Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Does M&A Matter for R&D? Evidence from the Pharmaceutical Sector in India

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Technology

Part of the book series: India Studies in Business and Economics ((ISBE))

Abstract

It is widely accepted that technological expertise, market know-how, tacit knowledge and quick innovation are crucial corporate assets for facing increased competition. Mergers and acquisitions [M&A] has become a means for firms to acquire, absorb and exploit the knowledge assets of target firm. The present study investigates the relationship between M&A and innovation activities of pharmaceutical firms (post-M&A R&D intensity) for three post acquisition years and for average of three years. To analyze the impact, appropriate acquirer’s characteristics have been drawn from learning and innovation theory and financial economics theory. The findings of the paper suggest that acquisitions per se have a mixed impact on R&D intensity of firms in immediate post-acquisition years. Financial factors captured by leverage also appear to influence adversely the R&D intensity of acquiring firms. While technology imports through embodied capital goods boost acquiring firms’ R&D intensity, imports of disembodied technology lowers the need for R&D expenditure. Relatedness of target and acquiring firms and cross-border M&A, however, enhances R&D intensity in post-M&A period. This could imply that mergers and acquisitions of firms, if carried out in similar line of business, could boost innovative efforts in this industry in India.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Ranbaxy Ltd. is the firm which does not fall under common support system and we removed all its observation for 8 years.

References

  • Ahuja, G., & Katila, R. (2001). Technological acquisitions and the innovation performance of acquiring firms: A longitudinal study. Strategic Management Journal, 22(3), 197–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anand, J., & Singh, H. (1997). Asset redeployment, acquisitions, and corporate strategy in declining industries. Strategic Management Journal, 18(Special Issue), 99–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barkema, H. G., & Vermeulen, F. (1998). International expansion through start-up or acquisition: A learning perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 41(1), 7–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bertrand, O. (2009). Effect of foreign acquisition on R&D activity: Evidence from firm level data of France. Research Policy, 38(6), 1021–1031.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bertrand, O., & Zuniga, P. (2006). R&D and M&A: Are cross-border M&As different? An investigation of OECD countries. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 24(2), 401–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cantwell, J., & Santangelo, G. (2002). M&As and the global strategies of TNCs. The Developing Economies, 40, 400–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Capron, L., & Mitchell, W. (1998). Bilateral resource redeployment and capabilities improvement following horizontal acquisitions. Industrial and Corporate Change, 7(3), 453–484.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cassiman, B., Colombo, M., Garonne, P., & Veugelers, R. (2005). The impact of M&A on the R&D process—An empirical analysis of the role of technological and market relatedness. Research Policy, 34(2), 195–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chakrabarti, A., Hauschildt, J., & Suverkrup, C. (1994). Does it pay to acquire technological firms? R&D Management, 24(1), 47–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cloodt, M., Hagedoorn, J., & Van Kranenburg, H. (2006). Mergers and acquisitions: Their effect on the innovative performance of companies in high-tech industries. Research Policy, 35(5), 642–654.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1989). Innovation and learning: The two faces of R&D. The Economic Journal, 99(397), 569–596.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dalton, D. H., & Serpio, M. G. (1999). Globalizing industrial research and development. Washington DC, U.S.: Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Policy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Danzon, P. M., Epstein, A., & Nicholson, S. (2007). Mergers and acquisitions in the pharmaceutical and biotech industries. Managerial and Decision Economics, 28(4–5), 307–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dehejia, R. H., & Wahba, S. (2002). Propensity score matching methods for non-experimental causal studies. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 84(1), 151–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Desyllas, P., & Hughes, A. (2010). Do high technology acquirers become more innovative? Research Policy, 39(8), 1105–1121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ernst, H., & Vitt, J. (2000). The influence of corporate acquisitions on the behaviour of key inventors. R&D Management, 30(2), 105–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gantumur, T., & Stephan, A. (2007). Mergers & acquisitions and innovation performance in the telecommunications equipment industry. Electronic Working Paper Series, CESIS, No. 111.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gugler, K., Mueller, D. C., Yurtoglu, B. B., & Zulehner, C. (2003). The effects of mergers: An international comparison. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 21(5), 625–653.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hagedoorn, J., & Duysters, G. (2002). The effect of mergers and acquisitions on the technological performance of companies in a high-tech environment. Technology Analysis Strategic Management, 14(1), 67–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, B. H. (1990). The impact of corporate restructuring on industrial research and development. Special issue on Microeconomics: Brookings Papers on Economic Activity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haspeslagh, P. C., & Jemison, D. B. (1991). Managing acquisitions: creating value through corporate renewal. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Healy, P. M., Palepu, K. G., & Ruback, R. S. (1992). Does corporate performance improve after mergers? Journal of Financial Economics, 31(2), 135–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heckman, J., Ichimura, H., & Todd, P. (1997). Matching as an econometric evaluation estimator: Evidence from evaluating a job training programme. Review of Economic Studies, 64(4), 605–654.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, R., & Cockburn, I. (1996). Scale, scope and spillovers: The determinants of research productivity in drug discovery. Rand Journal of Economics, 27(1), 32–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hennart, J. F., & Park, Y. R. (1993). Greenfield vs. acquisitions: The strategies of Japanese investors in United States. Management Science, 39, 1054–1070.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirano, K., Imbens, G. W., & Ridder, G. (2003). Efficient estimation of average treatment effects using the estimated propensity score. Econometrica, 71(4), 1161–1189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hitt, M., Hoskisson, R., Ireland, R. D., & Harrison, J. (1991). Are acquisitions: A poison pill for innovation? Academy of Management Journal, 34(3), 693–706.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hitt, M., Hoskisson, R., Johnson, R. A., & Moesel, D. D. (1996). The market for corporate control and firm innovation. Academy of Management Journal, 39(5), 1084–1119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huber, G. P. (1991). Organization learning: The contribution processes and the literatures. Organization Science, 2(1), 88–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, M. C. (1986). Agency costs of free cash flow, corporate finance and takeovers. American Economic Review, 76(2), 323–329.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1992). Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organization Science, 3(3), 383–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Makadok, R. (2001). Towarda synthesis of the resource-based and dynamic-capability views of rent creation. Strategic Management Journal, 22(5), 387–401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markides, C. M., & Ittner, C. D. (1994). Shareholder benefits from corporate international diversification: Evidence from US International Acquisitions. Journal of International Business Studies, 25(2), 343–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, R., & Alvarez, I. (2009). Technological effects of M&As in Spanish manufacturing. Industrial and Corporate Change, 18(4), 761–784.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, R. B. (1990). Do merger and acquisitions hurt R&D? Research Technology Management, 11–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Myers, S. C., & Maljuf, N. S. (1984). Corporate financing and investment decisions when firms have information that investors do not have. Journal of Financial Economics, 13(2), 187–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Narayanan, K. (1998). Technology acquisition, de-regulation and competitiveness: A study of Indian automobile industry. Research Policy, 27(2), 215–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ornaghi, C. (2009). Mergers and innovation in big pharma. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 27(1), 70–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prabhu, J. C., Chandy, R. K., & Ellis, M. (2005). The impact of acquisitions on innovation: Poison pill, placebo, or tonic? Journal of Marketing, 69(1), 114–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ranft, A. L., & Lord, M. D. (2002). Acquiringnewtechnologies and capabilities: A grounded model of acquisition implementation. Organization Science, 13(4), 420–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ravenscraft, D. J., & Scherer, F. M. (1987). Mergers. Brookings Institution, Washington: Sell-offs and Economic Efficiency.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenbaum, P. R., & Rubin, D. B. (1983). The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika, 70(1), 41–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, C. L., & Warner, J. B. (1979). Bankruptcy, secured debt, and optimal capital structure: A comment. Journal of Finance, 34(1), 247–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D., Pisano, G. P., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vermeulen, F., & Barkema, H. (2001). Learning through acquisitions. Academy of Management Journal, 44(3), 457–476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Veugelers, R. (2008). Literature review in mergers & acquisitions. . In B. Cassiman & M. G. Colombo (Eds.), The innovation impact. New York, USA: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, M. (2011). Acquisition as a means for external technology sourcing: Complementary, substitutive or both? Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 28, 283–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

An earlier version of this paper was presented in the 9th Annual Conference of the Knowledge Forum held during October 2014. The authors are grateful to Professors Siddharthan and Goldar for their valuable feedback. The comment and suggestions received from other participants are also highly appreciated. The error(s) that remain are our own.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. IILM Institute of Business and Management, Gurgaon, India

    Vidhisha Vyas

  2. Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, IIT, Bombay, India

    K. Narayanan

Authors
  1. Vidhisha Vyas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. K. Narayanan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vidhisha Vyas .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Madras School of Economics , Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India

    N.S. Siddharthan

  2. Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India

    K. Narayanan

Appendices

Appendix A

See Table 3.

Table 3 Logit regression for estimating the propensity score of acquisition (Dependent Variable = Acquisition t)
Full size table

Appendix B

Reduction of mean bias after matching

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer Science+Business Media Singapore

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Vyas, V., Narayanan, K. (2016). Does M&A Matter for R&D? Evidence from the Pharmaceutical Sector in India. In: Siddharthan, N., Narayanan, K. (eds) Technology. India Studies in Business and Economics. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-1684-4_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation