IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Evaluation of the Pharmaceutical Industry Investment Program


  • Productivity Commission


With the expiry of the Pharmaceutical Industry Investment Program (PIIP) in 2004, the Commission was asked to conduct an evaluation of the program’s rationale, effectiveness and efficiency. The study commenced in August 2002. The Commission found that this assistance scheme had significant deficiencies and should not be renewed in its current form when it expires.

Suggested Citation

  • Productivity Commission, 2003. "Evaluation of the Pharmaceutical Industry Investment Program," Microeconomics 0305001, University Library of Munich, Germany.
  • Handle: RePEc:wpa:wuwpmi:0305001
    Note: Type of Document - PDF; prepared on IBM PC; to print on HP;

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no


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

    Cited by:

    1. McCarthy, Molly M. & Taylor, Penny & Norman, Rosana E. & Pezzullo, Lynne & Tucci, Joe & Goddard, Chris, 2016. "The lifetime economic and social costs of child maltreatment in Australia," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 217-226.
    2. Productivity Commission, 2006. "Tasmanian Freight Subsidy Arrangements," Inquiry Reports, Productivity Commission, Government of Australia, number 39.
    3. Productivity Commission, 2004. "Review of TCF Assistance," Microeconomics 0402001, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Simon Deeming & Kim Edmunds & Alice Knight & Andrew Searles & Anthony P. Shakeshaft & Christopher M. Doran, 2022. "A Benefit-Cost Analysis of BackTrack, a Multi-Component, Community-Based Intervention for High-Risk Young People in a Rural Australian Setting," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(16), pages 1-12, August.
    5. Morgan, Steve & McMahon, Meghan & Greyson, Devon, 2008. "Balancing health and industrial policy objectives in the pharmaceutical sector: Lessons from Australia," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 87(2), pages 133-145, August.


    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:wpa:wuwpmi:0305001. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: EconWPA (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.