An Original Institutionalist Approach to the Structure, Conduct, And
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
AN ORIGINAL INSTITUTIONALIST APPROACH TO THE STRUCTURE, CONDUCT, AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY: THE IMPORTANCE OF INTANGIBLE ASSETS A DISSERTATION IN Economics and Social Sciences Consortium Presented to the Faculty of the University of Missouri-Kansas City in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY by AVRAHAM IZHAR BARANES B.A., Denison University, 2011 M.A., University of Missouri – Kansas City, 2013 Kansas City, Missouri 2016 © 2016 AVRAHAM IZHAR BARANES ALL RIGHTS RESERVED AN INSTITUTIONALIST APPROACH TO STRUCTURE, CONDUCT, AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY: THE IMPORTANCE OF INTANGIBLE ASSETS Avraham Izhar Baranes, Candidate for the Doctor of Philosophy Degree University of Missouri-Kansas City, 2016 ABSTRACT This dissertation presents an examination of the pharmaceutical industry with a primary focus on the importance of intangible assets from the original institutional economics perspective. This is done in three main chapters. The first main chapter examines the importance of intangible assets within the context of the heterodox theory of the business enterprise. It is argued that in the early stage of the going concern – where production is separate from consumption – intangible assets necessitate the creation of monetary bargaining transactions. In industrial capitalism – with the internal separation of the enterprise into industrial and pecuniary divisions – intangible assets take the form of rationing transactions, limiting the number of sellers of a particular product. As the enterprise then evolves into its modern joint-stock form in money manager capitalism, intangible assets become the basis for capitalization, upon which incorporeal property may be issued, increasing the return to shareholders. The second main chapter discusses the structure and performance of the pharmaceutical industry. Based on the concept of centralized private sector planning iii and Alfred Chandler’s theory of learned organizational capabilities, I develop a core- nexus understanding of pharmaceutical industry activity. The core is seen as made up of 15 firms who dictate the direction and evolution of the industry as a whole. I then examine the performance of this core using measurements of financial ratios. Measuring performance in this way is consistent with the stated motives of the business enterprise under money manager capitalism, which embodies the dominance of pecuniary habits of thought over industrial ones. The third main chapter combines the first two, examining one specific member of the core – the Pfizer Corporation – and examines the importance of intangible assets on its activity. Over time, it is shown that Pfizer has become more reliant on intangible assets as an overall portion of total assets, its net tangible assets – the book value of the company – has become negative, and Pfizer relies more heavily on drugs obtained through acquisition, rather than internal development. Money manager capitalism, as a regime of accumulation, rewards enterprises that take on an intangible characteristic. In the pharmaceutical industry, this is done with the aid of mergers and acquisitions due to accounting rules for intangible items such as goodwill and the division of labor between the core and nexus. Dominant pharmaceutical firms, then, should be seen as rent-collecting institutions, as opposed to productive entities. iv The faculty listed below, appointed by the Dean of the School of Graduate Studies, have examined the dissertation titled “An Original Institutionalist Approach to the Structure, Conduct, and Performance of the Pharmaceutical Industry: The Importance of Intangible Assets” presented by Avraham Izhar Baranes, candidate for the Doctor of Philosophy degree, and certify that in their opinion it is worthy of acceptance. Supervisory Committee James I. Sturgeon, Ph.D., Committee Chair Department of Economics Peter J. Eaton, Ph.D. Department of Economics Mathew Forstater, Ph.D. Department of Economics Linwood F. Tauheed, Ph.D. Social Sciences Consortium William K. Black, Ph.D. Social Sciences Consortium v CONTENTS ABSTRACT………………………………………………………………………………………………………. iii LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS ………………………………………………………………………………… vii LIST OF TABLES ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ix ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS …………………………………………………………………………………… xi Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION ………………………………………………………………………………………….. 1 2. INTANGIBLE ASSETS AND THE BUSINESS ENTERPRISE: UNDERSTANDING CORPORATE CONTROL OVER SOCIAL RELATIONS…………… 29 3. STRUCTURE AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY: AN ORIGINAL INSTITUTIONAL ECONOMICS PERSPECTIVE ………………………….. 80 4. INTANGIBLE ASSETS AND THE PFIZER CORPORATION: THE IMPORTANCE OF MERGERS, ACQUISITIONS, AND STRATEGIC DEALINGS ………………………………………………………………………………… 144 5. CONCLUSION …………………………………………………………………………………………… 190 REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………………………………………… 207 VITA ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 237 vi LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Figure Page 2.1 Real Dividend Per Share for Standard & Poor’s 500 Firms, 2003-2008….. 69 2.2 After Tax Corporate Profits, 2003-2014, Billions of Dollars…………………… 71 3.1 Standard Structure-Conduct-Performance Model of Industrial Organization………………………………………………………………………………………. 81 3.2 Pharmaceutical Industry Value of Shipments and Value of Inventories…. 104 3.3 Number of Companies in the Pharmaceutical Industry………………………… 108 3.4 Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Concentration Ratios at the 4, 8, 20, and 50 firm level, 1947-2012…………………………………………………………………….. 110 3.5 Pharmaceutical Industry Herfindahl-Hirschman Index for the 50 largest firms, 1982-2012……………………………………………………………………………….. 112 3.6 Three-Sector Diagram of Industrial Relations……………………………………… 115 3.7 A Core-Nexus Diagram of Industrial Relations……………………………………... 118 3.8 Pharmaceutical Core Return on Revenue, 1993-2014…………………………... 133 3.9 Pharmaceutical Core Return on Assets, 1993-2014……………………………… 134 3.10 Pharmaceutical Core Stock Price, 1993-2014………………………………………. 137 3.11 Pharmaceutical Core Return on Equity, 1993-2014……………………………… 140 3.12 Pharmaceutical Core Earnings Per Share, 1993-2014…………………………... 141 4.1 Pfizer’s Acquisitions and Divestitures, 1985-2014……………………………….. 157 4.2 Pfizer’s Acquisitions by Type………………………………………………………………. 159 4.3 Pfizer’s Divestments by Type……………………………………………………………… 160 4.4 Pfizer’s Revenues, R&D Expenses, Overhead, and Net Income, 1995- 2014…………………………………………………………………………………………………… 175 vii LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS, CONTINUED Figure Page 4.5 Pfizer’s 2014 Sales from Internally Developed, Acquired, and Joint Venture Created Drugs based on the Year of Approval/Acquisition………. 178 4.6 Pfizer’s Intangible Assets as a Percentage of Total Assets……………………… 182 4.7 Pfizer’s Total Assets, Total Liabilities, and Net Tangible Assets, 1995- 2014…………………………………………………………………………………………………… 186 A.1 The Drug Development Process and Percent of Funds Allocated to Each Stage…………………………………………………………………………………………………... 201 viii LIST OF TABLES Table Page 2.1 Definitions of Goodwill, Lord Eldon to John Commons…………………………. 39 2.2 Real Dividend Per Share for Standard and Poor 500 Firms, 2003-2008… 68 2.3 After Tax Corporate Profits, 2003-2014, Billions of Dollars………………….. 70 3.1 Drugs Having At Least Two Orphan Drug Designations With Over $100 Million Sales………………………………………………………………………………………. 96 3.2 Pharmaceutical Industry Value of Shipments and Value of Inventories (Millions of Dollars, Seasonally Adjusted), 1992-2014…………………………. 104 3.3 Industrial Concentration Based On The Number of Companies; Concentration Ratio 4, 8, 20, and 50; and Herfindahl-Hirschman Index… 107 3.4 Largest Pharmaceutical Companies, Globally………………………………………. 120 3.5 Core of the Pharmaceutical Industry, 2014………………………………………….. 123 3.6 Pharmaceutical Industry Core, 1993-2014…………………………………………... 126 3.7 Summary Statistics for Pharmaceutical Core, 1993-2014……………………... 130 3.8 Average Core Company Profit Rates, 1993-2014………………………………….. 131 3.9 Yearly Profit Averages for the Pharmaceutical Core, 1993-2014…………... 132 4.1 Pfizer’s Acquisitions and Divestitures, 1985-2014……………………………….. 156 4.2 Pfizer’s Acquisitions and Divestments by Type, 1985-2014………………….. 158 4.3 Pfizer’s Revenues, R&D Expenses, Overhead, and Net Income, 1995- 2014 (Millions of Dollars)…………………………………………………………………… 174 4.4 Pfizer’s 2014 Sales From Internally Developed, Acquired, and Joint- Venture Created Drugs based on Year of Approval/Acquisition (Millions of Dollars)………………………………………………………………………………………….. 177 4.5 Pfizer’s Intangible Assets as a Percentage of Total Assets……………………... 181 ix LIST OF TABLES, CONTINUED Table Page 4.6 Pfizer’s Total Assets, Total Liabilities, and Net Tangible Assets, 1995- 2014 (Millions of Dollars)………………………………………………….......................... 185 B.1 Pfizer’s 2014 Drugs Grossing Over $100 Million in Sales……………………… 204 x ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS There are two individuals who have aided me greatly in the completion of this work: Marc-Andre Gagnon, whose expertise on the pharmaceutical industry and willingness to share ideas and data were invaluable; and Erik Dean, whose understanding of the business enterprise and comments on early drafts of this dissertation greatly helped me get my thoughts in order. Fadhel Kaboub and Ted Burczak deserve special mention. Fadhel and Ted were mentors of mine at Denison University and were the first to introduce me to heterodox economics. I wish to thank me for introducing me to the discipline, providing my initial training, and sending me off to the University of Missouri – Kansas City, where I