Abstract
This article explores the relationships among mergers and acquisitions (M&A), consolidation, concentration and inventive activity in the agricultural biotechnology industry. We adapt testable hypotheses from the conceptual literature. We empirically test each hypothesis and interpret the results in terms of existing explanations of consolidation and the level of inventive activity, and antitrust policy. We find aggregate inventive activity to be related to M&A activity, but whether the effect is positive or negative is dependent on the type of M&A. Further, greater number of public sector firms in the research market, as well as increasing industry concentration, are both found to increase overall innovation.
References
Arora, A., and A. Gambardella. 1990. “Complementarity and External Linkages: The Strategies of the Large Firms in Biotechnology.” Journal of Industrial Economics 38: 361–79.10.2307/2098345Search in Google Scholar
Barton, J. 1998. “The Impact of Contemporary Patent Law on Plant Biotechnology Research.” In Intellectual Property Rights III Global Genetic Resources: Access and Property Righths, edited by S. A. Eberhart, H. L. Shands, W. Collins, R. L. Lower, 85–100. Madison, WI: Crop Science Society of America.10.2135/1998.intellectualpropertyrights.c8Search in Google Scholar
Brennan, M. F., C. E. Pray, and A. Courtmanche. 1999. “Impact on Industry Concentration on Innovation in the U.S. Plant Biotech Industry.” Presented at the Transition in Agro Biotechnology Conference, June 24–25, 1999, Washington, DC.Search in Google Scholar
Brennan, M., C. Pray, A. Naseem, and J. F. Oehmke. 2005. “An Innovation Market Approach to Analyzing Impacts of Mergers and Acquisitions in the Plant Biotechnology Industry.” AgBioforum 8: 89–99.Search in Google Scholar
Butler, L. J., and M. W. Marion. 1985. “Importance of Public Plant Breeders and Competition in the Seed Industry.” Journal of Agronomic Education 14: 11–15.10.2134/jae1985.0011Search in Google Scholar
Dasgupta, P., and J. Stiglitz. 1980. “Industrial Structure and the Nature of Innovative Activity.” Economic Journal 90: 266–93.10.2307/2231788Search in Google Scholar
David, P. A., B. H. Hall, and A. Toole. 1999. “Is Public R&D a Complement or Substitute for Private R&D? A Reveiw of the Econometric Evidence.” Working Paper. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.10.3386/w7373Search in Google Scholar
Dosi, G. 1988. “Sources, Procedures, and Microeconomic Effects of Innovation.” Journal of Economic Literature 26: 1120–71.10.4337/9781782541851.00008Search in Google Scholar
Farber, S. 1981. “Buyer Market Structure and R&D Effort: A Simultaneous Equations Model.” The Review of Economics and Statistics 63: 336–45.10.2307/1924350Search in Google Scholar
Fernandez-Cornejo, J., and R. E. Just. 2007. “Researchability of Modern Agricultural Input Markets and Growing Concentration.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 89: 1269–75.10.1111/j.1467-8276.2007.01095.xSearch in Google Scholar
Fuglie, K., P. Heisey, J. King, K. Day-Rubenstein, D. Schimmelpfennig, S. L. Wang, and R. Karmarkar-Deshmukh. 2011. “Research Investments and Market Structure in the Food Processing, Agricultural Input, and Biofuel Industries Worldwide.” Economic Research Report. Washington, DC: USDA-ERS.10.2139/ssrn.2027051Search in Google Scholar
Fuglie, K. O., and T. S. Walker. 2001. “Economic Incentives and Resource Allocation in U S Public and Private Plant Breeding.” Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 33: 459–73.10.1017/S1074070800020939Search in Google Scholar
Gilbert, R. 2006. “Looking for Mr. Schumpeter: Where Are We in the Competition-Innovation Debate?” In Innovation Policy and the Economy, Vol. 6, edited by A. Jaffe, J. Lerner, and S. Stern, 159–215. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.10.1086/ipe.6.25056183Search in Google Scholar
Graff, G. D., G. C. Rausser, and A. A. Small. 2003. “Agricultural Biotechnology’s Complementary Intellectual Assets.” Review of Economics and Statistics 85: 349–63.10.1162/003465303765299864Search in Google Scholar
Grossman, S. J., and O. D. Hart. 1986. “The Costs and Benefits of Ownership: A Theory of Vertical and Lateral Integration.” The Journal of Political Economy 94: 691–719.10.1086/261404Search in Google Scholar
Hausman, J., B. H. Hall, and Z. Griliches. 1984. “Econometric Models for Count Data with an Application to the Patents-R&D Relationship.” Econometrica 52: 909–38.10.3386/t0017Search in Google Scholar
Johnson, S. R., and T. A. Melkonyan. 2003. “Strategic Behavior and Consolidation in the Agricultural Biotechnology Industry.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 85: 216–33.10.1111/1467-8276.00114Search in Google Scholar
Jovanovic, B., and G. M. MacDonald. 1994. “The Life Cycle of a Competitive Industry.” Journal of Political Economy 102: 322–47.10.3386/w4441Search in Google Scholar
Kalaitzandonakes, N., and B. Bjornson. 1997. “Vertical and Horizontal Coordination in the Agro- Biotechnology Industry: Evidence and Implications.” Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 29: 129–39.10.1017/S1074070800029187Search in Google Scholar
Knott, A. M., and H. E. Posen. 2003. “Does Competition Increase Innovation? New Evidence from Old Industries.” Working paper Mack Center for Technological Innovation.Search in Google Scholar
Lee, T., and L. L. Wilde. 1980. “Market Structure and Innovation: A Reformulation.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 94: 429–36.10.2307/1884551Search in Google Scholar
Levin, R. C., W. M. Cohen, and D. C. Mowery. 1985. “R & D Appropriability, Opportunity, and Market Structure: New Evidence on Some Schumpeterian Hypotheses.” The American Economic Review 75: 20–24.Search in Google Scholar
Loury, G. C. 1979. “Market Structure and Innovation.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 93: 395–410.10.2307/1883165Search in Google Scholar
Marco, A. C., and G. C. Rausser. 2008. “The Role of Patent Rights in Mergers: Consolidation in Plant Biotechnology.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 90: 133–51.10.1111/j.1467-8276.2007.01046.xSearch in Google Scholar
Reinganum, J. F. 1989. “The Timing of Innovation: Research, Development, and Diffusion.” In Handbooks in Economics, no. 10, Volume 1, edited by R. Schmalensee, and R. D. Willig, 849–908. Amsterdam: North-Holland, distributed in the U.S. and Canada by Elsevier Science.10.1016/S1573-448X(89)01017-4Search in Google Scholar
Schenkelaars, P., H. de Vriend, and N. G. Kalaitzandonakes. 2011. “Drivers of Consolidation in the Seed Industry and Its Consequence for Innovation.”Search in Google Scholar
Scherer, F. M. 1965. “Corporate Inventive Output, Profits, and Growth.” Journal of Political Economy 73: 290–97.10.1086/259017Search in Google Scholar
Scherer, F. M. 1967. “Market Structure and the Employment of Scientists and Engineers.” The American Economic Review 57: 524–531.Search in Google Scholar
Schimmelpfennig, D. E., C. E. Pray, and M. F. Brennan. 2004. “The Impact of Seed Industry Concentration on Innovation: A Study of U.S. Biotech Market Leaders.” Agricultural Economics 30: 157–67.10.2139/ssrn.365600Search in Google Scholar
Schumpeter, J. A. 1950. Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. New York, NY: Harper and Row.Search in Google Scholar
Scott, J. T. 1987. “Firm versus Industry Variability in R&D Intensity.” In R&D, Patents, and Productivity in Z. Griliches, 233–248. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar
Shi, G., J.–P. Chavas, and K. Stiegert. 2010. “An Analysis of the Pricing of Traits in the US Corn Seed Market.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 92: 1324–38.10.1093/ajae/aaq063Search in Google Scholar
Spence, M. 1984. “Cost Reduction, Competition, and Industry Performance.” Econometrica 52: 101–21.10.1007/978-1-349-18058-5_16Search in Google Scholar
Syemeonidis, G. 1996. Innovation, Firm Size and Market Structure: Schumpeterian Hypotheses and Some New Themes. Paris, France: OECD Publishing.Search in Google Scholar
Teece, D. J. 1986. “Profiting From Technological Innovation: Implications for Integration, Collaboration, Licensing and Public Policy.” Research Policy 15: 285–305.10.1016/0048-7333(86)90027-2Search in Google Scholar
United States Department of Justice. 2007. Justice Department Requires Divestures in $1.5 Billion Merger of Monsanto and Delta and Pine Land. Washington, DC: Press Release. May 31, 2007.Search in Google Scholar
Wooldridge, J. M. 1997. “Quasi-Likelihood Methods for Count Data.” In Handbook of Applied Econometrics, Vol. 2, edited by H. Peseran and P. Schmidt, 352–406. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar
Wooldridge, J. M. 2002. Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar
©2016 by De Gruyter
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Non-Tariff Measures When Alternative Regulatory Tools Can Be Chosen
- Mergers and Acquisitions (M&As), Market Structure and Inventive Activity in the Agricultural Biotechnology Industry
- Measuring Bilateral Market Power in International Markets of Vertically Differentiated Agricultural Commodities
- Testing for Oligopsony Power in the US Green Skin Avocado Market
- Innovation in the Seed Market: The Role of IPRs and Commercialization Rules
- Modeling US Farmer Soybean Seed Choice with Path Dependencies: Inevitable Patented Seed Market Dominance?
- Partial Adherence to Voluntary Quality Standards for Experience Goods
- Investigating the Price Transmission Mechanisms of Greek Fresh Potatoes, Tomatoes and Cucumbers Markets
- Channel Concentration and Retail Prices: Evidence from the Traditional Cheese Market of Cyprus
- Price Dependence between Different Beef Cuts and Quality Grades: A Copula Approach at the Retail Level for the U.S. Beef Industry
- Factors Associated with Alcoholic Beverages Consumption in Russia: A Discrete Choice Model
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Non-Tariff Measures When Alternative Regulatory Tools Can Be Chosen
- Mergers and Acquisitions (M&As), Market Structure and Inventive Activity in the Agricultural Biotechnology Industry
- Measuring Bilateral Market Power in International Markets of Vertically Differentiated Agricultural Commodities
- Testing for Oligopsony Power in the US Green Skin Avocado Market
- Innovation in the Seed Market: The Role of IPRs and Commercialization Rules
- Modeling US Farmer Soybean Seed Choice with Path Dependencies: Inevitable Patented Seed Market Dominance?
- Partial Adherence to Voluntary Quality Standards for Experience Goods
- Investigating the Price Transmission Mechanisms of Greek Fresh Potatoes, Tomatoes and Cucumbers Markets
- Channel Concentration and Retail Prices: Evidence from the Traditional Cheese Market of Cyprus
- Price Dependence between Different Beef Cuts and Quality Grades: A Copula Approach at the Retail Level for the U.S. Beef Industry
- Factors Associated with Alcoholic Beverages Consumption in Russia: A Discrete Choice Model