IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/rdevec/v19y2015i4p759-775.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Negotiation over Intellectual Property Rights Protection in a Mixed Market

Author

Listed:
  • Jie Li
  • Xiaohui Xu
  • Jing Lu

Abstract

This article models a North–South negotiation under a mixed oligopolistic setting where a public firm in the South and a private firm from the North compete in the southern market. The southern firm is a public one whose objective is a weighted sum of the South's social welfare and its own profit, whereas the northern firm is a pure profit maximizer. The North provides a quid pro quo in exchange for the strengthening of the enforcement of intellectual property rights (IPR) protection in the South. We show that when the northern and southern firms engage in quantity competition in the southern market, the southern government's optimal choice is either complete protection or complete violation. We show this to depend on the southern government's valuation of the quid pro quo. Moreover, strengthening IPR protection will deepen the privatization process in the South, though it brings about a social welfare loss to the South.

Suggested Citation

  • Jie Li & Xiaohui Xu & Jing Lu, 2015. "Negotiation over Intellectual Property Rights Protection in a Mixed Market," Review of Development Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 19(4), pages 759-775, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:rdevec:v:19:y:2015:i:4:p:759-775
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1111/rode.12184
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Diwan, Ishac & Rodrik, Dani, 1991. "Patents, appropriate technology, and North-South trade," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(1-2), pages 27-47, February.
    2. Deardorff, Alan V, 1992. "Welfare Effects of Global Patent Protection," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 59(233), pages 35-51, February.
    3. Grossman, Gene M & Helpman, Elhanan, 1994. "Protection for Sale," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 84(4), pages 833-850, September.
    4. Stoyanov, Andrey, 2009. "Trade policy of a free trade agreement in the presence of foreign lobbying," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 77(1), pages 37-49, February.
    5. Liao, Pei-Cheng & Wong, Kar-yiu, 2009. "R&D subsidy, intellectual property rights protection, and North-South trade: How good is the TRIPS agreement?," Japan and the World Economy, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 191-201, March.
    6. Alireza Naghavi, 2007. "Strategic Intellectual Property Rights Policy and North-South Technology Transfer," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 143(1), pages 55-78, April.
    7. Suzanne Scotchmer, 2004. "The Political Economy of Intellectual Property Treaties," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 20(2), pages 415-437, October.
    8. Giovanni Maggi & Andres Rodriguez-Clare, 1998. "The Value of Trade Agreements in the Presence of Political Pressures," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 106(3), pages 574-601, June.
    9. Ke Li & Jie Zhang & Yihua Yu & Zhibiao Liu, 2010. "Does Market‐Oriented Economic Transition Enhance Enterprise Productivity? Evidence From China'S Enterprises," Pacific Economic Review, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(5), pages 719-742, December.
    10. Horowitz, Andrew W & Lai, Edwin L-C, 1996. "Patent Length and the Rate of Innovation," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 37(4), pages 785-801, November.
    11. Vishwasrao, Sharmila, 1994. "Intellectual property rights and the mode of technology transfer," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(2), pages 381-402, August.
    12. Zhihao Yu, 2000. "A model of substitution of non‐tariff barriers for tariffs," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(4), pages 1069-1090, November.
    13. Lai, Edwin L. -C., 1998. "International intellectual property rights protection and the rate of product innovation," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(1), pages 133-153, February.
    14. Helpman, Elhanan, 1993. "Innovation, Imitation, and Intellectual Property Rights," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 61(6), pages 1247-1280, November.
    15. Matsumura, Toshihiro, 1998. "Partial privatization in mixed duopoly," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(3), pages 473-483, December.
    16. Glass, Amy Jocelyn & Saggi, Kamal, 2002. "Intellectual property rights and foreign direct investment," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 56(2), pages 387-410, March.
    17. Alireza Naghavi & Yingyi Tsai, 2015. "Cross-Border Intellectual Property Rights: Contract Enforcement and Absorptive Capacity," Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Scottish Economic Society, vol. 62(2), pages 211-226, May.
    18. Cremer, Helmuth & Marchand, Maurice & Thisse, Jacques-Francois, 1991. "Mixed oligopoly with differentiated products," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 9(1), pages 43-53, March.
    19. Moonsung Kang, 2006. "Trade policy mix: IPR protection and R&D subsidies," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(3), pages 744-757, August.
    20. Qiu, Larry D. & Lai, Edwin L. -C., 2004. "Protection of trade for innovation: the roles of Northern and Southern Tariffs," Japan and the World Economy, Elsevier, vol. 16(4), pages 449-470, December.
    21. Moonsung Kang, 2006. "Trade policy mix: IPR protection and R&D subsidies," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 39(3), pages 744-757, August.
    22. Michelle Connolly & Diego Valderrama, 2005. "Implications of Intellectual Property Rights for Dynamic Gains from Trade," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(2), pages 318-322, May.
    23. Chih‐Hai Yang & Yi‐Ju Huang, 2009. "Do Intellectual Property Rights Matter To Taiwan'S Exports? A Dynamic Panel Approach," Pacific Economic Review, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 14(4), pages 555-578, October.
    24. Yang, Guifang & Maskus, Keith E., 2001. "Intellectual property rights, licensing, and innovation in an endogenous product-cycle model," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 169-187, February.
    25. Richard G. Harris & Elmer G. Wiens, 1980. "Government Enterprise: An Instrument for the Internal Regulation of Industry," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 13(1), pages 125-132, February.
    26. M. Scott Taylor, 1993. "TRIPS, Trade, and Technology Transfer," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 26(3), pages 625-637, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Dapeng Cai & Jie Li, 2012. "Quid pro quo and the enforcement of intellectual property rights protection: A bargaining approach," The Journal of International Trade & Economic Development, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(6), pages 755-772, December.
    2. Liao, Pei-Cheng & Wong, Kar-yiu, 2009. "R&D subsidy, intellectual property rights protection, and North-South trade: How good is the TRIPS agreement?," Japan and the World Economy, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 191-201, March.
    3. Alireza Naghavi & Yingyi Tsai, 2015. "Cross-Border Intellectual Property Rights: Contract Enforcement and Absorptive Capacity," Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Scottish Economic Society, vol. 62(2), pages 211-226, May.
    4. Arijit Mukherjee & Uday Bhanu Sinha, 2013. "Patent Protection, Southern Innovation and Welfare in a North–South Trade Model," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 80(318), pages 248-273, April.
    5. Leonard F.S. Wang & Arijit Mukherjee, 2014. "Patent Protection, Innovation and Technology Licensing," Australian Economic Papers, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(3-4), pages 245-254, December.
    6. Arghya Ghosh & Jota Ishikawa, 2018. "Trade liberalization, absorptive capacity and the protection of intellectual property rights," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(5), pages 997-1020, November.
    7. Qiu, Larry D. & Lai, Edwin L. -C., 2004. "Protection of trade for innovation: the roles of Northern and Southern Tariffs," Japan and the World Economy, Elsevier, vol. 16(4), pages 449-470, December.
    8. Arijit Mukherjee, 2017. "Patent Protection and R&D with Endogenous Market Structure," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 65(1), pages 220-234, March.
    9. Lai, Edwin L. -C. & Qiu, Larry D., 2003. "The North's intellectual property rights standard for the South?," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 59(1), pages 183-209, January.
    10. Elif Bascavusoglu & Maria Pluvia Zuniga, 2005. "The effects of intellectual property protection on international knowledge contracting," Cahiers de la Maison des Sciences Economiques bla05009, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1).
    11. Arijit Mukherjee, 2014. "Patent protection under endogenous product differentiation," Asia-Pacific Journal of Accounting & Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(1), pages 78-93, March.
    12. Lin, Hwan C., 2010. "Technology diffusion and global welfare effects: Imitative R&D vs. South-bound FDI," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 21(4), pages 231-247, November.
    13. Anja, Breitwieser & Neil, Foster, 2012. "Intellectual property rights, innovation and technology transfer: a survey," MPRA Paper 36094, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Akiyama, Taro & Furukawa, Yuichi, 2009. "Intellectual property rights and appropriability of innovation," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 103(3), pages 138-141, June.
    15. Hudson, John & Minea, Alexandru, 2013. "Innovation, Intellectual Property Rights, and Economic Development: A Unified Empirical Investigation," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 66-78.
    16. Pamela J. Smith & Sebastian J. Anti, 2022. "How does TRIPs compliance affect the economic growth of developing countries? Application of the Synthetic Control method," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 45(12), pages 3873-3906, December.
    17. Ghosh, Arghya & Morita, Hodaka & Nguyen, Xuan, 2018. "Technology spillovers, intellectual property rights, and export-platform FDI," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 171-190.
    18. Alireza Naghavi, 2003. "Strategic Intellectual Property Protection Policy and North-South Technology Transfer," Working Papers 200313, School of Economics, University College Dublin.
    19. Hong Hwang & Jollene Z. Wu & Eden S. H. Yu, 2016. "Innovation, Imitation and Intellectual Property Rights in Developing Countries," Review of Development Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(1), pages 138-151, February.
    20. Walter Park, 2012. "North–South models of intellectual property rights: an empirical critique," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 148(1), pages 151-180, April.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:rdevec:v:19:y:2015:i:4:p:759-775. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=1363-6669 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.