Comments on: Indonesia To Pharma: Build A Factory Or Else

By: Katherin Gehle

Katherin Gehle — Sun, 19 Sep 2010 07:27:19 +0000

Charles Schaefer~ We are never more fully alive more completely ourselves or more deeply engrossed in anything than when we are playing.

By: Generics

Generics — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 19:47:09 +0000

I agree, Turkey had such a requirement for years as did other countries. Other countries had co-manufacturing requirements. Taiwan and the Phillipines also would constantly change the requirements for approval (viagra) so the clock would run out and the process would have to be restarted while their local pharmaceutical industry could set up their own plants etc..

By: Cheap viagra

Cheap viagra — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 12:05:27 +0000

There is already an issue for European companies who moved research to the US to take advantage of research paid for by tax dollars, yet manufacture in developing countries, and send the income from US sales back to their home countries and pay the corporate taxes there.

By: Salmon

Salmon — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 19:09:10 +0000

Norman,

The history is fascinating. What I wonder is how do we as the US taxpayer do to our taxpayer investments via NIH and academic research to bring innovations to market that we as taxpayers pay for in part so as to result in a ROI and jobs.

What do I as a taxpayer do to protect my investment and jobs for myself and my children? I already sometimes think I should encourage my children to emigrate.

By: Norman Siebrasse

Norman Siebrasse — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 15:24:42 +0000

This is also how the original English patent system worked. In the middle ages England was economically backward compared to the continent and patents were granted in order to provide an incentive to establish new industries in England. Patents were granted for manufacturing processes that were new to England and there was a typically a requirement of that the product be manufactured in England and that English workers be trained. The goal was not so much to provide an incentive for innovation, as the products were typically already known on the continent and available in England as imports, but rather to stimulate English industrial development. The goals and methods of the original English system look a lot like the Indonesian proposal. Of course times have changed, and this isn’t to say that Adam Smith and international specialization should be rejected - but it seems to me that we can’t get too indignant that Indonesia is adopting the same industrial development policies that England used when England was a developing country.

By: foln16

foln16 — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 21:21:11 +0000

Mexico had this for years as well, it was called “requisito de planta” and despite NAFTA and so on it remained in place until this past August when the Mexican government finally eliminated the regulation.

By: Anon.

Anon. — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 18:17:13 +0000

So much for free trade, and Adam Smith’s idea that different countries should focus on what they’re good at.

So US taxpayers pay for the research that the drug companies use to base new drug ideas on, then instead of manufacturing here and selling abroad, they have to be manufactured abroad to be imported back to the US, while those countries can also sell us things that we can’t manufacture like latex gloves, etc..

By: Salmon

Salmon — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 18:05:17 +0000

This is nothing new.

Turkey had such a requirement for years as did other countries. Other countries had co-manufacturing requirements. Taiwan and the Phillipines also would constantly change the requirements for approval so the clock would run out and the process would have to be restarted while their local pharmaceutical industry could set up their own plants etc..

Salmon