IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/rii/riidoc/248.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Brevetabilité des médicament, innovation et l’avenir de l’industrie pharmaceutique en Tunisie DRUGS PATENTABILITY INNOVATION AND THE FUTURE OF THE PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY IN TUNISIA THEORETICAL STUDY AND EMPIRICAL VALIDATION

Author

Listed:
  • Nejla YACOUB

    (Laboratoire de Recherche sur l'Industrie et l'Innovation. ULCO)

Abstract

La signature en 1994 des accords sur les Aspects de Droits de la Propriété Intellectuelle qui touchent au Commerce (ADPIC) dans le cadre des négociations instituant l’Organisation Mondiale du Commerce (OMC), sont le fait le plus marquant de l’évolution de la brevetabilité. La brevetabilité des médicaments, reconnue en vertu des ADPIC dans tous les pays de l’OMC, a soulevé de nombreux débats, en particulier autour de son impact sur l’accessibilité des pays en développement (PED) aux médicaments. Son impact sur l’innovation pharmaceutique dans ces pays, demeure par contre peu exploré. Cette question, qui constitue la problématique de cette recherche, est pourtant d’acuité notamment dans un contexte actuel où nombre de PED, comme la Tunisie, s’attèlent à créer une base technologique et cognitive favorable à l’innovation pharmaceutique. Traiter de cette problématique, requiert d’abord une étude théorique des fondements de la brevetabilité (des médicaments) et de son impact sur l’innovation (pharmaceutique). Ensuite, pour tester empiriquement la validité des conclusions théoriques pour le cas de la Tunisie, nous avons mené une enquête qualitative auprès des 32 laboratoires composant l’industrie pharmaceutique tunisienne. Les résultats empiriques, appuyés par une analyse comparative avec quelques pays, montrent que, en l’état actuel, l’innovation pharmaceutique en Tunisie étant encore embryonnaire et fortement dépendante de l’étranger, la brevetabilité des médicaments se révèle comme une contrainte plutôt qu’une incitation à l’innovation locale. Tandis que, à long terme, l’impact dépendra de la capacité du système sectoriel d’innovation (SSI) tunisien à mettre en place des mécanismes en mesure de créer une dynamique de transferts technologiques et d’innovation, en particulier via la consolidation des interactions systémiques entre ses différents acteurs. The signature in 1994 of the Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights agreements (TRIPS) within the negotiations of the world trade organization (WTO) are the most notable fact of the evolution of patentability. Hence, drugs patentability, recognized within all the member countries of the WTO lifted up several debates in particular as regards the impact on the accessibility of developing countries to essential drugs. The impact of TRIPs on pharmaceutical innovation in developing countries remains, however, less explored. Yet, it is an up-to-date issue, especially in a current context where a growing number of developing countries, such as Tunisia, engage a policy aiming at enhancing their innovation potential in pharmaceuticals. Studying this issue requires first a theoretical analysis of the foundations of patentability and of its impacts on innovation. Then, in order to test the theoretical conclusions empirically, we conduct a survey next to the pharmaceuticals firms in Tunisia. The empirical results show that currently the pharmaceutical innovation in Tunisia is still at early stages of development and strongly relying on foreign technologies; the drugs patentability appears then as a constraint rather than an incentive. Nevertheless, on the long run, the impact will depend on the ability of the sectoral innovation system (SIS) to put into effect mechanisms that could create a dynamic of technology transfers and of innovation, especially through strengthening the systemic interactions between its different actors.

Suggested Citation

  • Nejla YACOUB, 2012. "Brevetabilité des médicament, innovation et l’avenir de l’industrie pharmaceutique en Tunisie DRUGS PATENTABILITY INNOVATION AND THE FUTURE OF THE PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY IN TUNISIA THEORETICAL STUDY ," Working Papers 248, Laboratoire de Recherche sur l'Industrie et l'Innovation. ULCO / Research Unit on Industry and Innovation.
  • Handle: RePEc:rii:riidoc:248
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://riifr.univ-littoral.fr/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/doc248.pdf
    File Function: First version, 2012
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Malerba, Franco, 2002. "Sectoral systems of innovation and production," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 247-264, February.
    2. Manfred M. Fischer, 2001. "Innovation, knowledge creation and systems of innovation," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 35(2), pages 199-216.
    3. Blandine Laperche & Dimitri Uzunidis & G. N. von Tunzelmann (ed.), 2008. "The Genesis of Innovation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 12926.
    4. James G. March, 1991. "Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 2(1), pages 71-87, February.
    5. Franco Malerba, 2005. "Sectoral systems of innovation: a framework for linking innovation to the knowledge base, structure and dynamics of sectors," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(1-2), pages 63-82.
    6. Blandine Laperche, 2001. "Potentiel d'innovation des grandes entreprises et État, argumentation évolutionniste sur l'appropriation des informations scientifiques et techniques," Innovations, De Boeck Université, vol. 13(1), pages 61-85.
    7. Smith, Pamela J., 1999. "Are weak patent rights a barrier to U.S. exports?," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 151-177, June.
    8. Suzanne Scotchmer & Jerry Green, 1990. "Novelty and Disclosure in Patent Law," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 21(1), pages 131-146, Spring.
    9. Simon Feeny & Mark Rogers, 2003. "Innovation and Performance: Benchmarking Australian Firms," Australian Economic Review, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, vol. 36(3), pages 253-264, September.
    10. Suzanne Scotchmer, 1996. "Protecting Early Innovators: Should Second-Generation Products Be Patentable?," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 27(2), pages 322-331, Summer.
    11. Hagedoorn, John & Cloodt, Myriam, 2003. "Measuring innovative performance: is there an advantage in using multiple indicators?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(8), pages 1365-1379, September.
    12. Blandine Laperche, 2009. "Stratégies d'innovation des firmes des sciences de la vie et appropriation des ressources végétales : processus et enjeux," Mondes en développement, De Boeck Université, vol. 0(3), pages 109-122.
    13. Blandine Laperche, 2008. "Innovation and the Profitability Imperative: Consequences on the Formation of the Firm’s Knowledge Capital," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: Blandine Laperche & Dimitri Uzunidis (ed.), Powerful Finance and Innovation Trends in a High-Risk Economy, chapter 14, pages 248-269, Palgrave Macmillan.
    14. Walter G. Park & Douglas C. Lippoldt, 2008. "Technology Transfer and the Economic Implications of the Strengthening of Intellectual Property Rights in Developing Countries," OECD Trade Policy Papers 62, OECD Publishing.
    15. Blandine Laperche & Dimitri Uzunidis, 2007. "Le Système national d'innovation russe en restructuration. Réformes institutionnelles et politique industrielle," Innovations, De Boeck Université, vol. 0(2), pages 69-94.
    16. Nordhaus, William D, 1969. "An Economic Theory of Technological Change," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 59(2), pages 18-28, May.
    17. Allred, Brent B. & Park, Walter G., 2007. "The influence of patent protection on firm innovation investment in manufacturing industries," Journal of International Management, Elsevier, vol. 13(2), pages 91-109, June.
    18. Nordhaus, William D, 1972. "The Optimum Life on a Patent: Reply," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 62(3), pages 428-431, June.
    19. Richard R. Nelson, 1959. "The Simple Economics of Basic Scientific Research," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 67, pages 297-297.
    20. Hollenstein, Heinz, 1996. "A composite indicator of a firm's innovativeness. An empirical analysis based on survey data for Swiss manufacturing," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(4), pages 633-645, June.
    21. Spyros Arvanitis & Heinz Hollenstein, 2004. "European Data Watch: Firm Panel Data from the Swiss Innovation Survey," Schmollers Jahrbuch : Journal of Applied Social Science Studies / Zeitschrift für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften, Duncker & Humblot, Berlin, vol. 124(2), pages 305-314.
    22. Cohen, Wesley M & Levinthal, Daniel A, 1989. "Innovation and Learning: The Two Faces of R&D," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 99(397), pages 569-596, September.
    23. Dimitri Uzunidis, 2007. "Innovation et proximité entreprises, entrepreneurs et milieux innovateurs (Innovation and proximity enterprises, entrepreneurs and clusters)," Working Papers 144, Laboratoire de Recherche sur l'Industrie et l'Innovation. ULCO / Research Unit on Industry and Innovation.
    24. Jeroen de Jong & O'Shaughnessy & Patrick Vermeulen, 2003. "Innovation in SMEs: An Empirical Investigation of the Input-Throughput-Output-Performance Model," Scales Research Reports N200302, EIM Business and Policy Research.
    25. Blandine Laperche & Dimitri Uzunidis, 2011. "Crise, innovation et renouveau des territoires : dépendance de sentier et trajectoires d'évolution," Innovations, De Boeck Université, vol. 0(2), pages 159-182.
    26. Smith, Pamela J., 2001. "How do foreign patent rights affect U.S. exports, affiliate sales, and licenses?," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(2), pages 411-439, December.
    27. Sophie BOUTILLIER & Dimitri UZUNIDIS, 2010. "innovation et proximité entreprises, entrepreneurs et milieux innovateurs (innovation and proximity entreprises, entrepreneurs and innovative milieus)," Working Papers 10, Réseau de Recherche sur l’Innovation. / Research Network on Innovation.
    28. Walter G. Park & Juan Carlos Ginarte, 1997. "Intellectual Property Rights And Economic Growth," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 15(3), pages 51-61, July.
    29. Lucas, Robert Jr., 1988. "On the mechanics of economic development," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 3-42, July.
    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. Anja, Breitwieser & Neil, Foster, 2012. "Intellectual property rights, innovation and technology transfer: a survey," MPRA Paper 36094, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Zakaria Babutsidze & Maurizio Iacopetta, 2016. "Innovation, growth and financial markets," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 26(1), pages 1-24, March.
    3. 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.
    4. Rakas, Marija & Hain, Daniel S., 2019. "The state of innovation system research: What happens beneath the surface?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(9), pages 1-1.
    5. Quintana-Garci­a, Cristina & Benavides-Velasco, Carlos A., 2008. "Innovative competence, exploration and exploitation: The influence of technological diversification," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 492-507, April.
    6. Bronwyn H. Hall, 2014. "Does patent protection help or hinder technology transfer?," Chapters, in: Sanghoon Ahn & Bronwyn H. Hall & Keun Lee (ed.), Intellectual Property for Economic Development, chapter 2, pages 11-32, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    7. 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.
    8. repec:hal:spmain:info:hdl:2441/258fqttgag854r8bkhc16pmoo5 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Carlino, Gerald & Kerr, William R., 2015. "Agglomeration and Innovation," Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics, in: Gilles Duranton & J. V. Henderson & William C. Strange (ed.), Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics, edition 1, volume 5, chapter 0, pages 349-404, Elsevier.
    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. Su, Hsin-Ning, 2017. "Collaborative and Legal Dynamics of International R&D- Evolving Patterns in East Asia," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 217-227.
    12. Alex Coad & Agustí Segarra-Blasco & Mercedes Teruel, 2021. "A bit of basic, a bit of applied? R&D strategies and firm performance," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 46(6), pages 1758-1783, December.
    13. Tappeiner, Gottfried & Hauser, Christoph & Walde, Janette, 2008. "Regional knowledge spillovers: Fact or artifact?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 861-874, June.
    14. Auriol, Emmanuelle & Biancini, Sara & Paillacar, Rodrigo, 2023. "Intellectual property rights protection and trade: An empirical analysis," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 162(C).
    15. Neves, Pedro Cunha & Afonso, Oscar & Silva, Diana & Sochirca, Elena, 2021. "The link between intellectual property rights, innovation, and growth: A meta-analysis," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 196-209.
    16. Frank T. Rothaermel & Maria Tereza Alexandre, 2009. "Ambidexterity in Technology Sourcing: The Moderating Role of Absorptive Capacity," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(4), pages 759-780, August.
    17. Taalbi, Josef, 2017. "What drives innovation? Evidence from economic history," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(8), pages 1437-1453.
    18. Burcharth, Ana Luiza Lara de Araújo & Lettl, Christopher & Ulhøi, John Parm, 2015. "Extending organizational antecedents of absorptive capacity: Organizational characteristics that encourage experimentation," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 90(PA), pages 269-284.
    19. Gans, Joshua S. & Murray, Fiona E. & Stern, Scott, 2017. "Contracting over the disclosure of scientific knowledge: Intellectual property and academic publication," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(4), pages 820-835.
    20. David Moroz, 2005. "Production of Scientific Knowledge and Radical Uncertainty: The Limits of the Normative Approach in Innovation Economics," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 20(3), pages 305-322, November.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Brevetabilité des médicaments; transferts de technologie; innovation pharmaceutique; industrie pharmaceutique tunisienne; système sectoriel d’innovation tunisien;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • O14 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Development - - - Industrialization; Manufacturing and Service Industries; Choice of Technology
    • O30 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - General
    • O32 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Management of Technological Innovation and R&D
    • O34 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Intellectual Property and Intellectual Capital

    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:rii:riidoc:248. 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: Philippe Chagnon (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/rilitfr.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.