1. Kessel, M. The problems with today’s pharmaceutical business—An outsider’s view. Nat. Biotechnol. 2011, 29, 27–33. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
2. Paul, S.M.; Mytelka, D.S.; Dunwiddle, C.T.; Persinger, C.C.; Munos, B.H.; Lindborg, S.R.; Schacht, A.L. How to improve R&D productivity: The pharmaceutical industry’s grand challenge. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2010, 9, 203–214. [PubMed]
3. Munos, B. Lessons from 60 years of pharmaceutical innovation. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2009, 8, 959–968. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
4. Scannell, J.W.; Blanckley, A.; Boldon, H.; Warrington, B. Diagnosing the decline in pharmaceutical R&D efficiency. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2012, 11, 191–200. [PubMed]
5. Smietana, K.; Siatkowski, M.; Moller, M. Trends in clinical success rates. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2016, 15, 379–380. [CrossRef]
6. Pammolli, F.; Magazzini, L.; Riccaboni, M. The productivity crisis in pharmaceutical R&D. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2011, 10, 428–438.
7. DiMasai, J.A.; Grabowski, H.G.; Hansen, R.W. Innovation in the pharmaceutical industry: New estimates of R&D costs. J. Health Econ. 2016, 47, 20–33.
8. Angelis, A.; Lange, A.; Kanavos, P. Using health technology assessment to assess the value of new medicines: Results of a systematic review and expert consultation across eight European countries. Eur. J. Health Econ. 2018, 19, 123–152. [CrossRef]
9. Teramae, F.; Yamaguchi, N.; Makino, T.; Sengoku, S.; Kodama, K. Holistic cost-effectiveness analysis of anticancer drug regimens in Japan. Drug Discov. Today 2020, 25, 269–273. [CrossRef]
10. Fukumoto, D.; Tsuyuki, A.; Suzuki, T. Drugs targeted for price cutting in Japan: The case of price revisions based on the divergence of official versus delivery prices. Ther. Innov. Regul. Sci. 2017, 51, 597–603. [CrossRef]
11. Kneller, R. The importance of new companies for drug discovery: Origins of a decade of new drugs. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2010, 9, 867–882. [CrossRef]
12. Alt, S.; Helmstädter, A. Market entry, power, pharmacokinetics: What makes a successful drug innovation. Drug Discov. Today 2018, 23, 208–212. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
13. Khann, I. Drug discovery in pharmaceutical industry: Productivity challenges and trends. Drug Discov. Today 2012, 17, 1088–1102. [CrossRef]
14. Rafols, I.; Hopkins, M.H.; Hoekman, J.; Siepel, J.; O’Hare, A.; Perianes-Rodriguez, A.; Nightingale, P. Big pharma, little science? A bibliometric perspective on big pharma’s R&D decline. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2014, 81, 22–38.
15. Booth, B.; Zemmel, R. Prospects for productivity. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2004, 3, 451–456. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
16. Wang, L.; Plump, A.; Ringel, M. Racing to define pharmaceutical R&D external innovation models. Drug Discov. Today 2015, 20, 361–370. [PubMed]
17. Gautam, A.; Pan, X. The changing model of big pharma: Impact of key trends. Drug Discov. Today 2016, 21, 379–384. [CrossRef]
18. Caraça, J.; Lundvall, B.A.; Mendonça, S. The changing role of science in the innovation process: From Queen to Cinderella? Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2009, 76, 861–867. [CrossRef]
19. Teramae, F.; Makino, T.; Lim, Y.; Sengoku, S.; Kodama, K. International strategy for sustainable growth in multinational pharmaceutical companies. Sustainability 2020, 12, 867. [CrossRef]
20. Guennif, S.; Ramani, S.V. Explaining divergence in catching-up in pharma between India and Brazil using the NSI framework. Res. Policy 2012, 41, 430–441. [CrossRef]
21. Weber, Y.; Shenkar, O.; Raveh, A. National and corporate cultural fil in mergers/acquisitions: An exploratory study. Manag. Sci. 1996, 42, 1215–1227. [CrossRef]
22. Shenkar, O. Cultural distance revisited: Towards a more rigorous conceptualization and measurement of cultural differences. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 2012, 43, 1–11. [CrossRef]
23. Choi, J.; Contactor, F.J. Choosing an appropriate alliance governance mode: The role of institutional, cultural and geographical distance in international research & development (R&D) collaborations. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 2016, 47, 210–232.
24. Hansen, M.T.; Lovas, B. How do multinational companies leverage technological competencies? Moving from single to interdependent explanations. Strateg. Manag. J. 2004, 25, 801–822. [CrossRef]
25. Ambos, B.; Schlengelmilch, B.B. The use of international R&D teams: An empirical investigation of selected contingency factors. J. World Bus. 2004, 39, 37–48.
26. Schuhmacher, A.; Germann, P.G.; Trill, H.; Gassmann, O. Models for open innovation in the pharmaceutical industry. Drug Discov. Today 2013, 18, 1133–1137. [CrossRef]
27. Mazzola, E.; Bruccoleri, M.; Perrone, G. Open innovation and firms’ performance: State of the art and empirical evidences from the bio-pharmaceutical industry. Int. J. Technol. Manag. 2016, 70, 109–134. [CrossRef]
28. Olk, P.; West, J. The relationship of industry structure to open innovation: Cooperative value creation in pharmaceutical consortia. R D Manag. 2020, 50, 116–135. [CrossRef]
29. Grabowski, H.; Kyle, M. Mergers and alliances in pharmaceuticals: Effects on innovation and R&D productivity. In The Economics of Corporate Governance and Mergers; Gugler, K., Yurtoglu, B.B., Eds.; Edward Elgar Publishing Limited: Cheltenham, UK, 2008; pp. 262–286.
30. Ringel, M.S.; Choy, M.K. Do large mergers increase or decrease the productivity of pharmaceutical R&D? Drug Discov. Today 2017, 22, 1749–1753.
31. Ornaghi, C. Mergers and innovation in big pharma. Int. J. Ind. Organ. 2009, 27, 70–79. [CrossRef]
32. Comanor, W.S.; Scherer, F.M. Mergers and innovation in the pharmaceutical industry. J. Health Econ. 2013, 32, 106–113. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
33. Geringer, J.M.; Beamish, P.W.; Dacosta, R.C. Diversification strategy and internationalization: Implications for MNE performance. Strateg. Manag. J. 1989, 10, 109–119. [CrossRef]
34. Qian, G.; Khoury, T.; Peng, M.; Qian, Z. The performance implications of intra- and inter-regional geographic diversification. Strateg. Manag. J. 2010, 31, 1018–1030. [CrossRef]
35. Higgins, R.C. How much growth can a firm afford? Financ. Manag. 1977, 6, 7–16. [CrossRef]
36. Shimura, H.; Masuda, S.; Kimura, H. Research and development productivity map: Visualization of industry status. J. Clin. Pharm. Ther. 2014, 39, 175–180. [CrossRef]
37. Cacciotti, J.; Clinton, P. Pharma Exec’s Top 50 Companies 2010. Available online: https://www.slideshare.net/ healthcaremanas/top-50-pharmaceutical-companies-2010-pharma-exec-report (accessed on 11 January 2020).
38. Christel, M. Pharma Exec’s Top 50 Companies 2018. Available online: http://www.pharmexec.com/pharm- execs-top-50-companies-2018?pageID=2 (accessed on 11 January 2020).
39. Crunchbase. Available online: https://www.crunchbase.com/discover/organization.companies (accessed on 3 February 2020).
40. Informa Pharma Intelligence. Biomedtracker. Available online: https://www.biomedtracker.com/ (accessed on 3 February 2020).
41. International Monetary Fund. International Financial Statistics. Exchange Rates. Available online: http://data.imf.org/?sk=4C514D48-B6BA-49ED-8AB9-52B0C1A0179B&sId=1409151240976 (accessed on 27 September 2018).
42. Schuhmacher, A.; Gassmann, O.; Hinder, M. Changing R&D models in research-based pharmaceutical companies. J. Transl. Med. 2016. [CrossRef]
43. Food and Drug Administration. New Molecular Entity (NME) Drug and New Biologic Approvals. Available online: https://www.fda.gov/drugs/nda-and-bla-approvals/new-molecular-entity-nme-drug-and- new-biologic-approvals (accessed on 2 April 2020).
44. Glickman, S.W.; McHutchison, J.G.; Peterson, E.D.; Cairns, C.B.; Harrington, R.A.; Califf, R.M.; Schulman, K.A. Ethical and scientific implications of the globalization of clinical research. N. Engl. J. Med. 2009, 360, 816–823. [CrossRef]
45. Hsiehchen, D.; Espinoza, M.; Hsieh, A. The cooperative landscape of multinational clinical trials. PLoS ONE 2015. [CrossRef]
46. Silvia, R.E.; Amato, A.A.; Guilhem, D.B.; Novaes, M.R.C.G. Globalization of clinical trials: Ethical and regulatory implications. Int. J. Clin. Trials 2016, 3, 1–8. [CrossRef]
47. Rugman, A.M.; Verbeke, A. A perspective of regional and global strategies of multinational enterprises. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 2004, 35, 3–18. [CrossRef]
48. Eisenhardt, K.M. Building theories from case study research. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1989, 14, 532–550. [CrossRef]
49. Prahalad, C.K.; Doz, Y.L. The Multinational Mission: Balancing Local Demands and Global Vision; NY Free Press & Collier Macmillan: New York, NY, USA, 1987.
50. Dixit, M.R.; Yadav, S. Motivations, capability handicaps, and firm responses in the early phase of internationalization: A study in the Indian pharmaceutical industry. J. Glob. Mark. 2015, 28, 1–18. [CrossRef]
51. World Health Organization. The Top 10 Causes of Death. Available online: https://www.who.int/news- room/fact-sheets/detail/the-top-10-causes-of-death (accessed on 28 April 2020).
52. Heron, M. Deaths: Leading causes for 2017. Nation Vital Stat. Rep. 2019, 68, 1–76.
53. Kuemmerle, W. Foreign direct investment in industrial research in the pharmaceutical and electronics industries—Results from a survey of multinational firms. Res. Policy 1999, 28, 179–193. [CrossRef]
54. Gerybadze, A.; Reger, G. Globalization of R&D: Recent changes in the management of innovation in transnational corporations. Res. Policy 1999, 28, 251–274.
55. Achilladelis, B.; Antonakis, N. The dynamics of technological innovation: The case of the pharmaceutical industry. Res. Policy 2001, 30, 535–588. [CrossRef]
56. Belderbos, R.; Leten, B.; Suzuki, S. How global is R&D? Firm-level determinants of home-country bias in R&D. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 2013, 44, 765–786.
57. Scott, K. Pharma’s Broken Business Model: An Industry on the Brink of Terminal Decline. Endpoints News. Available online: https://endpts.com/pharmas-broken-business-model-an-industry-on-the-brink-of- terminal-decline/ (accessed on 23 December 2019).
58. Lubatkin, M.; Florin, J.; Lane, P. Learning together and apart: A model of reciprocal interfirm learning. Hum. Relat. 2001, 54, 1353–1382. [CrossRef]
59. Lange, S.; Wagner, M. The influence of exploratory versus exploitative acquisitions on innovation output in the biotechnology industry. Small Bus. Econ. 2019. [CrossRef]
60. Sampson, R.C. R&D alliances and firm performance: The impact of technological diversity and alliance organization on Innovation. Acad. Manag. J. 2007, 50, 364–386.
61. de Leeuw, T.; Lokshin, B.; Duysters, G. Returns to alliance portfolio diversity: The relative effects of partner diversity on firm’s innovative performance and productivity. J. Bus. Res. 2014, 67, 1839–1849. [CrossRef]
62. Choi, J.; Yeniyurt, S. Contingency distance factors and international research and development (R&D), marketing, and manufacturing alliance formations. Int. Bus. Rev. 2015, 24, 1061–1071.
63. Cohen, W.N.; Levinthal, D.A. Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Adm. Sci. Q. 1990, 35, 128–152. [CrossRef]
64. Patel, P.; Vega, M. Patterns of internationalisation of corporate techinology: Location vs. home country advantage. Res. Policy 1999, 28, 145–155. [CrossRef]
65. Glaister, K.W.; Buckley, P.J. Strategic motives for international alliance formation. J. Manag. Stud. 1996, 33, 301–332. [CrossRef]
66. Chen, T.J. Liability of foreignness and entry mode choice: Taiwanese firms in Europe. J. Bus. Res. 2006, 59, 288–294. [CrossRef]
67. Tijssen, R.J.W. Internationalisation of pharmaceutical R&D: How globalised are Europe’s largest multinational companies? Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 2009, 21, 859–879.
68. Doz, Y.; Santos, J.; Williamson, P. From Global to Metanational: How Companies Win in the Knowledge Economy; Harvard Business School Press: Boston, MA, USA, 2001.
69. Teece, D.J. A dynamic capabilities-based entrepreneurial theory of the multinational enterprise. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 2014, 45, 8–37. [CrossRef]
70. Attwood, M.M.; Rask-Andersen, M.; Schiöth, H.B. Orphan drugs and their impact on pharmaceutical development. Trends Pharmacol. Sci. 2018, 39, 525–535. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
71. Kempf, L.; Goldsmith, J.C.; Temple, R. Challenges of developing and conducting clinical trials in rare disorders. Am. J. Med. Genet. 2018, 176, 773–783. [CrossRef]
72. Montalban, M.; Sakinç, M.E. Financialization and productive models in the pharmaceutical industry. Ind. Corp. Chang. 2013, 22, 981–1030. [CrossRef]
73. Ito, K.; Lechevalier, S. Why some firms persistently out-perform others: Investigating the interactions between innovation and exporting strategies. Ind. Corp. Chang. 2010, 19, 1997–2039. [CrossRef]
74. Mendonça, S.; Pereira, T.S.; Godinho, M.M. Trademarks as an indicator of innovation and industrial change. Res. Policy 2004, 33, 1385–1404. [CrossRef]
論文の公開元へ
