IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/lnd/wpaper/200513.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Biodiscovery and Intellectual Property Rights: A Dynamic Approach to Economic Efficiency

Author

Listed:
  • Tom Dedeurwaerdere

    (Centre de Philosophie du Droit (CPDR), Université Catholique de Louvain, Belgium)

  • Vijesh Krishna

    (Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, University of Hohenheim, Germany)

  • Unai Pascual

    (Department of Land Economy, University of Cambridge, UK)

Abstract

This paper examines the use the use of economic incentives for knowledge generation through biodiscovery, in the particular case of the use of a highly valuable biogenetic resource stock from the South for industrial/research input. The focus is on a dynamic approach to contracting and property rights building upon insights from institutional and ecological economics. Two important conclusions come out of this analysis. First, it highlights the necessity to go beyond standard market approaches to economic valuation in order to address the issues of future possibilities of use and innovation and the integration of the different stages in the process of value creation. Second, it shows the necessity of developing alternatives to the current intellectual property rights regime, including systems for appropriate protection of the traditional knowledge of local communities.

Suggested Citation

  • Tom Dedeurwaerdere & Vijesh Krishna & Unai Pascual, 2005. "Biodiscovery and Intellectual Property Rights: A Dynamic Approach to Economic Efficiency," Environmental Economy and Policy Research Working Papers 13.2005, University of Cambridge, Department of Land Economics, revised 2005.
    • Handle: RePEc:lnd:wpaper:200513
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.landecon.cam.ac.uk/RePEc/pdf/200513.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Haab, Timothy C. & McConnell, Kenneth E., 1997. "Referendum Models and Negative Willingness to Pay: Alternative Solutions," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 251-270, February.
    2. Gordon C. Rausser & Arthur A. Small, 2000. "Valuing Research Leads: Bioprospecting and the Conservation of Genetic Resources," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 108(1), pages 173-206, February.
    3. Richard T. Carson & W. Michael Hanemann & Raymond J. Kopp & Jon A. Krosnick & Robert Cameron Mitchell & Stanley Presser, 1998. "Referendum Design And Contingent Valuation: The Noaa Panel'S No-Vote Recommendation," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 80(3), pages 484-487, August.
    4. Gwendolyn Morrison, 1997. "Willingness to pay and willingness to accept: some evidence of an endowment effect," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 29(4), pages 411-417.
    5. Simpson, R David & Sedjo, Roger A & Reid, John W, 1996. "Valuing Biodiversity for Use in Pharmaceutical Research," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 104(1), pages 163-185, February.
    6. Swanson, Timothy & Goschl, Timo, 2000. "Property rights issues involving plant genetic resources: implications of ownership for economic efficiency," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 75-92, January.
    7. Gupta, Anil K., 2002. "Value Addition to Local Kani Tribal Knowledge: Patenting, Licensing and Benefit-Sharing," IIMA Working Papers WP2002-08-02, Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad, Research and Publication Department.
    8. David J. Bjornstad & James R. Kahn (ed.), 1996. "The Contingent Valuation of Environmental Resources," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 731.
    9. Shogren, Jason F. & Seung Y. Shin & Dermot J. Hayes & James B. Kliebenstein, 1994. "Resolving Differences in Willingness to Pay and Willingness to Accept," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 84(1), pages 255-270, March.
    10. Shyamsundar, Priya & Kramer, Randall A., 1996. "Tropical Forest Protection: An Empirical Analysis of the Costs Borne by Local People," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 129-144, September.
    11. Bhat, Mahadev G., 1999. "On biodiversity access, intellectual property rights, and conservation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 391-403, June.
    12. Timothy C. Haab & Kenneth E. McConnell, 2002. "Valuing Environmental and Natural Resources," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2427.
    13. Dosi, Giovanni, 1988. "Sources, Procedures, and Microeconomic Effects of Innovation," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 26(3), pages 1120-1171, September.
    14. Lars H. Gulbrandsen, 2004. "Overlapping Public and Private Governance: Can Forest Certification Fill the Gaps in the Global Forest Regime?," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 4(2), pages 75-99, May.
    15. Brush, Stephen B., 1998. "Bio-cooperation and the benefits of crop genetic resources: the case of Mexican maize," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 26(5), pages 755-766, May.
    16. Wiktor L. Adamowicz & Vinay Bhardwaj & Bruce Macnab, 1993. "Experiments on the Difference between Willingness to Pay and Willingness to Accept," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 69(4), pages 416-427.
    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. Ding, Helen & Nunes, Paulo A.L.D. & Onofri, Laura, 2007. "An Economic Model for Bioprospecting Contracts," Sustainability Indicators and Environmental Valuation Working Papers 7450, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).

    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. Pascual, Unai & Dedeurwaerdere, Tom & Krishna, Vijesh V., 2006. "Bioprospection Beyond Intellectual Property Rights: The Kani Model of Access and Benefit Sharing," 2006 Annual Meeting, August 12-18, 2006, Queensland, Australia 25377, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    2. Horowitz, John K. & McConnell, Kenneth E., 1999. "A Review of WTA/WTP Studies," Working Papers 197848, University of Maryland, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    3. Sayman, Serdar & Onculer, Ayse, 2005. "Effects of study design characteristics on the WTA-WTP disparity: A meta analytical framework," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 289-312, April.
    4. Horowitz, John K. & McConnell, Kenneth E., 2002. "A Review of WTA/WTP Studies," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 44(3), pages 426-447, November.
    5. Ramesh Govindaraj & Gnanaraj Chellaraj, 2002. "The Indian Pharmaceutical Sector : Issues and Options for Health Sector Reform," World Bank Publications - Books, The World Bank Group, number 15231, December.
    6. Carson, Richard T. & Hanemann, W. Michael & Kopp, Raymond J. & Krosnick, Jon A. & Mitchell, Robert C. & Presser, Stanley & Ruud, Paul A. & Smith, V. Kerry & Conaway, Michael & Martin, Kerry, 1996. "Was the NOAA Panel Correct about Contingent Valuation?," Discussion Papers 10503, Resources for the Future.
    7. Dedeurwaerdere, Tom, 2005. "From bioprospecting to reflexive governance," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 53(4), pages 473-491, June.
    8. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    9. William S. Neilson & Michael McKee & Robert P. Berrens, 2013. "Value and outcome uncertainty as explanations for the WTA vs WTP disparity," Chapters, in: John A. List & Michael K. Price (ed.), Handbook on Experimental Economics and the Environment, chapter 6, pages 171-189, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    10. Baumgartner, Stefan & Becker, Christian & Faber, Malte & Manstetten, Reiner, 2006. "Relative and absolute scarcity of nature. Assessing the roles of economics and ecology for biodiversity conservation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 59(4), pages 487-498, October.
    11. Ahlheim, Michael & Frör, Oliver & Heinke, Antonia & Duc, Nguyen Minh & Dinh, Pham Van, 2010. "Labour as a utility measure in contingent valuation studies: how good is it really?," FZID Discussion Papers 13-2010, University of Hohenheim, Center for Research on Innovation and Services (FZID).
    12. Wenjuan Cheng & Alessio D’Amato & Giacomo Pallante, 2020. "Benefit sharing mechanisms for agricultural genetic diversity use and on-farm conservation," Economia Politica: Journal of Analytical and Institutional Economics, Springer;Fondazione Edison, vol. 37(1), pages 337-355, April.
    13. Bernie J. O'Brien & Kirsten Gertsen & Andrew R. Willan & A. Faulkner, 2002. "Is there a kink in consumers' threshold value for cost‐effectiveness in health care?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(2), pages 175-180, March.
    14. Ding, Helen & Nunes, Paulo A.L.D. & Onofri, Laura, 2007. "An Economic Model for Bioprospecting Contracts," Sustainability Indicators and Environmental Valuation Working Papers 7450, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    15. Nataf, Colette & Wallsten, Thomas S., 2013. "Love the one you’re with: The endowment effect in the dating market," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 58-66.
    16. Sardana, Kavita, 2019. "Tourists' Willingness to Pay for Restoration of Traditional Agro-forest Ecosystems Providing Biodiversity: Evidence from India," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 362-372.
    17. Brown, Thomas C. & Gregory, Robin, 1999. "Why the WTA-WTP disparity matters," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 323-335, March.
    18. Susanne Droege & Birgit Soete, 2001. "Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights, North-South Trade, and Biological Diversity," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 19(2), pages 149-163, June.
    19. Amy Craft & R. Simpson, 2001. "The Value of Biodiversity in Pharmaceutical Research with Differentiated Products," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 18(1), pages 1-17, January.
    20. Jan Hanousek & Randall K. Filer, 2001. "Consumers' Opinion of Inflation Bias Due to Quality Improvements in Transition in the Czech Republic," Development and Comp Systems 0110009, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    food security; Bioprospection; genetic resources; traditional knowledge; Kani model; benefit sharing;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:lnd:wpaper:200513. 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: Unai Pascual (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/dlcamuk.html .

    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.