Examining the Efficiency, Technical, and Productivity Changes of Indian Pharmaceutical Firms: A Malmquist -Meta Frontier Approach

  • Mainak Mazumdar
Part of the Contributions to Economics book series (CE)


This chapter examines the productivity changes and its various components like efficiency, technical and the production possibility ratio (PPR) change for Indian pharmaceutical firms. The analysis reveals that due to policy changes the sector has experienced technological change a considerable number of times. However, only few firms have benefited from such change leading to a rise in the distance between the frontier and inefficient firms. A cross comparison of productivity and its various components across various groups of firms revealed that firms investing heavily on R&D related activity have benefited from innovations. The analysis also indicates that R&D activities of firms do not reciprocate higher returns if it is done in small scale. We also find that increased export earnings are beneficial only when the right market is targeted.


Technical Change Technological Progress Productivity Change Production Frontier Efficiency Change 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Ahluwalia IJ (1991) Productivity growth in Indian manufacturing. Oxford University Press, DelhiGoogle Scholar
  2. Althin R (2001) Measurement of Productivity Changes: Two Malmquist Index Approaches. Journal of Productivity Analysis 16(2):107–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Balakrishnan P, Pushpangadan K (1994) TFPG in manufacturing industry: a fresh look. Economic and Political Weekly 30:2028–2032Google Scholar
  4. Balakrishnan P, Pushpangadan K, Suresh BM (2000) Trade liberalization and productivity growth 43 in manufacturing: evidence from firm-level panel data. Econ Pol Wkly 7:3679–3682.Google Scholar
  5. Balk BM (2001) Scale efficiency and productivity change. Journal of Productivity Analysis 15:159–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baltagi BH (2003) Econometric analysis of panel data, 3rd edn. WileyGoogle Scholar
  7. Banker RD, Natarajan R (2008) Evaluating contextual variables affecting productivity using data envelopment analysis. Operations Research 56:48–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Battese GE, Rao DSP (2002) Technology gap, efficiency and a stochastic metafrontier function. International Journal of Business and Economics 1:87–93Google Scholar
  9. Berg SA, Førsund FR, Jansen ES (1992) Malmquist indices of productivity growth during the deregulation of Norwegian banking 1980–89. Scandinavian Journal of Economics 94:211–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Breusch TS, Pagan AR (1980) The lagrange multiplier test and its applications to model specification in econometrics. Review of Econometrics 47:239–253Google Scholar
  11. Caves DW, Christensen LR, Diewert WE (1982) The economic theory of index numbers and the measurement of input, output, and productivity. Econometrica 50(6):1393–1414 (November)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Färe R, Grosskopf S, Lindgren B, Roos P (1989, 1994) Productivity developments in Swedish 242 hospitals; a malmquist output index approach. In: Charnes A, Cooper W, Lewin AY, Seiford L (eds) Data envelopment analysis: theory, methodology and applications. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 244 Boston, p 253–272Google Scholar
  13. Førsund F (1999) The malmquist productivity index, TFP and Scale. Memorandum No. 233, School of Economics and Commercial Law, University of Göteborg, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  14. Goldar B (1986) Productivity growth in Indian industry. Allied Publishers, DelhiGoogle Scholar
  15. González E, Gascón F (2004) Sources of productivity growth in the Spanish pharmaceutical industry (1994–2000). Research Policy 33(5):735–745CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Greer DF (1971) Advertising and market concentration. Southern Economic Journal 38:19–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Grosskopf S (1993) Efficiency and productivity. In: Fried HO, Lovell CAK, Schmidt SS (eds) The measurement of productive efficiency. Techniques and applications. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 160–194Google Scholar
  18. Grosskopf S (2003) Some remarks on productivity and its decompositions. Journal of Productivity Analysis 20:459–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hausman JA (1978) Specification tests in econometrics. Econometrica 46:1251–1271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Krishna P, Mitra D (1998) Trade Liberalisation, Market Discipline and Productivity Growth: New Evidence from India. Journal of Development Economics 56:447–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kumar N and N S Siddhartan (1994) Technology, firm size and export behaviour in developing countries: the case of Indian enterprises Journal of Development Studies 16(2) 13–38.Google Scholar
  22. Lall S (2000) ‘The Technological Structure and Performance of Developing Country Manufacturing Export s, 1985-1998” Queen Elizabeth House, University of Oxford Working paper series. Google Scholar
  23. Lovell CAK (1993) Production Frontier and Productive Efficiency. In: Fried HO, Lovell CAK, Schmidt SS (eds) The Measurement of Productive Efficiency-Techniques and Applications. Oxford University Press, London, pp 3–67Google Scholar
  24. Lovell CAK (2003) The Decomposition of Malmquist Productivity Indexes. Journal of Productivity Analysis 20:437–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mazumdar M, Rajeev M (2007) TRIPS Agreement and the Emerging In-house R & D Activity of the Indian Pharmaceutical Companies: A panel Data Analysis of the Firm Level Data. PES Business Review 3(1):3–23Google Scholar
  26. Malmquist S (1953) Index Numbers and Indifference Surfaces. Trabajos de Estadistica 4:209–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Manjappa DH, Mahesha M (2008) Measurement of Productivity Growth, Efficiency Change and Technical Progress of Selected Capital-Intensive and Labour-Intensive Industries during Reform Period in India. Indian Journal of Economics and Business 7(1):167–78Google Scholar
  28. Mathur, S (2007) Indian IT and ICT Industry: A Performance Analysis Using Data Envelopment Analysis and Malmquist Index, Global Economy Journal, 7(2), 2007, 1553–5304. Google Scholar
  29. Pradhan J P and P Sahu (2009), “Transnational of Indian Pharmaceutical SMEs” New Delhi: Bookwell Press.Google Scholar
  30. Raj N, R and S M Duraisamy, (2008) Efficiency and ProductivityError! Bookmark not defined. in the Indian Unorganized Manufacturing Sector: Did Reforms Matter? International Review of Economics, 55(4), pp. 373–99Google Scholar
  31. Ray SC (2002b) Did India’s economic reforms improve productivity and efficiency in 662 manufacturing? Indian Econ Rev 37(1):23–57.Google Scholar
  32. Ray SC (2004) Data Envelopment Analysis. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ray SC (1997) Regional Variation in Productivity Growth in Indian Manufacturing: A Nonparametric Analysis. Journal of Quantitative Economics 13(1):73–94Google Scholar
  34. Ray SC, Desli E (1997) Productivity Growth, Technical Progress and Efficiency Change in Industrialized Countries: Comment. American Economic Review 87(5):1033–39Google Scholar
  35. Siddharthan NS (2004) ‘Globalisation: Productivity. Efficiency and Growth, An Overview’ Economic and Political Weekly Vol XXXIX No 5:420–422Google Scholar
  36. Siddharthan NS, Lal K (2004) ‘Liberalization, MNE and Productivity of Indian Enterprises. Economic and Political Weekly Vol XXXIX No 5:441–448Google Scholar
  37. Singh SP, Agarwal S (2006) Total Factor Productivity Growth. Technical Progress and Efficiency Change in Sugar Industry of Uttar Pradesh Indian Economic Journal 54(2):59–82Google Scholar
  38. Srivastava V (2001) ‘The Impact of India’s Economic Reform on Industrial Productivity, Efficiency and Competitiveness’, Draft of the report submitted to the National Council of Applied Economic Research, New Delhi.Google Scholar
  39. Srivastava V (1996) Liberalization, Productivity and Competition: A Panel Study of Indian Manufacturing. Delhi, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  40. Tybout J (2003) Plant- and Firm-Level Evidence on 'New' Trade Theories. In: Harrigan J (ed) Handbook of International Trade. Basil-Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  41. Vinesh K (2002) Liberalisation, FDI and productivity spillover- an analysis of Indian 797 manufacturing firms. Oxford Econ Pap 54:668–718.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre De Sciences Humaines (CSH)New DelhiIndia

Personalised recommendations