)! b1=#.¬¬10回受賞論文(奨励賞).pdf · Finally, the big companies of scale tended to...

16
9(1785( 5(9,(: 1R 0DUFK T h e L o g i c o f L o n g - T e r m M a n a g e m e n t b y F a m i l y M a n a g e r A S t u d y o f S t r a t e g y C h a n g e s i n t h e P h a r m a c e u t i c a l I n d u s t r y ㈡ᏛᏛ㝔⤒῭Ꮫ◊✲⛉ ⸨㔝 ᮏ◊✲┠ࡢ➨ࠊࡣᡓ␎◊✲ ▱ࡢぢά⏝ࠊࡋ᪂་⸆せᴗ ࡅ࠾1970 2010 ᡓ␎ኚ᪘ 㢮ఝᛶㄪᰝศᯒ➨ࠋ ࡑࠊ⤖ࡢᯝ᪘ᴗ◊✲࠸࠾ぢ㐣ࡉࡈ ࡓࡁศᯒどゅᥦ♧➨ࠊࡣ㍺ࠊධ་⸆ရ᪘ⓗ ᡓ␎ᚿᛶᨭᏳᐃⓗ┈※ࡗ࡞ ࠋࡓ࠸ᾏእᴗᑐ᪥ᡓ␎ᙉ┈ᵓ㐀 Ᏻᐃ㍺ࡓࡋධᡓ␎㑅ᢥ ࡗ࡞ࡃࡋࠋࡓつᶍ࡞ࡁ㍺ࡣධ㍺ฟ 㐣⛬᪘㛵ࡍ↉⤊ࡀ ࠋࡓ㸸་⸆ရ⏘ᴗ⛣ࠊ㞀ቨ㍺ࠊධᡓ␎ ᪘ⓗᡓ␎ᚿᛶ$ E V W U D F W The purpose of this study is twofold. First, it is directed to a pharmaceutical industry, to analyze the relationship of the family management and strategy using the strategy group. Second, to point out the problem awareness analysis and viewing angle that has been overlooked in the family business research based on the analysis. Two become clear by this study. First, the import strategy helped the management of long-term view. Secondly, the superiority of the import strategy, collapsed in the Japanese market strengthening by foreign firms. Finally, the big companies of scale tended to end the family manager in the process of conversion to export from imports. Key words: Pharmaceutical Industry,Mobility Barrier, Import Strategy Group, Management of a Long-Term View by Family Manager ᮏ◊✲ࠊࡣ᪂་⸆ᡓ␎╔┠ ࠊࡋ㢮ఝࡓࡋᡓ␎ᚿᴗ⩌Ꮡᅾ ࠼࠺ࡓࡋ㇟⌧ࡢࡑࠊ᪘⤒Ⴀ㛵⥔ᣢ⤊↉࠺࠸ᴗ⤫㛵ಀ㆟ㄽ་⸆ရᴗࠊࡣ⤒ࡀႠ㛵㸦⸨㔝,2013㸹⛉,2003㸹ᮧ,2007ࡉࠊ 㛗ᮇᏑ⥆ᴗከ࠺࠸≉ᚩ࠶ࡀࡋࠋ ㏆ᖺࡌ⏕ࡀ᪘㛵㛵ಀᛶㄪᰝࡓࡋ⸨㔝 2014aࠊࡣ㏆ᖺ㧗㍺ฟẚ⋡㧗ࠊࡣ⩌⤒ࡀႠ㛵࠸࡞ࡋ࠶ࡀ✲◊ࡢࡓࡁ་⸆ရᴗ ࠊࡀࡓࡗ࠶ࢢࡃ⥆ࡀ⤊↉ ࡉ♧ࡀ ࠋࡓ་⸆ရᴗࠊࡣࡢࡃᰴᘧಖ᭷࠸࡞᪘ᴗ࠺࠸≉ᚩୡ⏺་⸆ ရᴗぢࢫࠊࡢࢫࢻࠊࡢࢶᘧᨭ㓄᪘ᴗᏑᅾ ᰴᘧᨭ㓄ࠊࡎ⤒ࡀࡅ⥆ࡋࡑࡣ࠸࡞ࡃ᥎ ᪘㛵ࡍ↉⤊ࡀ⌮⏤ࠕࠊࡣ᪘ᚋ⥅⪅࠸࡞࠸ ᪘ᚋ⥅⪅࠸࡞ࡓ⫱ࡀ ᪘ᚋ⥅⪅ ࠸࡞ࡀࡑࠊෆ㒊స⏝⤖ࡓࡋἲᛶ ࠸࡞ࡋࠋ ࠊࡋ㛗ᮇ㛫᪘㛵⥆ ࠊࡅᰴᘧศᩓ་⸆ရᴗᑐ㇟ ࠊࡤࡢࠎ㇟㉸ࡓ࠼ᴗ⏺ᅛ᭷≉Ṧ᥋㏆ ࠊࡁศᯒࡤࡅ࠸ᰴᘧ᰿ᣐ⥔ࡓࡋᣢ⌮⏤ ࡞␗ࡣศᯒどⅬຍࡀ࡞ࡘ་⸆ရᴗ≉Ṧ་⸆ရᴗᑓᴗᗘከゅࡔࠊ࠸࡞࠸⤒ࡀ

Transcript of )! b1=#.¬¬10回受賞論文(奨励賞).pdf · Finally, the big companies of scale tended to...

Page 1: )! b1=#.¬¬10回受賞論文(奨励賞).pdf · Finally, the big companies of scale tended to end the family manager in the process of conversion to export from imports. Key words:

The Logic of Long-Term Management by Family Manager A Study of Strategy Changes in the Pharmaceutical Industry

1970 2010

The purpose of this study is twofold. First, it is directed to a pharmaceutical industry, to analyze the relationship of the family management and strategy using the strategy group. Second, to point out the problem awareness analysis and viewing angle that has been overlooked in the family business research based on the analysis. Two become clear by this study. First, the import

strategy helped the management of long-term view. Secondly, the superiority of the import strategy, collapsed in the Japanese market strengthening by foreign firms. Finally, the big companies of scale tended to end the family manager in the process of conversion to export from imports. Key words: Pharmaceutical Industry,Mobility

Barrier, Import Strategy Group,Management of a Long-Term View

by Family Manager

,2013 ,2003 ,2007

2014a

Page 2: )! b1=#.¬¬10回受賞論文(奨励賞).pdf · Finally, the big companies of scale tended to end the family manager in the process of conversion to export from imports. Key words:

,2003

2003 2008 2007

G

3

G

1990

1990

G

G

4 G

2003 20072003 Berle

and Means 1932

Anderson and Reeb,2003 20082006

Rouvinez and Ward,2005

Zellweger,Nason and Nordqvist, 2012

Habbershon and Williams,2003 ,2014

2003 2007

2003

2

Page 3: )! b1=#.¬¬10回受賞論文(奨励賞).pdf · Finally, the big companies of scale tended to end the family manager in the process of conversion to export from imports. Key words:

2003 198

2003 198 2

2003 2008 2007

2003

G

GPorter 1980 2009

Porter 1980 G

Porter,1980 p.183

G

Leask and Parker,2007 Mascarenhas and Aaker ,1989

Porter 1980p.188 G

Cave and Porter 1977

D'Aveni, 1994Cave and

Porter,1977

Dranove, Peteraf and Shanley 1998

Dranove, Peteraf and Shanley,1998

G Porter 1980

GG

,1994

G

1)

2)

Generic Medicines GE3) 16

4.1

1995 123-1242009

4)

2008

2

Page 4: )! b1=#.¬¬10回受賞論文(奨励賞).pdf · Finally, the big companies of scale tended to end the family manager in the process of conversion to export from imports. Key words:

2003 1999

2009 2009 200767 8

5)

NCE New Chemical Entity 6)

NCENCE NCE

NCE NCE 4

NCE

NCE 2NCE NCE

7)

NCENCE

NCE NCE

NCE 1970 2009

10 41

1 NCENCE

NCE

14 1980

2 NCE NCENCE

NCE1970

92 1980 75 1990 412000 34

NCE1990

GNCE

2014a

NCE

3 1990 NCE

3.2NCE

G

,1986,1995

,1986,71-72 Maurer 1989

Page 5: )! b1=#.¬¬10回受賞論文(奨励賞).pdf · Finally, the big companies of scale tended to end the family manager in the process of conversion to export from imports. Key words:

2

,20071961

NRDCC

7.7%1995

,1995,164

,1973 8)

9) NCE

3.2 1990 NCE

2 NCE

1

Maurer 1989

199510)

2007 1986 MOSS ICH

11)

NCEG

NCE

2014a

G

GG

2009

Page 6: )! b1=#.¬¬10回受賞論文(奨励賞).pdf · Finally, the big companies of scale tended to end the family manager in the process of conversion to export from imports. Key words:

40 21

12)

14 16

1970 2010

NCE

NEEDS Financial QUEST

NCE 3.2

G 1 1970 19701980 1990 2000 2010

2003

2003

1 1970 16 10

8 13)

G

NCE2 2

1 10

NCE 1990NCE

2 NCE

1970 3.1 1980 2 19900.69 2000 0.5

Page 7: )! b1=#.¬¬10回受賞論文(奨励賞).pdf · Finally, the big companies of scale tended to end the family manager in the process of conversion to export from imports. Key words:

1977 2011

NEEDS Financial QUEST

NCE

NCE

NCEG

NCE

2 NCENCE

197016)

1970

GNCE

GG 17) G

NCE G

G 21990

20001990

G 2000

G GG G

G5 3 G

G 33 G

21 2

2 1

2

NCE

3 2

Page 8: )! b1=#.¬¬10回受賞論文(奨励賞).pdf · Finally, the big companies of scale tended to end the family manager in the process of conversion to export from imports. Key words:

1977

2011

NEE

DS

Fina

ncia

l QU

EST

Page 9: )! b1=#.¬¬10回受賞論文(奨励賞).pdf · Finally, the big companies of scale tended to end the family manager in the process of conversion to export from imports. Key words:

G6

2846 GNCE

G

GG 912 G

3

1980

G

G 2 2G 6 1,430

3G

GG 9 1,031

G

5

1990 G 74

G 1,806 G 6

3G 3

2,4802,872

1990 GG

GG NCE

5 2NCE 4 2

1990

2000

4

NCEG

1990

G 2000G

2 G

G2

G

G

66310 1

Page 10: )! b1=#.¬¬10回受賞論文(奨励賞).pdf · Finally, the big companies of scale tended to end the family manager in the process of conversion to export from imports. Key words:

11970

201014 4

NCENCE

1990

22 3 1990

G 2000

2G G

G G

2

,1989 7 21 ,10

G

G

1980MOSS

G

3.1NCE

NCE

NCE

NCE 2014b 1970 1995

10NCE

NCE

,2008 ,2007

Page 11: )! b1=#.¬¬10回受賞論文(奨励賞).pdf · Finally, the big companies of scale tended to end the family manager in the process of conversion to export from imports. Key words:

NCE

20) G G

2000NCE

Maurer,1989 NCE

NCE

G

4

NCENCE

2

IT

2007

Page 12: )! b1=#.¬¬10回受賞論文(奨励賞).pdf · Finally, the big companies of scale tended to end the family manager in the process of conversion to export from imports. Key words:

1867

1868 19141915 44 1945 60

19602003

1990

1990

G

2014a

67%80%

G

G

G

1970 G

2000

2014a

Page 13: )! b1=#.¬¬10回受賞論文(奨励賞).pdf · Finally, the big companies of scale tended to end the family manager in the process of conversion to export from imports. Key words:

G

2007 2008

G

G

NCE

2

G

2

1995 21

2)

,1995,13

1995 91 192

3) GE

,1995,81

4)

1995 111 109

109 109

5) NCE

NCE 2008

2010

1970 1976

1977 1995

1996 2007

NCE

Page 14: )! b1=#.¬¬10回受賞論文(奨励賞).pdf · Finally, the big companies of scale tended to end the family manager in the process of conversion to export from imports. Key words:

1976

1977

1970 1976

NCE

6) 1997 NCE

NME New Molecular Entity

7) 1997 NCE

8)

1979 7 16

9)

,1973 8

NCE

NCE

1973

NCE

10) 1988

2 1989 12

P.R.

M J.

11)

2014b

12) 21

5

13)

Berle and Means 1932 20%

14)

15) 2005

2

NCE

NCE

2 2

8 3 8

2 2000 NCE

2002

4

16) 2000 NCE

1990

17) NCE G G

NCE

G

G

G

18)

2000

19) 2000 G

20)

2001

Page 15: )! b1=#.¬¬10回受賞論文(奨励賞).pdf · Finally, the big companies of scale tended to end the family manager in the process of conversion to export from imports. Key words:

Anderson,R.C and D.M.Reeb 2003 “Fouding Family

Ownership and Performance:Evidence from the S&P500”

Jounal of Finance Vol.58 pp.1301-1327

2003

13 2

85 111

Berle, A.A and G.C.Means, 1932 The Modern Corporation

And private property The Macmillan Company

1974

Caves RE and M.E.Porter 1977 “From entry barriers to

mobility barriers : conjectural decisions and contrived

deterrence to new competition.” Quarterly Journal of

Economics Vol.91 No.2 pp.241-262.

D'Aveni, R. A. 1994 Hypercompetition : Managing the

Dynamics of Strategic Maneuvering. Free Press.

Dranove D, Peteraf MA,and M.Shanley(1998)“ Do strategic

groups exist? An economic framework for analysis” Strategic

Management Journal Vol.19 No.11 pp. 1029-1044.

1988 2 1989 12

2013

12 1 51 70

2014a

Venture Review 23 47 52

2014b

12 2 31 50

1995 100

Habbershon,T. and H.Williams(1999) “A Reource Basead

Fremework for Assessing the Strategic Advantages of Family

Firms”Family Business Review No.12 No.1 pp.1-25

2007

196 1 91 107

1986 1

2000 2011

2003

2008

13 1 68 70

2003

Discussion

paper New Series Osaka prefecuture University No.2003-1

2014

7 8

47 3 29 39

1999

14 4 235 241

2003

1997

7 3 134 151

2003

3 NTT

Leask,G and D.Parker 2007 “Strategic Groups,

Competitive Groups and Performance within the U.K.

Pharmaceutical Industry: Improving Our Understanding of

the Competitive Process”Strategic Management

Journal Vol. 28 No. 7 , pp. 723-745.

Mascarenhas, B. and D.A.Aaker, (1989)“Mobility Barriers and

Strategic Groups”Strategic Management Journal Vol.10

pp.475-485.

1973

31 12 1045 1048

Maurer,R 1989 Competing in High-Tech Japan

18

1989

2001 12

11 1 45-57

2009 G

23 14 24

2008

RIETI Discussion Paper Series 08-J-029

1 29

1995

1995

2009

28 12 16

Porter,M E(1980) Conpetitive Strategy, Macmillan(

1982)

Rouvinez,D.and J.Ward(2005) Family Business Macmillan.

2007 )

Page 16: )! b1=#.¬¬10回受賞論文(奨励賞).pdf · Finally, the big companies of scale tended to end the family manager in the process of conversion to export from imports. Key words:

2006

171 185

1994

25 4 281 299

1977 1999

2008

24 9 13

2007 NTT

Zellweger,T.M, Nason, R.S. and M. Nordqvist 2012

“From Longevity of Firms to Transgenerational

Entrepreneurship of Families: Introducing Family

Entrepreneurial Orientation”Family Business Review

Vol.25 No.2 pp.136-155.

( : 14.8.25 : 15.1.14

: )