Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T16:03:35.911Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Knowledge Sources and International Business Activity in a Changing Innovation Ecosystem: A Study of the Indian Pharmaceutical Industry

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 October 2019

Sreevas Sahasranamam Open the ORCID record for Sreevas Sahasranamam [Opens in a new window] ,
Satyanarayana Rentala Open the ORCID record for Satyanarayana Rentala [Opens in a new window]  and
Elizabeth L. Rose
Sreevas Sahasranamam*
Affiliation:
University of Strathclyde, UK
Satyanarayana Rentala
Affiliation:
Bharathidasan Institute of Management, India
Elizabeth L. Rose
Affiliation:
University of Leeds, UK
*
Corresponding author: Sreevas Sahasranamam ([email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The Indian pharmaceutical industry has experienced rapid growth, becoming the world's largest provider of generic drugs, based on product and process innovation. The industry has undergone dynamic changes in recent decades, operating in a rapidly evolving environment affected by domestic and global policies; a key example of the latter is the TRIPS agreement. Taking an intellectual property perspective, we describe how changes in the innovation ecosystem have affected companies’ strategies related to international activity and accessing knowledge from both internal and external knowledge sources, during the transitional- and post-TRIPS periods (1995–2004 and 2005–2014, respectively). Combining intellectual property arguments with contextual aspects of the innovation ecosystem, we conjecture that, in the post-TRIPS period, externally-sourced knowledge will be more important than internally-sourced knowledge, for Indian pharmaceutical firms’ international business activity.

摘要

基于产品与流程上的创新，印度制药产业经历了快速发展，目前印度已成为世界上最大的仿制药品供应商。近年来，伴随着国内以及全球政策环境的迅速演变，制药行业也经历了动态变化。其中，主要的全球政策便是TRIPS协定。基于知识产权视角，我们描述了在TRIPS过渡期（1995–2004）和后期（2005–2014），创新生态系统的变化是如何影响企业在国际活动以及获取内外部知识中的策略。结合知识产权观点与创新生态系统的相关文献我们推测，在TRIPS后期，与来自内部的知识相比，来自外部的知识更有利于印度制药公司进行国际商务活动。

Аннотация

Индийская фармацевтическая промышленность переживает бурный рост и становится крупнейшим в мире поставщиком непатентованных лекарств на основе инноваций в сфере продуктов и процессов. В течение последних десятилетий, отрасль претерпела динамические изменения в условиях, которые быстро меняются под влиянием внутренней и глобальной политики; ключевым примером влияния глобальной политики является соглашение по торговым аспектам прав интеллектуальной собственности (TRIPS). С точки зрения вопросов интеллектуальной собственности, мы изучаем то, каким образом изменения в инновационной экосистеме влияют на стратегии компаний, связанные с международной деятельностью и доступом к знаниям из внутренних и внешних источников, в переходный период и в период после соглашения TRIPS (1995–2004 гг. и 2005–2014 гг. соответственно). Принимая во внимание перспективу интеллектуальной собственности и контекстуальные аспекты инновационной экосистемы, мы предполагаем, что в период после соглашения TRIPS знания из внешних источников будут важнее, чем знания из внутренних источников, для международной деятельности индийских фармацевтических компаний.

Resumen

La industria farmacéutica India ha experimentado un rápido crecimiento, convirtiéndose en el proveedor más grande del mundo de drogas genéricas, basada en innovación de producto y proceso. La industria ha tenido cambios dinámicos en las décadas recientes, operando en un entorno de rápida evolución afectado por políticas nacionales y globales; un ejemplo clave de esto último es el acuerdo sobre los ADPIC. Tomando una perspectiva de propiedad intelectual, describimos como los cambios en el ecosistema de innovación han afectado las estrategias de las empresas en relación a la actividad internacional y el acceso a conocimiento tanto de fuentes de conocimiento internas y externas, durante los periodos transicional y post-ADPIC (1995-2004 y 2005-2014, respectivamente). Combinando los argumentos de propiedad intelectual con aspectos contextuales del ecosistema de innovación, conjeturamos que, en el periodo post-ADPIC, el conocimiento externamente obtenido será más importante que el conocimiento internamente conseguido, para las actividades de negocios internacionales de las empresas farmacéuticas indias.

Keywords

Indiainnovationintellectual property regimeinternational businessknowledge sourcespharmaceutical industry印度创新知识产权制度国际商务知识源制药产业Индияинновациисистема интеллектуальной собственностимеждународный бизнесисточники знанийфармацевтическая промышленностьIndiainnovación régimen de propiedad intelectualnegocios internacionalesfuentes de conocimientoindustria farmacéutica
Type
Special Issue: The Innovation and Entrepreneurship Ecosystem in India
Information
Management and Organization Review , Volume 15 , Special Issue 3: The Innovation and Entrepreneurship Ecosystem in India , September 2019 , pp. 595 - 614
Copyright
Copyright © The International Association for Chinese Management Research 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Accepted by: Guest Editors Suresh Bhagavatula and Ram Mudambi, and Deputy Editor Johann Peter Murmann

References

REFERENCES

Abrol, D. 2004. Post-TRIPS technological behaviour of the pharmaceutical industry in India. Science Technology and Society, 9(2): 244–271.Google Scholar
Agarwal, S. P., Gupta, A., & Dayal, R. 2007. Technology transfer perspectives in globalising India (drugs and pharmaceuticals and biotechnology). The Journal of Technology Transfer, 32(4): 397–423.Google Scholar
Agnihotri, A., & Bhattacharya, S. 2015. Determinants of export intensity in emerging markets: An upper echelon perspective. Journal of World Business, 50(4): 687–695.Google Scholar
Arora, A., Fosfuri, A., & Rønde, T. 2013. Managing licensing in a market for technology. Management Science, 59(5): 1092–1106.Google Scholar
Athreye, S., Kale, D., & Ramani, S. V. 2009. Experimentation with strategy and the evolution of dynamic capability in the Indian pharmaceutical sector. Industrial and Corporate Change, 18(4): 729–759.Google Scholar
Autio, E., & Acs, Z. J. 2010. Intellectual property protection and the formation of entrepreneurial growth aspirations. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 4(4): 234–251.Google Scholar
Awate, S., Larsen, M. M., & Mudambi, R. 2012. EMNE catch-up strategies in the wind turbine industry: Is there a trade-off between output and innovation capabilities? Global Strategy Journal, 2(3): 205–223.Google Scholar
Awate, S., Larsen, M. M., & Mudambi, R. 2015. Accessing vs. sourcing knowledge: A comparative study of R&D internationalization between emerging and advanced economy firms. Journal of International Business Studies, 46(1): 63–86.Google Scholar
Balakrishnan, R. 2014, November 22. Pharma companies should learn to appreciate FDA norms: Experts. Business Standard. Mumbai.Google Scholar
Basant, R., & Srinivasan, S. 2015. Intellectual property protection in India and implications for health innovation: Emerging perspectives. no. WP2015-04–01, Ahmedabad.Google Scholar
Bedi, N., Bedi, P. M. S., & Sooch, B. S. 2013. Patenting and R&D in Indian pharmaceutical industry: Post-TRIPS scenario. Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 18(2): 105–110.Google Scholar
Bhaduri, S., & Ray, A. S. 2004. Exporting through technological capability: Econometric evidence from India's pharmaceutical and electrical/electronics firms. Oxford Development Studies, 32(1): 87–100.Google Scholar
Bhat, S., & Narayanan, K. 2009. Technological efforts, firm size and exports in the basic chemical industry in India. Oxford Development Studies, 37(2): 145–169.Google Scholar
Bilgili, T. V., Kedia, B. L., & Bilgili, H. 2016. Exploring the influence of resource environments on absorptive capacity development: The case of emerging market firms. Journal of World Business, 51(5): 700–712.Google Scholar
Boso, N., Story, V. M., Cadogan, J. W., Micevski, M., & Kadic-Maglajlic, S. 2013. Firm innovativeness and export performance: Environmental, networking, and structural contingencies. Journal of International Marketing, 21(4): 62–87.Google Scholar
Bouet, D. 2015. A study of intellectual property protection policies and innovation in the Indian pharmaceutical industry and beyond. Technovation, 38: 31–41.Google Scholar
Brandl, K., Darendeli, I., & Mudambi, R. 2019. Foreign actors and intellectual property protection regulations in developing countries. Journal of International Business Studies, 50(5): 826–846.Google Scholar
Brandl, K., Mudambi, R., & Scalera, V. G. 2015. The spectacular rise of the Indian pharmaceutical industry. Entrepreneurship & Innovation Exchange. Available from URL: https://eiexchange.com/content/111-thespectacular-rise-of-the-indian-pharmaceuticalindustryGoogle Scholar
Buckley, P. J., & Casson, M. C. 1998. Analyzing foreign market entry strategies: Extending the internalization approach. Journal of International Business Studies, 29(3): 539–561.Google Scholar
Casillas, J. C., Moreno, A. M., Acedo, F. J., Gallego, M. A., & Ramos, E. 2009. An integrative model of the role of knowledge in the internationalization process. Journal of World Business, 44(3): 311–322.Google Scholar
Cassiman, B., & Veugelers, R. 2006. In search of complementarity in innovation strategy: Internal R&D and external knowledge acquisition. Management Science, 52(1): 68–82.Google Scholar
Chari, M. D. R., & David, P. 2012. Sustaining superior performance in an emerging economy: An empirical test in the Indian context. Strategic Management Journal, 33(2): 217–229.Google Scholar
Chatterjee, D., & Sahasranamam, S. 2014. Trends in innovation management research in India – an analysis of publications for the period 1991–2013. Current Science, 107(11): 1800–1805.Google Scholar
Chatterjee, D., & Sahasranamam, S. 2018. Technological innovation research in China and India: A bibliometric analysis for the period 1991–2015. Management and Organization Review, 14(1): 179–221.Google Scholar
Chaturvedi, K., Chataway, J., & Wield, D. 2007. Policy, markets and knowledge: Strategic synergies in Indian pharmaceutical firms. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 19(5): 565–588.Google Scholar
Chittoor, R., & Ray, S. 2007. Internationalization paths of Indian pharmaceutical firms – A strategic group analysis. Journal of International Management, 13(3): 338–355.Google Scholar
Chittoor, R., Aulakh, P. S., & Ray, S. 2015. Accumulative and assimilative learning, institutional infrastructure, and innovation orientation of developing economy firms. Global Strategy Journal, 5(2): 133–153.Google Scholar
Chittoor, R., Kale, P., & Puranam, P. 2015. Business groups in developing capital markets: Towards a complementarity perspective. Strategic Management Journal, 36(9): 1277–1296.Google Scholar
Chittoor, R., Ray, S., Aulakh, P. S., & Sarkar, M. B. 2008. Strategic responses to institutional changes: ‘Indigenous growth’ model of the Indian pharmaceutical industry. Journal of International Management, 14(3): 252–269.Google Scholar
Chittoor, R., Sarkar, M. B., Ray, S., & Aulakh, P. S. 2009. Third-world copycats to emerging multinationals: Institutional changes and organizational transformation in the Indian pharmaceutical industry. Organization Science, 20(1): 187–205.Google Scholar
Cohen, J. 1988. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd edition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Contractor, F. J., Kumar, V., & Kundu, S. K. 2007. Nature of the relationship between international expansion and performance: The case of emerging market firms. Journal of World Business, 42(4): 401–417.Google Scholar
Courtney, H., Kirkland, J., & Viguerie, P. 1997. Strategy under uncertainty. Harvard Business Review, 75(6): 67–79.Google Scholar
Cuervo-Cazurra, A., & Dau, L. 2009. Promarket reforms and firm profitability in developing countries. Academy of Management Journal, 52(6): 1348–1368.Google Scholar
Cuervo-Cazurra, A., & Genc, M. 2008. Transforming disadvantages into advantages: Developing-country MNEs in the least developed countries. Journal of International Business Studies, 39(6): 957–979.Google Scholar
Denicolai, S., Zucchella, A., & Strange, R. 2014. Knowledge assets and firm international performance. International Business Review, 23(1): 55–62.Google Scholar
Desai, A. V. 1980. The origin and direction of industrial R&D in India. Research Policy, 9(1): 74–96.Google Scholar
Dunlap-Hinkler, D., Kotabe, M., & Mudambi, R. 2010. A story of breakthrough versus incrementation innovation: Corporate entrepreneurship in the global pharmaceutical industry. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 4(2): 106–127.Google Scholar
Dunlap, D., McDonough, E. F., Mudambi, R., & Swift, T. 2016. Making up is hard to do: Knowledge acquisition strategies and the nature of new product innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 33(4): 472–491.Google Scholar
Durlak, J. A. 2009. How to select, calculate, and interpret effect sizes. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 34(9): 917–928.Google Scholar
Fleming, L. 2001. Recombinant uncertainty in technological search. Management Science, 47(1): 117–132.Google Scholar
Franco, C., & Sasidharan, S. 2010. MNEs, technological efforts and channels of export spillover: An analysis of Indian manufacturing industries. Economic Systems, 34(3): 270–288.Google Scholar
Gaur, A., & Kumar, V. 2010. Internationalization of emerging market firms: A case for theoretical extension. Advances in International Management, 23: 603–627.Google Scholar
Grant, R. 1996. Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17: 109–122.Google Scholar
Grogan, K. 2011. Productivity of pharma R&D down 70% – study. Pharma Times. Available from URL: http://www.pharmatimes.com/news/productivity_of_pharma_r_and_d_down_70_-_study_979953Google Scholar
Haley, G. T., & Haley, U. C. V. 2012. The effects of patent-law changes on innovation: The case of India's pharmaceutical industry. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 79(4): 607–619.Google Scholar
Harris, R., & Li, Q. C. 2009. Exporting, R&D, and absorptive capacity in UK establishments. Oxford Economic Papers, 61(1): 74–103.Google Scholar
Hasan, R., & Raturi, M. 2003. Does investing in technology affect exports? Evidence from Indian firms. Review of Development Economics, 7(2): 279–293.Google Scholar
Henderson, R., Orsenigo, L., & Pisano, G. P. 1999. The pharmaceutical industry and the revolution in molecular biology: Interactions among scientific, institutional, and organizational change. In Mowery, D. C. & Nelson, R. R. (Eds.), Sources of industrial leadership: Studies of seven industries. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Horner, R. 2014. The impact of patents on innovation, technology transfer and health: A pre-and post-TRIPs analysis of India's pharmaceutical industry. New Political Economy, 19(3): 384–406.Google Scholar
Hu, A. G. 2010. Propensity to patent, competition and China's foreign patenting surge. Research Policy, 39(7): 985–993.Google Scholar
Jagadeesh, H., & Sasidharan, S. 2014. Do stronger IPR regimes influence R&D efforts? Evidence from the Indian pharmaceutical industry. Global Business Review, 15(2): 189–204.Google Scholar
Jauhari, V. 2007. Analysing export intensity of the select electronics firms in India. International Journal of Innovation Management, 11(3): 379–396.Google Scholar
Johanson, J., & Vahlne, J. E. 1977. The internationalization process of the firm – a model of knowledge development and increasing foreign market commitments. Journal of International Business Studies, 8(1): 23–32.Google Scholar
Kale, D. 2010. The distinctive patterns of dynamic learning and inter-firm differences in the Indian pharmaceutical industry. British Journal of Management, 21(1): 223–238.Google Scholar
Kale, D., & Little, S. 2007. From imitation to innovation: The evolution of R&D capabilities and learning processes in the Indian pharmaceutical industry. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 19(5): 589–609.Google Scholar
Kale, D., & Wield, D. 2008. Exploitative and explorative learning as a response to the TRIPS agreement in Indian pharmaceutical firms. Industry & Innovation, 15(1): 93–114.Google Scholar
Khan, S. A., & Nasim, S. 2016. Impact of product patent regime on pharmaceutical companies in India. Flexible Work Organizations: 277–287. New Delhi: Springer.Google Scholar
Khanna, T., & Palepu, K. G. 2000. Is group affiliation profitable in emerging markets? An analysis of diversified Indian business groups. The Journal of Finance, 55(2): 867–891.Google Scholar
Kochhar, R. 2014. Indian pharmaceutical industry: Policies, achievements and challenges. Current Science, 106(10): 1345–1347.Google Scholar
Krug, B., & Hendrischke, H. 2003. China incorporated: Property rights, networks, and the emergence of a private business sector in China. Manageral Finance, 29(12): 32–44.Google Scholar
Kumar, N., & Aggarwal, A. 2005. Liberalization, outward orientation and in-house R&D activity of multinational and local firms: A quantitative exploration for Indian manufacturing. Research Policy, 34(4): 441–460.Google Scholar
Kumar, N., & Siddharthan, N. S. 1994. Technology, firm size and export behaviour in developing countries: The case of Indian enterprises. The Journal of Development Studies, 31(2): 289–309.Google Scholar
Kumaraswamy, A., Mudambi, R., Saranga, H., & Tripathy, A. 2012. Catch-up strategies in the Indian auto components industry: Domestic firms’ responses to market liberalization. Journal of International Business Studies, 43(4): 368–395.Google Scholar
Lall, S. 1986. Performance and export technological development in LDCs: Leading engineering and chemical firms in India. Archiv Weltwirtschaftliches, 1: 80–92.Google Scholar
Lall, S., & Kumar, R. 1981. Firm-level export performance in an inward-looking economy: The Indian engineering industry. World Development, 9(5): 453–463.Google Scholar
Lane, C., & Probert, J. 2007. The external sourcing of technological knowledge by US pharmaceutical companies: Strategic goals and inter-organizational relationships. Industry & Innovation, 14(1): 5–25.Google Scholar
Lanjouw, J. O., & Schankerman, M. 2001. Characteristics of patent litigation: A window on competition. RAND Journal of Economics, 32(1): 129–151.Google Scholar
Lanjouw, J. O., & Schankerman, M. 2004. Protecting intellectual property rights: Are small firms handicapped? Journal of Law and Economics, 47(1): 45–74.Google Scholar
Li, J., Chen, D., & Shapiro, D. M. 2010. Product innovations in emerging economies: The role of foreign knowledge access channels and internal efforts in Chinese firms. Management and Organization Review, 6(2): 243–266.Google Scholar
Lundvall, B. 1999. National business systems and national systems of innovation. International Studies of Management & Organization, 29(2): 60–77.Google Scholar
Luo, Y., & Tung, R. L. 2007. International expansion of emerging market enterprises: A springboard perspective. Journal of International Business Studies, 38(4): 481–498.Google Scholar
Majumdar, S. 2010. Innovation capability and globalization propensity in India's information technology and software industry. Information Technologies & International Development, 6(4): 45–56.Google Scholar
Mishra, P., & Jaiswal, N. 2012. Mergers, acquisitions and export competitiveness: Experience of Indian manufacturing sector. Journal of Competitiveness, 4(1): 3–19.Google Scholar
Mohammad, A., & Kamaiah, B. 2014. The Indian pharmaceutical industry in post-TRIPS and post-product patent regime: A group-wise analysis of relative efficiency using nonparametric approach. The IUP Journal of Applied Economics, 13(1): 47–62.Google Scholar
Nair, A., Guldiken, O., Fainshmidt, S., & Pezeshkan, A. 2015. Innovation in India: A review of past research and future directions. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 32(4): 925–958.Google Scholar
O'Reilly, C. III, & Tushman, M. 2011. Organizational ambidexterity in action: How managers explore and exploit. California Management Review, 53(4): 5–22.Google Scholar
Papageorgiadis, N., & McDonald, F. 2019. Defining and measuring the institutional context of national intellectual property systems in a post-TRIPS world. Journal of International Management, 25(1): 3–18.Google Scholar
Papageorgiadis, N., Cross, A. R., & Alexiou, C. 2013. The impact of the institution of patent protection and enforcement on entry mode strategy: A panel data investigation of US firms. International Business Review, 22(1): 278–292.Google Scholar
Papageorgiadis, N., Cross, A. R., & Alexiou, C. 2014. International patent systems strength 1998–2011. Journal of World Business, 49(4): 586–597.Google Scholar
Peng, M. W., Ahlstrom, D., Carraher, S. M., & Shi, W. S. 2017. History and the debate over intellectual property. Management and Organization Review, 13(1): 15–38.Google Scholar
Perri, A., Scalera, V. G., & Mudambi, R. 2017. What are the most promising conduits for foreign knowledge inflows? Innovation networks in the Chinese pharmaceutical industry. Industrial and Corporate Change, 26(2): 333–355.Google Scholar
Pisano, G. 2006. Profiting from innovation and the intellectual property revolution. Research Policy, 35(8): 1122–1130.Google Scholar
Pradhan, J. P. 2007. Strengthening intellectual property rights globally: Impact on India's pharmaceutical exports. The Singapore Economic Review, 52(2): 233–250.Google Scholar
Ramamurti, R. 2012a. Competing with emerging market multinationals. Business Horizons, 55(3): 241–249.Google Scholar
Ramamurti, R. 2012b. What is really different about emerging market multinationals? Global Strategy Journal, 2(1): 41–47.Google Scholar
Rentala, S., Anand, B., & Shaban, M. 2014. Technological capabilities and firm resources as determinants of export competitiveness: Evidence from Indian pharmaceutical industry using quantile regression approach. Journal of Medical Marketing, 14(2–3): 133–144.Google Scholar
Roberts, P. 2001. Innovation and firm-level persistent profitability: A Schumpeterian framework. Managerial and Decision Economics, 22(4–5): 239–250.Google Scholar
Rosenthal, J. A. 1996. Qualitative descriptors of strength of association and effect size. Journal of Social Service Research, 21(4): 37–59.Google Scholar
Sahasranamam, S., & Ball, C. 2018. National context matters: Influence of national business system on social enterprises in Scotland and India. In Spence, L. J., Frynas, J. G., Muthuri, J. N., & Navare, J. (Eds.), Research handbook on small business social responsibility: Global perspectives: 23–46. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd.Google Scholar
Sahasranamam, S., & Nandakumar, M. K. 2018. Individual capital and social entrepreneurship: Role of formal institutions. Journal of Business Research, forthcoming: 1–14.Google Scholar
Sahasranamam, S., & Raman, V. 2018. Individual resources, property rights and entrepreneurship in China. International Journal of Emerging Markets, 13(6): 1502–1521.Google Scholar
Sahasranamam, S., & Sud, M. 2016. Opportunity and necessity entrepreneurship: A comparative study of India and China. Academy of Entrepreneurship Journal, 22(1): 21–40.Google Scholar
Schøtt, T., Madhavan, R., Jensen, K., & Li, J. 2019. The eco-system shaping entrepreneurship and innovation: Development in India and around the world. Management and Organization Review, forthcoming.Google Scholar
Siddharthan, N. S., & Nollen, S. 2004. MNE affiliation, firm size and exports revisited: A study of information technology firms in India. Journal of Development Studies, 40(6): 146–168.Google Scholar
Singh, D. A. 2009. Export performance of emerging market firms. International Business Review, 18(4): 321–330.Google Scholar
Singh, D. A., & Gaur, A. S. 2013. Governance structure, innovation and internationalization: Evidence from India. Journal of International Management, 19(3): 300–309.Google Scholar
Sinha, A. 2016. Globalizing India: How global rules and markets are shaping India's rise to power. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, P. J. 2001. How do foreign patent rights affect US exports, affiliate sales and licenses? Journal of International Economics, 55(2): 411–439.Google Scholar
Teece, D. J. 1986. Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy. Research Policy, 15(6): 285–305.Google Scholar
Thakur-Wernz, P., & Samant, S. 2017. Relationship between international experience and innovation performance: The importance of organizational learning for EMNEs. Global Strategy Journal, August: 1–27.Google Scholar
Tyagi, S., Mahajan, V., & Nauriyal, D. K. 2014. Innovations in Indian drug and pharmaceutical industry: Have they impacted exports? Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 19(4): 243–252.Google Scholar
Wang, Y., Cao, W., Zhou, Z., & Ning, L. 2013. Does external technology acquisition determine export performance? Evidence from Chinese manufacturing firms. International Business Review, 22(6): 1079–1091.Google Scholar
Watal, J., & Mathai, A. 1995. Sectoral impact of the Uruguay Round agreements on developing countries: Pharmaceutical industry. United National Industrial Development Organization. Available from URL: https://open.unido.org/assets/data/publications/1995.htmlGoogle Scholar
Zhao, M. 2006. Conducting R&D in countries with weak intellectual property rights protection. Management Science, 52: 1185–1199.Google Scholar
Zhou, K. Z., & Li, C. B. 2012. How knowledge affects radical innovation: Knowledge base, market knowledge acquisition, and internal knowledge sharing. Strategic Management Journal, 33(9): 1090–1102.Google Scholar