IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/worlde/v31y2008i10p1367-1382.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Impact of Higher Standards in Patent Protection for Pharmaceutical Industries under the TRIPS Agreement – A Comparative Study of China and India

Author

Listed:
  • Xuan Li

Abstract

A comparative study is undertaken that explores Chinese and Indian pharmaceutical industries under different patent regimes. It is found that relative to India, which had implemented process patent protection until 2005, China with a product patent regime since 1993 suffers from both lower drug accessibility and availability (the latter is a missing parameter in the literature). Also, China lags behind in both lower R&D investment and patents filed by Chinese nationals. Based on these findings and associated legal interpretation, we conclude that higher patent protection in China generates negative impacts on the pharmaceutical industries. Thus, governments should utilise TRIPS flexibilities and other regimes such as price control to offset the anticompetitive effect in designing patent policies.

Suggested Citation

  • Xuan Li, 2008. "The Impact of Higher Standards in Patent Protection for Pharmaceutical Industries under the TRIPS Agreement – A Comparative Study of China and India," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(10), pages 1367-1382, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:worlde:v:31:y:2008:i:10:p:1367-1382
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9701.2008.01133.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9701.2008.01133.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1467-9701.2008.01133.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    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. Lanjouw, J.O., 1997. "The Introduction of Pharmaceutical Product Patents in India: "Heartless Exploitation of the Poor and Suffering"?," Papers 775, Yale - Economic Growth Center.
    4. Ramani, Shyama V., 2002. "Who is interested in biotech? R&D strategies, knowledge base and market sales of Indian biopharmaceutical firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 381-398, March.
    5. Aoki, Reiko & Kubo, Kensuke & Yamane, Hiroko, 2006. "Indian Patent Policy and Public Health:Implications from the Japanese Experience," Working Papers 199, Department of Economics, The University of Auckland.
    6. Helpman, Elhanan, 1993. "Innovation, Imitation, and Intellectual Property Rights," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 61(6), pages 1247-1280, November.
    7. Paul Klemperer, 1990. "How Broad Should the Scope of Patent Protection Be?," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 21(1), pages 113-130, Spring.
    8. Kamien, Morton I & Schwartz, Nancy L, 1974. "Patent Life and R & D Rivalry," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 64(1), pages 183-187, March.
    9. Richard Gilbert & Carl Shapiro, 1990. "Optimal Patent Length and Breadth," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 21(1), pages 106-112, Spring.
    10. Segerstrom, Paul S & Anant, T C A & Dinopoulos, Elias, 1990. "A Schumpeterian Model of the Product Life Cycle," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 80(5), pages 1077-1091, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Margaret K. Kyle & Anita M. McGahan, 2012. "Investments in Pharmaceuticals Before and After TRIPS," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 94(4), pages 1157-1172, November.
    2. Kristin Brandl & Izzet Darendeli & Ram Mudambi, 2019. "Foreign actors and intellectual property protection regulations in developing countries," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 50(5), pages 826-846, July.
    3. Khadija Straaten & Niccolò Pisani & Ans Kolk, 2020. "Unraveling the MNE wage premium," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 51(9), pages 1355-1390, December.
    4. Schüren Verena, 2013. "What a difference a state makes: pharmaceutical innovation after the TRIPs agreement," Business and Politics, De Gruyter, vol. 15(2), pages 217-243, August.
    5. Jung Kwan Kim & Ram Mudambi, 2020. "An ecosystem-based analysis of design innovation infringements: South Korea and China in the global tire industry," Journal of International Business Policy, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 3(1), pages 38-57, March.

    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. Xuan Li, 2008. "The Impact of Higher Standards in Patent Protection for Pharmaceutical Industries under the TRIPS Agreement: A Comparative Study of China and India," WIDER Working Paper Series RP2008-36, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Gaisford, James D. & Richardson, R. Stephen, 2000. "The TRIPS Disagreement: Should GATT Traditions Have Been Abandoned? Technical Annex," Estey Centre Journal of International Law and Trade Policy, Estey Centre for Law and Economics in International Trade, vol. 1(2), pages 1-19.
    6. Stephen P. A. Brown & William C. Gruben, 1997. "Intellectual property rights and product effectiveness," Economic and Financial Policy Review, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, issue Q IV, pages 15-20.
    7. Wright, Brian D. & Pardey, Philip G. & Nottenburg, Carol & Koo, Bonwoo, 2007. "Agricultural Innovation: Investments and Incentives," Handbook of Agricultural Economics, in: Robert Evenson & Prabhu Pingali (ed.), Handbook of Agricultural Economics, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 48, pages 2533-2603, Elsevier.
    8. Gaisford, James D. & Richardson, R. Stephen, 2001. "The TRIPS Disagreement: Should GATT Traditions Have Been Abandoned?," Estey Centre Journal of International Law and Trade Policy, Estey Centre for Law and Economics in International Trade, vol. 1(2), pages 1-15.
    9. Josh Lerner, 2002. "Patent Protection and Innovation Over 150 Years," NBER Working Papers 8977, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    10. Anja, Breitwieser & Neil, Foster, 2012. "Intellectual property rights, innovation and technology transfer: a survey," MPRA Paper 36094, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Panle Jia & Pinelopi K. Goldberg & Shubham Chaudhuri, 2006. "Estimating the Effects of Global Patent Protection in Pharmaceuticals: A Case Study of Quinolones in India," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 96(5), pages 1477-1514, December.
    12. Acemoglu, Daron & Gancia, Gino & Zilibotti, Fabrizio, 2012. "Competing engines of growth: Innovation and standardization," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 147(2), pages 570-601.3.
    13. Grossman, Gene M. & Helpman, Elhanan, 1995. "Technology and trade," Handbook of International Economics, in: G. M. Grossman & K. Rogoff (ed.), Handbook of International Economics, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 25, pages 1279-1337, Elsevier.
    14. Angus C. Chu, 2022. "Patent policy and economic growth: A survey," Manchester School, University of Manchester, vol. 90(2), pages 237-254, March.
    15. Chu, Angus, 2021. "Macroeconomic Effects of Intellectual Property Rights: An Updated Survey," MPRA Paper 110839, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    16. Petra Moser, 2005. "How Do Patent Laws Influence Innovation? Evidence from Nineteenth-Century World's Fairs," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(4), pages 1214-1236, September.
    17. Qi Duan & Yupeng Shi & Jingwei Sun, 2017. "Intellectual Property Protection: Prevention in Advance or Punishment Afterward," Annals of Economics and Finance, Society for AEF, vol. 18(1), pages 129-171, May.
    18. Lu, Louis Y.Y. & Liu, John S., 2016. "A novel approach to identify the major research themes and development trajectory: The case of patenting research," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 71-82.
    19. Maria Pluvia ZUNIGA & Emmanuel COMBE, 2002. "Introducing Patent Protection In The Pharmaceutical Sector:," Region et Developpement, Region et Developpement, LEAD, Universite du Sud - Toulon Var, vol. 16, pages 191-221.
    20. Shiyuan Pan & Heng-fu Zou & Tailong Li, 2010. "Patent Protection, Technological Change and Wage Inequality," CEMA Working Papers 437, China Economics and Management Academy, Central University of Finance and Economics.

    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:worlde:v:31:y:2008:i:10:p:1367-1382. 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=0378-5920 .

    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.