and Economic Dynamics 02, TUT Ragnar Nurkse School of Innovation and Governance.
- Malerba, Franco, 2002. "Sectoral systems of innovation and production," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 247-264, February.
- Lee, Keun & Lim, Chaisung, 2001. "Technological regimes, catching-up and leapfrogging: findings from the Korean industries," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 459-483, March.
- Athreye, Suma & Kale, Dinar & Ramani, Shyama V., 2008.
"Experimentation with Strategy and the Evolution of Dynamic Capability in the Indian Pharmaceutical Sector,"
MERIT Working Papers
041, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
- Suma Athreye & Dinar Kale & Shyama V. Ramani, 2009. "Experimentation with strategy and the evolution of dynamic capability in the Indian pharmaceutical sector," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, vol. 18(4), pages 729-759, August.
- Suzigan, Wilson & Furtado, João, 2006. "Industrial policy and development," Revista CEPAL, Naciones Unidas Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL), August.
- Gehl Sampath, Padmashree, 2006. "Indian Pharma Within Global Reach?," MERIT Working Papers 031, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
- Soete, Luc, 1985. "International diffusion of technology, industrial development and technological leapfrogging," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 13(3), pages 409-422, March.
- Freeman, Chris, 1995. "The 'National System of Innovation' in Historical Perspective," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 19(1), pages 5-24, February.
- Ramani, Shyama V., 2002. "Who is interested in biotech? R&D strategies, knowledge base and market sales of Indian biopharmaceutical firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 381-398, March.
- Chadha, Alka, 2009. "TRIPs and patenting activity: Evidence from the Indian pharmaceutical industry," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 499-505, March.
- Chittoor, Raveendra & Ray, Sougata & Aulakh, Preet S. & Sarkar, M.B., 2008. "Strategic responses to institutional changes: 'Indigenous growth' model of the Indian pharmaceutical industry," Journal of International Management, Elsevier, vol. 14(3), pages 252-269, September.
- Samira Guennif, 2009. "Aids In India," Working Papers id:1974, eSocialSciences.
- Susan E Feinberg & Sumit K Majumdar, 2001. "Technology Spillovers from Foreign Direct Investment in the Indian Pharmaceutical Industry," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 32(3), pages 421-437, September.
- Abramovitz, Moses, 1986. "Catching Up, Forging Ahead, and Falling Behind," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 46(02), pages 385-406, June.
- Ryan, Michael P., 2010. "Patent Incentives, Technology Markets, and Public-Private Bio-Medical Innovation Networks in Brazil," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 38(8), pages 1082-1093, August.
- Jan Fagerberg, 1989. "Innovation, Catching-Up and Growth," Working Papers Archives 1989137, Centre for Technology, Innovation and Culture, University of Oslo.
- Dinar Kale & David Wield, 2008. "Exploitative and Explorative Learning as a Response to the TRIPS Agreement in Indian Pharmaceutical Firms," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(1), pages 93-114.
- Lall, Sanjaya, 1974. "The International Pharmaceutical Industry and Less-Developed Countries, with Special Reference to India," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 36(3), pages 143-72, August.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:41:y:2012:i:2:p:430-441. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.