IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/prs/ecstat/estat_0336-1454_1998_num_312_1_2616.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Le marché pharmaceutique français : la prépondérance des produits-phares

Author

Listed:
  • Nicolas Iung
  • Frédéric Rupprecht

Abstract

[spa] El mercado farmaceùtico francés : la preponderancia de los productos faros . Si bien numerosos productos farmaceûticos gozan de un permiso de puesta en el mercado y son comercializados, solo un numéro reducido realiza ventas importantes : los primeras cien hacen mâs de la tercera parte de las ventas del sector. Aunque existe un numéro bastante elevado de categorfas terapeiticas, cada empresa realiza ventas relevantes en uno o tan solo dos de ellas. Esta paradoja aparente se explica, entre otras razones, por una estructura de mercado que descansa sobre una categorîa de productos farmaceûticos que cada laboratorio desea desarrollar : los productos faros o los blockbusters. A estos productos se debe la mitad de las ventas de los laboratorios, en un promedio, ganando râpidamente aquéllos importantes cuotas en un mercado en râpida evoluciôn. Su importancia creciente asociada a la subida de los costos de I+D contribuye a explicar los movimientos recientes de la industria farmaceûtica. Una estrategia de diversificaciôn de los riesgos impone, en efecto, el reducir la dependencia respecto a estos productos faros. La constitucion de una entidad de produccion mayor por adquisiciôn o fusion permite reducir su cuota en el volumen de negocios total. [fre] Le marché pharmaceutique français : la prépondérance des produits-phares . Si de nombreux produits pharmaceutiques disposent d'une autorisation de mise sur le marché et sont commercialisés, seul un nombre limité d'entre eux réalise des ventes conséquentes : les cent premiers assurent plus du tiers des ventes du secteur. Bien qu'il existe un nombre relativement important de classes thérapeutiques, chaque entreprise réalise des ventes significatives sur seulement une ou deux d'entre elles. Ce paradoxe apparent s'explique notamment par une structure de marché s'appuyant sur un type de produits pharmaceutiques que chaque laboratoire espère développer : les produits-phares ou blockbusters. Ces produits sont à l'origine de la moitié des ventes des laboratoires, en moyenne, et acquièrent très rapidement des parts de marché conséquentes sur un marché en renouvellement rapide. Leur importance croissante associée à la hausse des coûts de recherche- développement contribue à expliquer les mouvements récents de l'industrie pharmaceutique. Une stratégie de diversification des risques impose, en effet, de réduire la dépendance vis-à-vis de ces produits-phares. La constitution d'une entité de production plus grande par acquisition ou fusion permet alors d'en faire baisser la part dans le chiffre d'affaires total. [eng] The French Pharmaceutical Market: The Preponderance of Blockbuster Products . Although many pharmaceutical products are market-approved and sold, only a limited number of them make significant sales. The top 100 products make more than one-third of the sector's sales. Although there is a relatively large number of therapeutic categories, each company makes significant sales on only one or two of them. This paradox can be explained mainly by a market structure based on one type of pharmaceutical product that each laboratory hope to develop: blockbusters. On average, these products account for half of the laboratories' sales and promptly take considerable market shares on a market with a high percentage of new products. Their growing share and the rise in research and development costs help to explain recent trends in the pharmaceutical industry. A risk diversification strategy is called for to reduce dependency on these blockbusters. Mergers and acquisitions to form larger production entities is one way of reducing their share in the total turnover. [ger] Der pharmazeutische Markt in Frankreich: die Vormachtstellung der Schlùsselprodukte. Zahlreiche Arzneimittel verfûgen zwar ùber eine Zulassung fur ihre Inverkehrbringung und werden auch kommerzialisiert, aber nur wenige von ihnen erzielen einen nennenswerten Umsatz: auf die hundert wichtigsten entfâllt mehr als ein Drittel des Umsatzes in diesem Sektor. Obwohl es eine relativ groBe Anzahl therapeutischer Klassen gibt, erzielt jedes Unternehmen lediglich mit einer oder zwei von ihnen einen hohen Umsatz. . Dieses offensichtliche Paradox erklàrt sich insbesondere durch eine Marktstruktur, die auf einem bestimmten Typ pharmazeutischer Produkte basiert, den jedes Labor zu entwickein hofft: die Schlùsselprodukte oder blockbusters. . Dièse Produkte machen im Schnitt die Hàlfte des Umsatzes der Laboratorien aus und sichern sich sehr rasch erhebliche Anteile auf einem Markt, der sich schnell veràndert. Ihre zunehmende Bedeutung sowie der Anstieg der Forschungs- und Entwicklungskosten erklâren unter anderem die jùngsten Entwicklungen, die die pharmazeutische Industrie kannte. Folglich ist eine Stratégie der Risikodiversifizierung erforderlich, die die Abhângigkeit von diesen Schlûsselprodukten reduziert. Die Bildung einer grôBeren Produktionseinheit durch Erwerb oder Fusion ermôglicht es dann, deren Anteil am Gesamtumsatz zu senken.

Suggested Citation

  • Nicolas Iung & Frédéric Rupprecht, 1998. "Le marché pharmaceutique français : la prépondérance des produits-phares," Économie et Statistique, Programme National Persée, vol. 312(1), pages 21-33.
  • Handle: RePEc:prs:ecstat:estat_0336-1454_1998_num_312_1_2616
    DOI: 10.3406/estat.1998.2616
    Note: DOI:10.3406/estat.1998.2616
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.3406/estat.1998.2616
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.persee.fr/doc/estat_0336-1454_1998_num_312_1_2616
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.3406/estat.1998.2616?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. DiMasi, Joseph A. & Hansen, Ronald W. & Grabowski, Henry G. & Lasagna, Louis, 1991. "Cost of innovation in the pharmaceutical industry," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 107-142, July.
    2. Edouard Martin, 1996. "Recherche pharmaceutique, prix du médicament et assurance-maladie," Revue Française d'Économie, Programme National Persée, vol. 11(1), pages 49-86.
    3. Comanor, William S, 1986. "The Political Economy of the Pharmaceutical Industry," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 24(3), pages 1178-1217, September.
    4. Dominique Guellec & Isabelle Kabla, 1994. "Le brevet : un instrument d'appropriation des innovations technologiques," Économie et Statistique, Programme National Persée, vol. 275(1), pages 83-94.
    5. Henry Grabowski & John Vernon, 1990. "A New Look at the Returns and Risks to Pharmaceutical R&D," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(7), pages 804-821, July.
    6. Isabelle Kabla, 1994. "Un indicateur de l'innovation : le brevet," Économie et Statistique, Programme National Persée, vol. 275(1), pages 95-109.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Patricia M. Danzon & Eric L. Keuffel, 2014. "Regulation of the Pharmaceutical-Biotechnology Industry," NBER Chapters, in: Economic Regulation and Its Reform: What Have We Learned?, pages 407-484, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. F. M. Scherer, 1993. "Pricing, Profits, and Technological Progress in the Pharmaceutical Industry," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 7(3), pages 97-115, Summer.
    3. Tapon, Francis & Cadsby, Charles Bram, 1996. "The optimal organization of research: evidence from eight case studies of pharmaceutical firms," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 381-399, December.
    4. Stéphane Jacobzone, 1998. "Le rôle des prix dans la régulation du secteur pharmaceutique," Économie et Statistique, Programme National Persée, vol. 312(1), pages 35-53.
    5. Schwartz, Eduardo S., 2002. "Patents and R& D as Real Options," University of California at Los Angeles, Anderson Graduate School of Management qt86b1n43k, Anderson Graduate School of Management, UCLA.
    6. Ming Ding & Jehoshua Eliashberg, 2002. "Structuring the New Product Development Pipeline," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 48(3), pages 343-363, March.
    7. Patricia M. Danzon & Allison Percy, 1999. "The Effects of Price Regulation on Productivity in Pharmaceuticals," NBER Chapters, in: International and Interarea Comparisons of Income, Output, and Prices, pages 371-418, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. Joseph Dimasi & Henry Grabowski & John Vernon, 1995. "R&D Costs, Innovative Output and Firm Size in the Pharmaceutical Industry," International Journal of the Economics of Business, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 2(2), pages 201-219.
    9. Karel Cool & Ingemar Dierickx, 1993. "Abstract," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 14(1), pages 47-59, January.
    10. Lexchin, Joel, 1997. "After compulsory licensing: coming issues in Canadian pharmaceutical policy and politics," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 69-80, April.
    11. Lynne G. Zucker & Michael R. Darby, 1995. "Present at the Revolution: Transformation of Technical Identity for a Large Incumbent Pharmaceutical Firm After the Biotechnological Breakthrough," NBER Working Papers 5243, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    12. Patricia Danzon, 1997. "Trade and Price Differentials for Pharmaceuticals: Policy Options," Monograph 000430, Office of Health Economics.
    13. Tobias Basse & Christoph Schwarzbach & J.-Matthias Schulenburg, 2023. "Dividend policy issues in the European pharmaceutical industry: new empirical evidence," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 24(5), pages 803-816, July.
    14. Rebecca Henderson & Iain Cockburn, 1993. "Scale, Scope and Spillovers: The Determinants of Research Productivity in the Pharmaceutical Industry," NBER Working Papers 4466, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    15. Bauer, Hans H. & Fischer, Marc, 2000. "Product life cycle patterns for pharmaceuticals and their impact on R&D profitability of late mover products," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 9(6), pages 703-725, December.
    16. Razvan Lungeanu & Ithai Stern & Edward J. Zajac, 2016. "When do firms change technology-sourcing vehicles? The role of poor innovative performance and financial slack," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(5), pages 855-869, May.
    17. Scherer, F.M., 2010. "Pharmaceutical Innovation," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 539-574, Elsevier.
    18. Grabowski, Henry & Vernon, John & DiMasi, Joseph, 2002. "Returns on R&D for 1990s New Drug Introductions," Working Papers 02-21, Duke University, Department of Economics.
    19. 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.
    20. Angelo Kenneth S. Romasanta & Peter Sijde & Jacqueline Muijlwijk-Koezen, 2020. "Innovation in pharmaceutical R&D: mapping the research landscape," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(3), pages 1801-1832, December.

    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:prs:ecstat:estat_0336-1454_1998_num_312_1_2616. 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: Equipe PERSEE (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.persee.fr/collection/estat .

    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.