Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
154
Chapter-IV
4.1. Introduction
In the preceding chapter an endeavour was made to discuss the
overview of TRIPs and Indian Patent Act, 1970 with special reference to
For the purpose of analysis and testing of the hypothesis, the above
periods i.e. Pre TRIPs Period and Post TRIPs Period. The Pre TRIPs
1998-99, when India started amendments in its Patent Act, 1970 towards
industry was governed by the Indian Patent Act, 1970 which recognized
process patent only, and term of patent was 7 years from date of
Impact Assessment of TRIPs on Indian Pharmaceutical Industry
application of patent and 5 years from date of grant of patent. The Post
During this period the Indian Government fully implemented the TRIPs
156
Impact Assessment of TRIPs on Indian Pharmaceutical Industry
tables contain total amount, index number, (1991-92 as base year) and
growth rate.
production. The index number (1991-92 as base year) which was 100 in
From table 4.1 and figure 4.1, it becomes crystal clear that the
increase during 1992-93 with a growth rate of 25.44 percent and reached
a level of Rs. 71,500 million. Index number has also turn up at 125.44
From 1993-94 to 2001-02 the growth rate of pharma production has been
gradually increased. During this period growth rate has been increased
from 14.96 to 15.97 percent. From 2002-03 to 2003-04 growth rate shows
a decreasing trend, the growth rate which was 15.97 percent in 2001-02
157
w- ^
u •«
•J-' l/l
H-" -Ts
•2
H^
^^
cs f-
g c/^ a
Vi 1 3
S<3 K
ffi' ^D OS
00 CO NO OS <N NO I N r H CM C3N r-< o NO r" SO
5 1
in
ON OS
in
00 00 00 cys O N O N I N CO S O I N i n CTS I N 00
i n i n i n i n i n i n liS i n rH I N IN
g^
Q ^
fN T-< r H r-t iri
r H r H T-< r-i r H r H r-( T - H r H CO T H r H t o CM
o «
c K_
1? Q
O
•5 -H
ui^ O
u
V. Vi
O <4i Wl
I •t^ -<
ID
O
O
o rH •5l< in NO Tt* t X NO CO I N •>* Cv) i n r H t-" wi
o ^ tN 00 o • * C^ ( N i n NO 0 0 • ^ ON OS r- "S.
u
zX o in
r H CN ^
in
NO
c^i
ON
CNJ tN 00 NO r H i n 0 0 r H
CM i n o\ T } < O so CO CvJ
0 0 NO
rH • ^
,<il
^ 3
rH rH rH r-i CM CM r-4 CO • t * * •* i n S O IN ON
ts u
w
a^ D
I Z HH
ON
ON |5
"U ^
JS CK
^ g
en ^ Q
z C^;^
0 HH
H •~cq
u
u D
• T ^
s £•
^ ^ w N:
CD ^ d *** "^ a
<s
l-l l-^
O O O O o o O o
IN ON |9
U Z O O o o NO o o CO o rH o o CM O \6 00 ON
c so
1—1 HH
O
O
in
O
in
rH
O CO
fN i n OS
CM
00 OS O
0 0 r H CM
NO OS o
CM SO
r-< r H
CO
00
ON CM
r H CM
rH
00 i n I N
(N 00 O
so O i n
CJs O
o
CM CO CO o i n
CO
>*
rH iin
rH i n i n
SO
CM
CO
tN so
SO rH
fO
W
1
kO
^
H-4
<u
in CM
•^ S)
oSX'-H
o^ ^
?
< HJ
O
IS <u <^)
o
C
<: z
K !=-
CH o
o i-J NO
•n H< o
o
^. ^. K~ CM
u o HJ 5U
~ N *-•
-a
o
H
;-(
01
SJ S Sr
•:=:'= C^
?
!3 o
o
CQ .O O
UJ
u
<
bC
n
"^ 5 -v V
~ SJ - ^ &<t
CD C^l CD ^ i n SC t N 0 0 ON O
0^ ON 0^ ON OS ON ON ON O
rH
O
CM CO
O
•«*
o o o o
in sO
< m n C S-0 s o
1
rH
1
CD
1 1 1
i n SO
1 1 1
00 OS O
1 1
rH 1 1 1 1 Q tu
u 5
ON ON ON ON ON ON ON ON ON o O o CO
CM o o ion 01 CD V4
<
ON ON
TH rH
ON ON OS ON ON OS ON o o o
r H r H r H r H T-t r H r-t CM CM CM o o o
CM CM CM
bC
<TJ
s u
CH u •5
> ^
> b c C
< u Q '^ S
B
c/5 ^ >iL
3 1
•o 0.1
s
I
3
O
U
(0
(0
I
o
3
I I
Q.
O
S
^
3
O
ma u«ipu| uoiiiiM
o
ON
ON ON 00
X o
o in
(N 00
in
O
Z
Z
O us
q
H S
U tn
us B
D ?! -a
0
O (A x>
05
"s:
OH Ci
CD ?1 us" C
o U rC
l-H
o •5:
a
x;
us
•*-i
c
uzo o o
o o
o o
CO
o OO o CD
^rJ
C/S
•4^
CI ^
-a
H z o in in ON 00
so CM cn
D in ON
o Csl
CNl
o 0
00
w 00
Uo
<
I—I
'—1
•5
<: z -=!,' ^
in
0
0
^' l \
^ cu «u ON H - i
N N 1
£ VO c
•——t -^ UN
0
<i; u. V i. C3N
0
in
k,
<S) <i) r^ (n
H U. Us
-« ~C1 i~
^
l/S
0
^
o "« "ci c^
H i-s;
,Si ^
ij lo
l_t
•---I
en " ^
,r-
c
ijj
^
Q) f>a
<>^
r
CO U
U
>*- ^
O •ts
^
0 O' iX)
CD C4 CD in
< 4-1
ii.
^ r'' C
0\ ON ON ON c
1/5 U1
u
< I ch I
fS OS -"^ 0) u < 0 c5
OS ON ON ON 0)
ON OS ^1
1.)
> s^ • • • •
> o
< u l ^
VO
OKOli.
o
•c
«
<H9»V\
M
a
a. 008921.
£
s
3
•OoT
OZMO^
13 e
I?
0C9M
3
o
o
(0 3
I
s
o
o
3 s
1
a.
decreasing trend in growth rate during this period may be due to the
percent, during this year production reached at Rs. 550,000 million. The
index number also touched the highest of 946.91 in the year 2005-06.
From the table 4.1, it is discernible that during the period 1991-92 to
with maximum growth rate of 31.71 percent for the referred period.
were 4.86 and 27.76 respectively during the period under review.
162
Impact Assessment of TRIPs on Indian Pharmaceutical Industry
Table 4.2 and figure 4.2 present the Pre TRIPs period details with
starting from 1991-92 to 1998-99. The data presented in table 4.2 shows
The index number (1991-92 as base year) which was 100 in 1991-92
From table 4.2 and figure 4.2, it is clear that total pharmaceutical
production during the period under review has been increased with a
and reached a level of Rs. 71,500 million. Index number has also turn up
163
Impact Assessment of TRIPs on Indian Pharmaceutical Industry
It is clear from the table 4.2, that average production during Pre
TRIPs Period was amounts to Rs. 107,333.8 million with a 16.97 percent
170,260 million was in 1998-99 and maximum growth rate 25.44 percent
and CV of growth rate were 3.76 and 22.15 percent respectively during
the help of table 4.3 and figure 4.3, shows that pharmaceutical
164
^o ^
"'—'
X
M
(N ^ C^ r H CM ON r H ' * «s
ON ON ON I>< CO NO IN. O CO CO
Eq
^
^ LO uS uS irS LO LO r H 00 i n rH o
VO CO
r H r - t t—1 r H r H r-* CO r-t r H CO CO
o
CS5
O
o
VO CO tr^ ""^ <N i n r-<
zX (N l O
vO r-i uS
NO 0 0 "^ ON
00 r H 00
ON
NO
O NO CO CN| T—1 "^
u
D
•<:t<
CO •>* • ^ i n NO l>N ON
Z
1—1
z
o
HH
H
U
D
D ^
g^
&H Z
CD < ;
i-i •-•
<B O O o o o o O •
ON
O o
NO
uz IN. ir^
CO oo
CO
rj<
^
T-t
rH
o O «^
fS 00 o O
IN o
CO o
rH
r-l
CM
NO
in
in
gZ t ^ 00
ON
IT)
( N NO o
t^ "^^ O N o S
LO O in o
IN o
ON i n
O
TH
NO
CO
|v^
TH
rsl (N CO CO i n CO rH m CM
go r-i "^
to rH
^
<i: 2 HJ
< Z
X ^
CH
hJ
<:
H
o
H
<^ s
01
bc
<
(X> O TH <N CO rl< l O NO
< n n
O O O o o o o
1
< o r-i 1 1 1 1 X
D
o O o ^ <
o o
ON CNj oCO o 0) C/)
ON O in
o cs o o o U
CM C^4
§ CH
>
1
%
S S iQ 8 M e
flO
Q.
o
1
1
i
e
10 O
3 O
1i
•D <S
s
10
t
c
o
i
e
I
O
? .a
3
I s
0.
• d U9|PU| UOIIIIM
Impact Assessment of TRIPs on Indian Pharmaceutical Industry
From table 4.3 and figure 4.3, it is clear that growth rate of
turn down a level of 15.32 percent. This decreasing trend in growth rate
percent, during this year production reached at Rs. 550,000 million. The
index number also touched the highest of 946.91 in the year 2005-06.
The major cause for this surprising growth was increase in production
2005.
It is clear from the Table 4.3 that average production during Post
167
Impact Assessment of TRIPs on Indian Pharmaceutical Industry
growth rate were 6.03 and 33.44 percent respectively during the period
under review.
period shows that Post TRIPs period has Average, Combined Annual
Growth Rate (CAGR) and AAGR higher than of the Pre TRIPs period. It
growth rate in Post TRIPs period compare to the Pre TRIPs period.
period is less than to 33.44 percent in Post TRIPs period shows that Pre
of the study:
168
Impact Assessment of TRIPs on Indian Pharmaceutical Industry
keeping in view that there are two periods, i.e. Pre TRIPs (Pre-
1 for the first year in the series, 2 for the second year, 3 for the third
year, and so forth until the last year in the series. X2 (intervention) is a
169
Impact Assessment of TRIPs on Indian Pharmaceutical Industry
Table 4.4
Production in Post
Time Dummy
Years Million Intervention
Xi
Indian Rs. X3
1991-92 57,000 1 0 0
1992-93 71,500 2 0 0
1993-94 82,200 3 0 0
1994-95 94,530 4 0 0
1995-96 109,470 5 0 0
1996-97 126,800 6 0 0
1997-98 146,910 7 0 0
1998-99 170,260 8 0 0
1999-00 197,370 9 1 1
2000-01 228,870 10 1 2
2001-02 265,430 11 1 3
2002-03 307,140 12 1 4
2003-04 354,210 13 1 5
2004-05 409,800 14 1 6
2005-06 550,000 15 1 7
Source: Same as table 4.1
170
Impact Assessment of TRIPs on Indian Pharmaceutical Industry
three coefficients — pi, ^2 and ^3. The constant a, estimates the intercept
pharmaceutical industry.
table emerges:
Table 4.5
Model Summary
Standard
Adjusted R
R R Square Error of the
Square
Estimate
171
Impact Assessment of TRIPs on Indian Pharmaceutical Industry
It has been seen that from the model summary ( Table 4.5) the
percent. This implies that there are a few other micro and macro
Table 4.6
Coefficients
Standardized
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Coefficients t Sig.
P
B Std. Error Beta
a
36693.929 19319.513 - 1.899 .084
(Constant)
Xi
15697.738 3825.834 .493 4.103 .002
(Time)
172
Impact Assessment of TRIPs on Indian Pharmaceutical Industry
The t- static of the time i.e. 4.103, is significant at 0.2 percent level
level of significance; i.e. far beyond the level of significance. But in case
173
Impact Assessment of TRIPs on Indian Pharmaceutical Industry
order to cater to the testing requirements and to find out clear trends in
From table 4.7 and figure 4.4, it becomes crystal clear that growth
rate of pharmaceutical export during the period under review has been
during 1995-96 with a growth rate of 45.46 percent and reached a level
of Rs. 31,777 million. Index number has also turn at 248.05 point
174
Impact Assessment of TRIPs on Indian Pharmaceutical Industry
generic version of patented drugs from other countries like India. From
export again declined, growth rate which was 20.99 in 2001-02 declined
during the same year. The major cause for this high growth of
175
Impact Assessment of TRIPs on Indian Pharmaceutical Industry
Table 4.8 with figure 4.5 present the Pre TRIPs period details with
starting from 1991-92 to 1998-99. The data presented in table 4.8 shows
From table 4.8 and figure 4.5, it is clear that the pharmaceutical
export during the period under review has been increased with an
percent and reached a level of Rs. 31,777 million. Index number has also
176
£
ffi CO T—1 • * ^ t^ • * in -* ON OS ON I N so r-l 0 0 NO 90
>o CO CO O rH CO NO
ON ON
^ t^ O ON
o in in
o in 00
•^
O o< O^ NO o^ 00 IN
•M CvJ <N • ^ <N ( N T-H rH rj rH rH r-i CN CM T-l Tj< to
O
O
v£)
O
olA)
o
o
Z 00 in CO i n (N Tl* in in Cs| NO rH rH 00
o
CM X O CO rH 00 00 in 0 0 0 0
o o in o • *
rH rH CN
o D o O
T-l CO
o 00 00
rH
rH
O CO rH O 00
1—1
T-H rH CO in rH
O N rH CO so
i - i rH
Z
l-H
0^
r-t
(T^
(?N
T-i
•"•"^
^ 0
30
(A ei i<
;) ^
T3 H 6
T i 1/5
c cO^
HH s> D
^H CH ^ u
4->
CD « 1'^u
X
•-J 2 Hi-l
u ct w
rt U S fi)
»•—» -n
C!
4 ^
o o SO IN NO .^ 'J^
T—1 CO CO 00 in in rH OS rH 00 «
rH orH rH r-i rH
CO CM 0 0 o< rH es in a
Sz 00
(N
T-H rH
00
rH
00
rH
<N CO
o
^
ON
in
0 0 CM
CSJ
in i n vO 0 0 OOSN
00
O N CO
NO
NO rH
in
rH
0 0 «2
CO CM i n
NO rH rH
00
in in Csj
in 0
rH 0 0 CM e c:
(4
^2 rH (N CN| NO
-a
CI
^1
u
• ^H K •-) U1
L3 •—' ;^ c ••—H
too
«
^ 0^ ftj
V4H C-. Z K
O J ti- 3 0 1 - ^
U
^>H-> <; s •-c ^
H 0 G
O
M
g Si
0
S
.0
0)
(n
•T^
tu 0
v^
• V
^
U
01 •+-* -^ K
>H
> 1 3 C r
01
CQ
r-*
500 -Si
O bc
tn
< <5J
!—* »:^ 5
l/l
<
tS
1
to
C4 CO
1
^
1
in
in
0 ^ ON
1
VO
0^
1
t^
ON
1
00
ON
1
OS o
ON
1 o
rH Cs| CO
O
1 o
'* in SO
o 1 o 1
O O
i n
<
s ns D C en ex. ^^-\^5 Q <^
ti 4-*
01
J^ -V
0
u
<T> !Tv 0 ^ (T\ OS (Ts ON 00
OS O
1
OS o rHO
1 1 CO
UD
CJ V
OS OS o o o o 01 u •<
'i >u u u^) Q cS s
S Cs|
CT> ON O N <Tv O N (Tv <T\
rH r-{ rH rH rH rH rH o O o o o o bC
r-( rH «s CM f s | PNI CM CM rt PH
>* u
(U V.)
k-
> U • • •
< 0
^
%
—jj 1 I 1 t 1 1 1-
s
^
i^
:
— — 01^9991. s
««€n[_ s
C
Mcetrf R
8 £
T
e
99M6 S -J
^
MXS8'E e H I
02989 8
t2 f2
sues o
5b S
si-nsf
"8
€«Z0»
.2
t
is
D
S s
5
ttsjil, $
S
O
ffi CO r H ^ NO I N "^ i n O 00 ^ o ON
H 1
O CO O '* CO O ^-t
o o ^ rH CO
vO in 0 0 vd vd i n ifi rH
^> c5 CM oi
( N ( N <N r H CM• r - l c5 rf rH '^
r-i
^ ^
ON
I
o
GO
cm
u
CM
I o 00 in CO in CN ">* i n
ON o O o i n o ">* CO r H
ON X o
rH
O
rH
o< o 00 00
CO IN. -^t T-i
rH
O
NO
NO
r-^ r-< <N CO
D
T-H
"^ '^
O
1—1
en
H
H P^
0
0) p^ q
X
W m
^ •i-H
<u cn K B
bO
d z
r^ 5
C
U "-3
• IH 00 ^
r-< CO rJH t^ l>< CO vO 0 0 00 ON r H
D
rH 00 ^
^ uz
H5
T-i O rH
00 r H 00 0 "^ I N O N r H T-i
0 I N I N '^f I N
CN "^ t^ r-t r-> O r-( O N
r H rsi CO " S * * i n in
^
00
«
r-l
00
^^ r^
rH
IN
ON
CO 0 0 o
t^s •
t N VO ts
<a
<530 T-H T-H rH rH in I N i n C^l
CO rH .is
s:3
c=5 d
CH Z Vi ts
J !:i ^
<3 c
<j; ^
B H VI c
O v-1
o
o
-*^
H s >.
c;.
CI
•o
UH ^r-» o
V)
;>. VI VI
n
-9
'U i-j
^ -c
VJ
01
bC
o < ri "—t
^ c
•*-i
in e
S !9 9 1^ S » s lO C
ti'Zes
%
%
\
^
9l.»l'9 r^
\
\
s
I
c
1 »
x
-
I
lUVt
s
ID
\
\
%
•
s
^
tu t
1
i
% -
t
K
1
? UJ
n
1
t
-
i
£
t
Q.
0>
cot
t
s
00
1
•
I.I.8ZI. 1s
h H 1 H -1— —1
o
Table 4.8 presents that in Pre TRIPs period average export was
respectively.
the help of table 4.9 and figure 4.6, shows that pharmaceutical export
during this period has an upward increasing trend. The data presented
export grew more than 3 times during 1999-00 to 2005-06 and reached a
From table 4.9 and figure 4.6, it is clear that growth rate of
181
Impact Assessment of TRIPs on Indian Pharmaceutical Industry
which was 14.74 percent in 1999-00 has been gradually increased year
export reached at Rs. 215,789.6 million. The index number also touched
the highest of 1684.41 in year 2005-06. This surprising growth was due
setoff the losses from drugs patented elsewhere due to product patent
It is clear from the Table 4.9 that average production during Post
growth rate 29.36 was recorded in 2005-06. Further, other statistic such
182
£ NO i n NO
X "^ Ov ON ON CM NO 0 0 ^ VO CO CM 00
CM
&r* t^ O O ON <^ "^ CO r - l I N C O CM r H
^^ "^' (N O OS O N CM • < ! l ' O N« CO ON
1—1 CM o< vd
r-( T — 1 r H OJ r H CM NO CM
O o CM
o ^ CM
o ps;
o o
o
o o
CTs in (N 00 rH
in
ON Z 00 00 00
00 o
CM
X CO
r-i vd
t^ CO
rH
rH
o
CO vo
LO t^
T3
O
D CTs rH T-H rH
U Z
l-H
o
CO
H H
C!5
CO
O O q
CLi d^
0) X
W
-CO^ "S ^
CD » 6 CO
•d z XI U
f\ O
^ ff< Q
Q
w
o
ID
^
ID ^
CM CN (X) CO ^
CNI
rH
NO
ON
o O
0 0 0 0 CM CM
O N CO NO I N ON i n
d
SO r H r H VO
ON »
0 0 i n CM ON
I N 0 0 CO
1
^
-*-4
' 1
Vl
•y
•4^
ON in e •5S
CO 0 0 C7N T - l r-t NO r H CM 00 in in c5 d
u z rH
CM rH
v£> tH
CM i n
CM
• ^
•-"-i
-o CO
r—^
-c
S3 5
<3 c:
<ij
«=" u
•4-1
R. Z ^
C
HJ G . •S?
u < Q '§
H s K
O
0
H
"""^
•S
1 - ^
Q ^
C G
§
^ ^
(o Vi o
lie;
U
•4-a
<^
«^ O o
u 01
< s.1
o CD o TH <N CO ^ ID VO
< « «< 4-> "t3 c
sD
r*^
o o O
1
O O
1
O
1 o 6 -Si ^
u
CM in S, CK)-Si
< ON O1
0^ O O CO
o o o a is CD >-i
< S
as O
as Q
Ml 0)
r-l
CM o o o o o :s
CM CM <N CM CM It
> -•—-4
i; <iJ
i;
^
3
CQ s
o
CO • •
s
1
•2
¥
s
0.
4)
£
on
c 9
?
U4 11
9 .2
2
a.
D
•h u«|pu| uoiiiiM
Impact Assessment of TRIPs on Indian Pharmaceutical Industry
period shows that Post TRIPs period has an Average export more than
AAGR are higher in Pre TRIPs period compare to Post TRIPs period. It
TRIPs period is less than to 44.39 percent in Pre TRIPs period shows
that Post TRIPs has stable growth rate in comparison to Pre TRIPs
period.
185
Impact Assessment of TRIPs on Indian Pharmaceutical Industry
dummy variable is assumed keeping in view that there are two periods,
i.e. Pre TRIPs (Pre-Intervention) Period and the Post TRIPs (Post-
1 for the first year in the series, 2 for the second year, 3 for the third
year, and so forth until the last year in the series. X2 (intervention) is a
186
Impact Assessment of TRIPs on Indian Pharmaceutical Industry
Table 4.10
1991-92 12,811 1 0 0
1992-93 14,103 2 0 0
1993-94 17,814 3 0 0
1994-95 21,847 4 0 0
1995-96 31,777 5 0 0
1996-97 40,793 6 0 0
1997-98 51,416 7 0 0
1998-99 59,718 8 0 0
1999-00 68,520 9 1 1
2000-01 82,224 10 1 2
2001-02 99,485 11 1 3
2002-03 119,374 12 1 4
2003-04 143,242 13 1 5
2004-05 166,810 14 1 6
2005-06 215,789.6 15 1 7
Source: Same as table 4.7
187
Impact Assessment of TRIPs on Indian Pharmaceutical Industry
three coefficients — ^i, P2 and P3. The constant a , estimates the intercept
at time zero; Pi, estimates the annual change in Export before TRIPs
Table 4.11
Model Summary
Standard
Adjusted R
R R Square Error of the
Square
Estimate
.993 .986 .982 8361.1537
Source: Table 4.10
It has been seen that from the model summary (Table 4.11) the
means that whatever changes have happened in the total Export during
the period under review the time and invention variables (TRIPs
regime) are responsible up to 98.2 percent. This implies that there are a
very few other micro and macro economic factors which have indirectly
188
Impact Assessment of TRIPs on Indian Pharmaceutical Industry
From the table 4.12, the t- static of the time i.e. -.081, is significant
Intervention variable X3 i.e. for impact of TRIPs regime in long run the
Table 4.12
Cofficients
Unstandardized Standardized
Cofficients Cofficients
t Sig.
Std. Beta
B
Error P
a
-524.821 6514.958 - -.081 .937
(Constant)
Xi
7068.821 1290.154 .514 5.479 .000
(Time)
X2
-21639.1 8891.773 -.182 -2.434 .033
(Dummy)
X3
189
Impact Assessment of TRIPs on Indian Pharmaceutical Industry
On the other hand, under the TRIPs regime the export of Indian
regime growth.
190
Impact Assessment of TRIPs on Indian Pharmaceutical Industry
order to cater to the testing requirements and to find out clear trends in
in 1999-00. The index number (1991-92 as base year) which was 100 in
2005-06 and reached from a level of Rs. 8,073.8 to a level of Rs. 45,152.2
during the same period. Figure 4.7 shows upward increasing trend in
From table 5.13 and figure 4.7, it becomes crystal clear that the
191
Impact Assessment of TRIPs on Indian Pharmaceutical Industry
decrease in growth rate. There are many reasons for this slump in
instability at the centre and also the financial crisis in the Newly
01, registering an increase of 5.27 percent over the year. The succeeding
years starting from 2001-02 to 2002-03 went into positive growth in the
range of 17.61 percent to 43.18 percent. The major cause for this high
level of Rs. 45,152.2 with a growth rate of 42.46 percent. The index
192
2
rH CO r H 0 0 ON O N NO CO CO i n 0
t
00 in
in
?5 CO 0 0 CO NO r-l r H r H CO I N CN m
06 i r i I N CO CO I N c4 tN 0 0 NO
0 CN 0 00 06 0^
r-l rH rH 00 CO rH
0 1
Pi
O
v£)
O
1 o
IT)
O Z c^ 00 CM 0 0 T-< (N CM 0 0 • * m I N
CM i n '*
o
es X 0
0
00
0
'^ i n 00
a^ I X
t>.
CN
fN|
•<*rH
IN d
I N 00
0 IN
00
NO
i n CN
' i ' vO CNJ 0 ^
O w T-H ^ i n ON «N
in
in 00 0 rH
-* i n CO ON i n
4-1 Q •>*
rH rH r H CM CO CO CO CN) CS (N CO CO i n
ri 2
HH
r-l
a^
(T»
JH_
>,
en
3
•d H
B^
t—( c
^ i ^
o
p^
• ^
•FH
S1^
HH <2 0 ^
r-l •4->
0
•^
I' •-J Z s i<t o
(H 13
6u « J3 U
H 5z 00 0 0 CO CN
CO i r i
0 in
in
0
00
0
00
rH
tN
NO
rH
rH
CN|
CO i n
i n NO CO
CM
CNJ
in
00
CM tN
CN 00 00 u
Q
0
!>.
CO
00
\D
0 N D CS
00 rH
NO rH
r-l 0 0
NO NO ON
0 0 i n NO
in
rH CO 0
in d ON
CO
00
06 ^ w)
rH CO CN4 CNJ IN rH
< 0 00 1—1 rH
CM CO NO
rH rH
CM CM
ON r H
CN CO
in CM
CN
00
in § X u
(4 rH
• IH S
S »~>
l-l
•d
a to
VM &H Z
o •J
4-> <
= -
o H K: .00
a0
gH
H-t
01 o --<
en
•t-<
^
^
01 W Q
/H
^u
tJ .^
0
tn VO I N (fl 2
2 SN"^ ^
3^ 2t
en r4 en ^ QO O N 0 rH CM CO in NO
< « CQ -— 3 Qj
ON ON
1 1
ON ON ON 0 0 0 0 0 0
6 e ai
c^ CQ ~ Cs: c^
< r-l
1
CO I N 00
in
1 1
ON
ON 0
1 1
rH
1 1
CN CO
1 1
in
1
D
a^ ON ON ON O N ON ON ON
(Tv ON CT\ <7v ON ON O N o\
0
(Tv 0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0 0
0
0
<u
•F-t
CD »
V-(
< 5 o
rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH r H CN| cs CN CM CN CM w
rt % BH U
u >
> u 5
< U
^ Q CQ Q
o
to
s
(0
3
u
:p
3
«
u s
10 ¥
I
I
•s
$S 9 8
^
1 I
«
u
(0
(0
Q.
I
-Si
N T- ^
•8U UBIPUI UOIIIIIfy
-^
o^
^—^
ffi 00 in F5 O
O
O in CO i n
1 in CO O in I N CO
O CNJ O CJ rj5 NO
00 ON r4 c5
ON
I
o 00 rH 00
CO
GO
o
CM
I o
ON z o 00
00
"<:(^
in
00
00
rH
?1
ON X oT—1 o"<:t* "=t<
a< K
i n ON ?i iri K
i n 00
rH rH rH CO CO CO
-a D rsi
o
ii I—1
l-H
H
H C25
0
&^
X ^
W en
CT) K
bO
C d
r1 <2
3 u •-< •T3
D 00 00 CO f N
o in o o rH 0 0 in
o
CO i n i n
H
£- Sz
en
«5 o CO CO
CO
rH
in
00
in
o o
CO fNj (N
in 00
so oo
00
0 0 CO 0 0 ON ON i n
i n t N CM 0 0
r H CO orH
CO O N 0 0 CO
I'
CO
1—1 1—1 rH r^ •^ e^
o
rH
ON
3
u
CH Z
<3~
HJ il^
t3
<
H !^ ^
C! '—i
^ ^
0
H
s? w K
UH o 0
i. K
•aj tr? cn
0
Vi O
•43
Oi
d ^
01 ^) •--* *4^
bC
O < >> 3^
ri
CD <N ro
ON
»* i n ^ Ot>N 0as0
ON as
<Ti
0^ < <« 6 CQ
t 1 -a c
< r-l
ON
1
CM
0^
1 1
fO
1
Cs
1
in
ON
IN
1
00
0) 'S D (U
u »~—J
K
5(NO
ON
as a\ as CD u < a, ^' C g
ON ON
as as as as
r-l rH rH
rH
rH rH rH § u o •q;' Q
0) > U i^ ^
> U Q 3
tQ
< *-
r?
o • •
^
OS
I s s S S 9 S
08ZU i
S
£
Q. S
0)
€
0898Z
i I
c g
3 «
o -J
-a
(0 e
&
— 00
ra O)
Si 9
00
^ o
O M
•• S
E ^.^ >- o
• IH
« o>
Q.
.s -i
^
$
t
£ 0.
O Q.
?S
§.»-
E
3
i__J»
s
I
O
u
10
I -f 1 -
8-€Z08
s
o
I I I I I I i •d u«|pu| uoiiiiM
U-1
Impact Assessment of TRIPs on Indian Pharmaceutical Industry
in pharmaceutical sector.
growth rate were 30.25 and 177.5 percent respectively during the period
under review.
Table 4.14 with figure 4.8 present the Pre TRIPs period (from
period contains eight years starting from 1991-92 to 1998-99. The data
import. The index number (1991-92 as base year) which was 100 in 1991-
197
Impact Assessment of TRIPs on Indian Pharmaceutical Industry
import during the period under review has been increased with an
and reached a level of Rs. 11,373.8 million. Index number has also turn
percent.
Table 4.14 presents that in Pre TRIPs period average import was
198
Impact Assessment of TRIPs on Indian Pharmaceutical Industry
the help of table 4.15 and figure 4.9, show that pharmaceutical import
during this period has an upward increasing trend. The data presented
import grew more than 2.5 times during 1999-00 to 2005-06 and reached
from a level of Rs. 16,162.1 million to a level of Rs. 45,152.2 million. The
From the table 4.15 and figure 4.9, it is clear that growth rate of
199
Impact Assessment of TRIPs on Indian Pharmaceutical Industry
42.46 percent, during this year import reached at Rs. 45,152.2 million.
The index number also touched the highest of 559.24 during 2005-06.
1999-00 and maximum growth rate 43.18 was in 2002-03. Further, other
were 30.80 and 305.5 percent respectively during the period under
review.
200
0 0 CM CO
X CO 00 rH
CO 0 0
CO ON 00 O
CM
CO vD T-H 00 rH
00 0 0 CO in
LO IN CO CO IN (N O in
O
I
o d
rH
** o o
COCO
ID
O
o
o
o
I o
as
OS
ON
z 00
r-i
O O
ID I N
00 00
-^
(N
so oi
O^
in
in
X O in ON
in
C4 CO CO
D CO i n
o
• IH
)H
Z
<U
Pk
C^ H
H
iw
(A
O
O hi\
o ^
S en
• 1—t
:§
4-1 CD ^ 7:3
CO
bO u
(J
D in in 1 1
\X5
CM
CO
CO
CM rH rH CM
CNJ CO <N CM
o
in •
IN
v£)
•i-i
X
«i
u
m o o
T—1 in ON - i ^ •c
O
O O 00 i n NO in as rH o fO G VI
en
S ^§ r-l CM CO in 00 CM 0 0 00
i n CM CO r-i
w
-Ti
G
•4^
^^5
c CM
o CS "a
rH r
u <5 G
<u
trt^ O
c:
T3
P K CKl
u O
E H l^ c C
O s: o '—<
o
V. •—»»
G
H u. u
o
c r ^
UN
tfl
^
• l-(
^
t: VI O
c ^ U
3
I—( ^
<4-l
JJ
O 0) • ^ ."g
bC
< n >^ KC
^
c
O o O 4->
in
s c0) CT)
CD TH CO !U
o1 O1 <
o o1
O
1 1
O O B "a ^ O
rH
1
in Q u ^ CK>-£i
1 o
o O O CO
o o
o o
o
X
CD u < CL. C £
ON
ON r4 o O o CM n
01
Q o
rH CM PH O !0
u -^ ^
>
> u
ij iS Q
< u >.J
!^
o
l-O
• •
O
s s s ?
M
O
a.
«
3
I
o
3 to
_n o
o
as O C4
3 £
'6
if
c o>
« 2
'I
o &
o I-
a
E
3
3
O
o in
(0
i r29k9l
-Si
IS
_, 1 f 1 1 1 ^
a
o
to
period shows that Post TRIPs period has Average import more than to
Pre TRIPs period. Combined Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) and AAGR
are higher in Pre TRIPs period compare to Post TRIPs period. It means
Post TRIPs period is more than to Pre TRIPs period, it shows that Post
period.
of the study:
keeping in view that there are two periods, i.e. Pre TRIPs (Pre-
203
Impact Assessment of TRIPs on Indian Pharmaceutical Industry
1 for the first year in the series, 2 for the second year, 3 for the third
year, and so forth until the last year in the series. X2 (intervention) is a
204
Impact Assessment of TRIPs on Indian Pharmaceutical Industry
Table 4.16
1991-92 8,073.8 1 0 0
1992-93 11,373.8 2 0 0
1993-94 11,665.3 3 0 0
1994-95 13,687.2 4 0 0
1995-96 24,050 5 0 0
1996-97 26,055 6 0 0
1997-98 28,680 7 0 0
1998-99 31,280 8 0 0
1999-00 16,162.1 9 1 1
2000-01 17,014.6 10 1 2
2001-02 20,011 11 1 3
2002-03 28,652 12 1 4
2003-04 29,566.3 13 1 5
2004-05 31,693.5 14 1 6
2005-06 45,152.2 15 1 7
Source: Same as table 4.13
This interrupted time series model contains a constant a, and
three coefficients - pi, p2 and p3. The constant a , estimates the intercept
205
Impact Assessment of TRIPs on Indian Pharmaceutical Industry
emerges:
Table 4.17
Model Summary
Standard
Adjusted R
R R Square Error of the
Square
Estimate
It has been seen that from the model summary (Table 4.17) the
pharmaceutical import during the period under review the time and
This implies that there are a few other micro and macro economic
206
Impact Assessment of TRIPs on Indian Pharmaceutical Industry
Table 4.18
Cofficients
Unstandardized Standardized
Cofficients Cofficients
t Sig.
Std. Beta
6
Error P
a
3152.443 2283.130 - 1.381 .195
(Constant)
207
Impact Assessment of TRIPs on Indian Pharmaceutical Industry
Intervention variable X3 i.e. for impact of TRIPs regime in long run the
in short term.
industry in the short run. But, in the long run TRIPs Agreement has no
Expenditure
Researcher has tested the forth and last hypothesis regarding the R&D
Series model.
208
Impact Assessment of TRIPs on Indian Pharmaceutical Industry
27.5 times during 1991-92 to 2005-06 and touched a level of Rs. 21,924
From table 4.19 and figure 4.10, it becomes crystal clear that the
R&D expenditure during the period under review has been increased
209
Impact Assessment of TRIPs on Indian Pharmaceutical Industry
and reached a level of Rs. 125,071 million. Index number has also turn
the same year. From 1994-95 to 2001-02 the growth rate of R&D
Act, 2002 and Indian Patent Amendment Act, 2005 towards TRIPs
210
g
ffi in t^ oo >* t N vC in ^
^ IN.
00
oCNin
0 0 CO rH
CM vC
o\ rH
<N
O
CN|
\£)
IN
in
00
• ^
• * \C
OO CJN o inS ON CO
a\
^ ' 00 rH • ^ i n 00 00 CO in IN • ^ ^ CT^ d t< rH ON VC rH
T—1 CO rH rH r-i r-< rH CM r-i r-< in i n i n CO CN rH in »H v£>
O
o bJJ
I
in O
o
o
u
o
cn
CM CO
ON
I o
rH
in
zX
UJ o
IP 0i n0
o 0!>; IP
0 vd t v .
O
O
"1
CNj y^ i n O
rH C N fNj O
in IN
IP
CN CO • t f o tvl
rH
in
tv
o
in
o
•«*
r-H r H rH
in CN CO CV| CO 00 CO rH I N
D T-H rH <N| •^ •<*
in r H CN CN
<3
Z
l-H
en
n
u 11
XI
0)
u W
5:
^ ^2
Pt2 :S-^
^Z
D ^
PH Z o o o o o o o O O in
•1-1 O o O O O
o o o o in CN i n CN ON CN
T3 O in i n O
0 0 OS rH o 0in0 IN CO I N o
0 0 O N CN § ON ON 0 0 § I
rH rH CO CO NO rH CO 0 0 rH t N rH
CN
90 rH
rH
CN
in
CN CO
:3n
eS ^j
1 "-^
a;
o
c
fcz
o «,
.. o
I -S
a, Us O
. i^ a
X
if V) w)
D « ^ ^
0)
en
^^ I
c ta
bJC CQ ^ -g
<
en fM t^ • ^ i n ^ tN 0 0 ONrH
o CN CO ^ in vn « n
CTN (T> <T> ON ON ON O O O O <
C!S ON
o o o
< A
a^
<N cn
OS i T i
CT^ (Ts
4 in VO IN 0 0 (Tv Q
<Tv ON ON o> ON ON Q
ON ON ON ON ON ON
rH
O
O
CO
o o S o 01
CN in s sD
•l-H
U!)
0>
u
u •< 5 i: ^
o> o o
CN o o o bC
>^ r-l rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH CN) CN CN CN) c^ « % OH
u u CQ t-^tu
>
>
< »- •
o
%
3 8 9 S{ 8
(0
i
3
T>
C
73
u
v S
3
O
u
(0
g
XI
X
o
S
C9
•o
c
S
.1
o
!
iS
1 s
CA
o in in in
(ft z o
o 00 in O
O rH
in in
<N
00
(N CO CO
X T—1
r-l
in
H
w
D bJJ
O) Z
1-^
73
bO
D M («
n
5 5^^
in >
o oo
in
o o
o
o O O O
in
O
in o o O
rH O o CM n3
• 1-1
•M
00 O N o o 00 00 00 tN tN
00 •73
0 O T—1
rH in 00 rH
CD o
u
c
o
.2
'C
o
O ti (n
C H in
<
•i-t in
c
•—<
O I
g
-d O)
c <
bO
Q
P. en <* IT) 00 as < c
X 1 1
ON
1
ON
1
ON
1
( B B 0 0) o
as
in 00 X u
D w as as as
01
as bX) CD >-< <
01 QJ
rH rH rH rH U
PH u
on 01
>
3
O
>
< u
Impact Assessment of TRIPs on Indian Pharmaceutical Industry
Table 4.20 with figure 4.11 present the Pre TRIPs period details
This period contains eight years starting from 1991-92 to 1998-99. The
expenditure. The index number (1991-92 as base year) which was 100 in
1998-99 and reached from a level of Rs. 800 million to a level of Rs. 2,600
From table 4.20 and figure 4.11, it is clear that the total R&D
expenditure during the period under review has been increased with
percent and reached a level of Rs. 1,250 million. Index number has also
during the same year. In the succeeding years 1994-95 to 1998-99, R&D
215
Impact Assessment of TRIPs on Indian Pharmaceutical Industry
18.18 percent.
1993-94 and minimum growth rate was in 1998-99. The other statistics
the help of table 4.21 and figure 4.12 shows that R&D expenditure has
level of Rs. 3,200 million to a level of Rs. 21,924 million. The Combined
216
^o ^
O ^—'
I
ITi
O
X
f-H
(N (N t^ 00 • ^ vO ^ CT\ t N VO o IN
O
O ^ LO ' ^ 0 0 ON O IN ^ (Js 'sD CS
^ CO iri K ' ^ v£J o^ o \6 l O ON 0 ^ CO
(N r—1 1—1 LD LO LO CO CO r H lO rH lO
0
o
o
I o
13
O
U
0)
lO LO
(1H o O
LO LO
O
lO
CD
PH 2: o
(N
CO o o >
•—I • ^
^ 00 CO t>. bill nj
X in T—1
T—1
CN ( N ;H
H o
Q rt
Bns
w Z
HH
s X
Ti o
o JU en
in
<u <
O, m
• ^H
r.
X
tu CO M H
01 o
P c^ Xi >,
i ^S
G <
ns b
(T3 en
>
w S CO
CO
m HH
o O o O O o O
o o LO (N O CO
CO
«1
u w 2: CO
LO 00 ON rN| lO rH
CO CO • ^ •sD o CO CN t N ^ 01
DO T—1 r-t OJ
CTN
CN| >-l-l
o u
u :ei53 ^: J ^
c
o
0)
6
ci -l->
H
u CH
UH
ra
() O
;H o U
fe
0 2^
CD w "-kH
O
H < tn
C fT( CCl
CI J
VH
0)
11
IH
U1
01 ^
2 6
(IJ re x;
X ;3 U
0)
-t-l
n3
01 Q; b.) u
•T3 b£
"•^^
::! O
V-( tn
< o en
C/) o rH
O
fS CO 'tP lO ^ < nj 4-)
Pi g u <
ex
<
o
1 O
1 o o o o o
1 1 1 1 1
X
D c o
U
^
3
0)
w en o rH
O O CO
O O LO
o QJ C/) u <; CQ H
D o o o o o o
(N CN fN «N
bC
s >
u OJ
(.J
v-(
u
• •
> o
< u c/^
%
8 8 9 Si 8
1 —i 1 1 1
(-
?
>Z6»I
1
•
£
to
Q. i•a
c
09891'H
I
lU
Q
£ \
00
c
•c
3
o
\
\
%
I
%
<N
1 §
Z f^
(0 O
'"5 o t
t
2
t CD
t
r4
(0
9
Q.
C
(« 1
1
i
xl t
e
5
I oozeHH|
1
o
oO
&
X
Ul
o
1
1
1 I
—1 f 1 1
TifHBSIS
Impact Assessment of TRIPs on Indian Pharmaceutical Industry
From Table 4.21 and figure 4.12, it is clear that growth rate of
R&D expenditure during the period under review has been wavering.
30.04 percent. The major causes for this surprising growth in R&D
Amendment Act, 2002 and Indian Patent Amendment Act, 2005. These
219
Impact Assessment of TRIPs on Indian Pharmaceutical Industry
period shows that Post TRIPs period has Average, Combined Annual
Growth Rate (CAGR) and AAGR higher than of the Pre TRIPs period. It
(CV) of growth rate 35.62 percent in Pre TRIPs period is less than to
53.27 percent in Post TRIPs period shows that Pre TRIPs period has
industry."
220
Impact Assessment of TRIPs on Indian Pharmaceutical Industry
dummy variable is assumed keeping in view that there are two periods,
i.e. Pre TRIPs (Pre-Intervention) Period and the Post TRIPs (Post-
1 for the first year in the series, 2 for the second year, 3 for the third
year, and so forth until the last year in the series. X2 (intervention) is a
221
Impact Assessment of TRIPs on Indian Pharmaceutical Industry
Table 4.22
Application of Time, Dummy and Post-Intervention Variables in
Total R&D Expenditure of (1991-92 to 2005-06)
R&D Post
Expenditure in Time Dummy Intervention
Years
Million Indian Xi X2 Variable
Rs. X3
1991-92 800 1 0 0
1992-93 950 2 0 0
1993-94 1,250 3 0 0
1994-95 1,400 4 0 0
1995-96 1,600 5 0 0
1996-97 1,850 6 0 0
1997-98 2,200 7 0 0
1998-99 2,600 8 0 0
1999-00 3,200 9 1 1
2000-01 3,700 10 1 2
2001-02 4,350 11 1 3
2002-03 6,720 12 1 4
2003-04 10,540 13 1 5
2004-05 16,860 14 1 6
2005-06 21,924 15 1 7
222
Impact Assessment of TRIPs on Indian Pharmaceutical Industry
three coefficients — {3i, p2and p3. The constant a, estimates the intercept
at time zero; Pi, estimates the annual change in R&D Expenditure before
table emerges:
Table 4.23
Model Summary
Standard
Adjusted R
R R Square Error of the
Square
Estimate
.967 .935 .918 1816.0890
Source: Table 4.22
It has been seen that from the model summary (Table 4.23) the
22-
Impact Assessment of TRIPs on Indian Pharmaceutical Industry
percent. This implies that there are a few other micro and macro
Table 4.24
Cofficients
Unstandardized Standardized
Cofficients Cofficients
t Sig.
Std. Beta
B
Error P
a
466.286 1415.085 - .328 .749
(Constant)
Xi 248.214 280.229 .175 .886 .395
(Time)
X2 -5505.429 1931.342 -.449 -2.851 .016
(Dummy)
X3
(Post 2919.000 443.080 1.155 6.588 .000
Intervention)
Source: Table 4.22
From the table 4.24, the t- static of the time i.e. .886, is
Intervention variable X;^ i.e. for impact of TRIPs regime in long run the
224
Impact Assessment of TRIPs on Indian Pharmaceutical Industry
4.6. References:
225