IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0148951.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Critical Analysis of Concentration and Competition in the Indian Pharmaceutical Market

Author

Listed:
  • Aashna Mehta
  • Habib Hasan Farooqui
  • Sakthivel Selvaraj

Abstract

Objectives: It can be argued that with several players marketing a large number of brands, the pharmaceutical market in India is competitive. However, the pharmaceutical market should not be studied as a single market but, as a sum total of a large number of individual sub-markets. This paper examines the methodological issues with respect to defining the relevant market involved in studying concentration in the pharmaceutical market in India. Further, we have examined whether the Indian pharmaceutical market is competitive. Methods: Indian pharmaceutical market was studied using PharmaTrac, the sales audit data from AIOCD-AWACS, that organises formulations into 5 levels of therapeutic classification based on the EphMRA system. The Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI) was used as the indicator of market concentration. We calculated HHI for the entire pharmaceutical market studied as a single market as well as at the five different levels of therapeutic classification. Results and Discussion: Whereas the entire pharmaceutical market taken together as a single market displayed low concentration (HHI = 226.63), it was observed that if each formulation is defined as an individual sub-market, about 69 percent of the total market in terms of market value displayed at least moderate concentration. Market should be defined taking into account the ease of substitutability. Since, patients cannot themselves substitute the formulation prescribed by the doctor with another formulation with the same indication and therapeutic effect, owing to information asymmetry, it is appropriate to study market concentration at the narrower levels of therapeutic classification.

Suggested Citation

  • Aashna Mehta & Habib Hasan Farooqui & Sakthivel Selvaraj, 2016. "A Critical Analysis of Concentration and Competition in the Indian Pharmaceutical Market," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(2), pages 1-11, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0148951
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0148951
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0148951
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0148951&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0148951?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dennis W. Carlton, 2007. "Market Definition: Use and Abuse," EAG Discussions Papers 200706, Department of Justice, Antitrust Division.
    2. Patrick Massey, 2000. "Market Definition and Market Power in Competition Analysis - Some Practical Issues," The Economic and Social Review, Economic and Social Studies, vol. 31(4), pages 309-328.
    3. Unknown & Dennis Carlton, 2007. "Market Definition: Use and Abuse," CPI Journal, Competition Policy International, vol. 3.
    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


    Cited by:

    1. Habib Hasan Farooqui & Sakthivel Selvaraj & Aashna Mehta & David L Heymann, 2018. "Community level antibiotic utilization in India and its comparison vis-à-vis European countries: Evidence from pharmaceutical sales data," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(10), pages 1-11, October.
    2. Venkatanarayana Motkuri & Rudra Narayan Mishra, 2020. "Pharmaceutical Market and Drug Price Policy in India," Review of Development and Change, , vol. 25(1), pages 30-53, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Dennis W. Carlton, 2007. "Does Antitrust Need to be Modernized?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 21(3), pages 155-176, Summer.
    2. Dennis W. Carlton, 2024. "The 2023 Merger Guidelines: A Critical Assessment," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 65(1), pages 129-145, August.
    3. Hongjai Rhee & Minsoo Park, 2011. "Fixed-to-mobile call substitution and telephony market definition in Korea," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 40(2), pages 198-218, October.
    4. John Lopatka, 2011. "Market Definition?," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 39(1), pages 69-93, August.
    5. Dennis W. Carlton & Mark A. Israel, 2021. "Effects of the 2010 Horizontal Merger Guidelines on Merger Review: Based on Ten Years of Practical Experience," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 58(1), pages 213-234, February.
    6. Stöhr, Annika, 2021. "Price effects of horizontal mergers: A retrospective on retrospectives," Ilmenau Economics Discussion Papers 151, Ilmenau University of Technology, Institute of Economics.
    7. Coate, Malcolm B. & Ulrick, Shawn W. & Yun, John M., 2021. "Tailoring critical loss to the competitive process," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(C).
    8. Willem H. Boshoff, 2013. "Why define markets in competition cases?," Working Papers 10/2013, Stellenbosch University, Department of Economics.
    9. Oğuz, Fuat & Akkemik, K. Ali & Göksal, Koray, 2015. "Toward a wider market definition in broadband: The case of Turkey," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 111-119.
    10. Lapo Filistrucchi, 2008. "A SSNIP test for two-sided markets: the case of media," Working Papers 08-34, NET Institute, revised Oct 2008.
    11. Dennis Carlton & Ken Heyer, 2007. "The Year in Review: Economics at the Antitrust Division, 2006–2007," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 31(2), pages 121-137, September.
    12. I. M. Dobbs, 2003. "Demand, cost elasticities and pricing benchmarks in the hypothetical monopoly test: the consequences of a simple SSNIP," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(9), pages 545-548.
    13. Eun, Sungtae, 2023. "Responses of Consumer And Manufacturer to the Salmonella Outbreak in The U.S. Peanut Butter Market," International Journal of Food and Agricultural Economics (IJFAEC), Alanya Alaaddin Keykubat University, Department of Economics and Finance, vol. 11(4), October.
    14. Institute of Economics, 2020. "Institut für Volkswirtschaftslehre Forschungsbericht 2019," Working Paper Series in Economics 388, University of Lüneburg, Institute of Economics.
    15. Hippolyte, Rommell, 2016. "Defining the Relevant Product Market: An Application of Price Tests to the Beer Market in Barbados," MPRA Paper 76183, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    16. Anna I. Meleshkina & Irina N. Filippova & Andrey E. Shastitko, 2022. "Empirical geographic market definition for antitrust: The case of the Russian cement market," Upravlenets, Ural State University of Economics, vol. 13(6), pages 15-29, January.
    17. Willem Boshoff, 2006. "Quantitative competition analysis: Stationarity tests in geographic market definition," Working Papers 17/2006, Stellenbosch University, Department of Economics.
    18. Ljiljana Maksimović & Milan Kostić, 2012. "Limitations In The App Lication Of Concentration Indicators – Example Of Insurance Market In Serbia, Croatia, Slovenia, Romania And Austria," Serbian Association of Economists Journal, SAE - Serbian Association of Economists, issue 3-4, pages 199-205, May.
    19. Gerry E. Boyle, 2004. "Hall-Roeger Tests of Market Power in Irish Manufacturing Industries," The Economic and Social Review, Economic and Social Studies, vol. 35(3), pages 289-304.
    20. Christoph Engel, 2003. "Market Definition As a Social Construction (Marktabgrenzung als soziale Konstruktion)," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2003_11, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0148951. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.