IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/ajaees/367845.html

A Comprehensive Review on the Impacts of Intellectual Property Rights on the Global Agricultural Economy

Author

Listed:
  • Meghwal, Manohar Lal
  • Dhurve, Lalit
  • Raj, Sumit
  • Afreen, Nahida
  • Abhijeet
  • Tripathi, Somdutt
  • Maurya, Durgesh Kumar
  • Kumar, Arun

Abstract

The agricultural sector is no stranger to the importance of intellectual property, as it serves as a catalyst for innovation, facilitates the transfer of technology, and safeguards the rights of creators and inventors. By examining the effects of IPRs on various dimensions, this paper seeks to shed light on the far-reaching implications for the agricultural industry worldwide. First and foremost, the review explores the intricate relationship between IPRs and agricultural research and development. IPRs are known to provide essential incentives for scientists and researchers to engage in ground-breaking agri-scientific endeavors, leading to advancements in productivity, sustainability, and food security. By offering legal protection and rewards for their innovations, IPRs encourage investment in agricultural R&D, driving progress in crop improvement, genetics, and biotechnology. Furthermore, the review delves into the impact of IPRs on farmers' access to seeds and genetic resources. While strong intellectual property regimes ensure fair compensation for breeders and innovators, concerns arise regarding the potentially limited access to seeds, especially for small-scale farmers in developing countries. Balancing the rights of breeders and the needs of farmers becomes a crucial aspect of agricultural policy formulation, aiming for a sustainable and inclusive agricultural system. Additionally, the review scrutinizes how IPRs affect the overall competitiveness of the agricultural market. IPRs enable agricultural enterprises to gain a competitive advantage through exclusive rights over their unique plant varieties, processes, or technologies. However, the high costs associated with intellectual property protection may pose barriers for smaller farmers and agricultural communities, exacerbating inequalities within the sector. While intellectual property rights undoubtedly play a vital role in fostering agricultural innovation and protection, the review also sheds light on the challenges and controversies associated with IPRs. The potential negative impacts on small-scale farmers, the concerns surrounding access to genetic resources, and the implications for biodiversity conservation all warrant careful consideration in the formulation of IPR policies. Through a comprehensive analysis of scholarly articles, reports, and case studies, this review provides valuable insights for policymakers, stakeholders, and researchers concerned with the multifaceted impacts of intellectual property rights on the global agricultural economy. By understanding these complexities, it becomes possible to strike a balance that maximizes the benefits of IPRs while ensuring equitable and sustainable agricultural development.

Suggested Citation

  • Meghwal, Manohar Lal & Dhurve, Lalit & Raj, Sumit & Afreen, Nahida & Abhijeet & Tripathi, Somdutt & Maurya, Durgesh Kumar & Kumar, Arun, 2023. "A Comprehensive Review on the Impacts of Intellectual Property Rights on the Global Agricultural Economy," Asian Journal of Agricultural Extension, Economics & Sociology, Asian Journal of Agricultural Extension, Economics & Sociology, vol. 41(12), pages 1-13.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:ajaees:367845
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/367845/files/Kumar41122023AJAEES110365.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Shavell, Steven & van Ypersele, Tanguy, 2001. "Rewards versus Intellectual Property Rights," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 44(2), pages 525-547, October.
    2. van Zeebroeck, Nicolas & van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, Bruno & Guellec, Dominique, 2009. "Claiming more: the Increased Voluminosity of Patent Applications and its Determinants," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(6), pages 1006-1020, July.
    3. Brush, Stephen B., 2007. "Farmers' Rights and Protection of Traditional Agricultural Knowledge," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 35(9), pages 1499-1514, September.
    4. Ganguli, Prabuddha, 1999. "Towards TRIPs compliance in India: The Patents Amendment Act 1999 and implications," World Patent Information, Elsevier, vol. 21(4), pages 279-287, December.
    5. Juma, Calestous, 2015. "The New Harvest: Agricultural Innovation in Africa," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780190237233.
    6. Valentine Millot, 2009. "Trademarks as an Indicator of Product and Marketing Innovations," OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers 2009/6, OECD Publishing.
    7. Chih‐Hai Yang & Rhung‐Jieh Woo, 2006. "Do stronger intellectual property rights induce more agricultural trade?: a dynamic panel data model applied to seed trade," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 35(1), pages 91-101, July.
    8. Salazar, Rene & Louwaars, Niels P. & Visser, Bert, 2007. "Protecting Farmers' New Varieties: New Approaches to Rights on Collective Innovations in Plant Genetic Resources," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 35(9), pages 1515-1528, September.
    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. Harhoff, Dietmar & Hoisl, Karin & van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, Bruno, 2009. "Languages, Fees and the International Scope of Patenting," Discussion Papers in Business Administration 10456, University of Munich, Munich School of Management.
    2. Yang, Bin & An, Zhe & Gao, Xin & Li, Donghui, 2023. "Trademarks and the cost of equity capital," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 83(C).
    3. Liotard, Isabelle & Revest, Valérie, 2018. "Contests as innovation policy instruments: Lessons from the US federal agencies' experience," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 57-69.
    4. Dirk Crass & Franz Schwiebacher, 2017. "The importance of trademark protection for product differentiation and innovation," Economia e Politica Industriale: Journal of Industrial and Business Economics, Springer;Associazione Amici di Economia e Politica Industriale, vol. 44(2), pages 199-220, June.
    5. Carolina Castaldi & Sandro Mendonca, 2021. "Regions and trademarks. Research opportunities and policy insights from leveraging trademarks in regional innovation studies," Papers in Evolutionary Economic Geography (PEEG) 2138, Utrecht University, Department of Human Geography and Spatial Planning, Group Economic Geography, revised Dec 2021.
    6. Ventsislava Nikolova-Minkova, 2022. "Bulgarian and Foreign Trademark Activity in Bulgaria and Bulgarian Trademark Activity Abroad for the Period 2000-2019," Economic Studies journal, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences - Economic Research Institute, issue 2, pages 173-196.
    7. Benjamin Barber & Luis Diestre, 2022. "Can firms avoid tough patent examiners through examiner‐shopping? Strategic timing of citations in USPTO patent applications," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(9), pages 1854-1871, September.
    8. Dolfsma, W.A., 2006. "IPRs, Technological Development, and Economic Development," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2006-004-ORG, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    9. 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.
    10. Penin, Julien, 2005. "Patents versus ex post rewards: A new look," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(5), pages 641-656, June.
    11. Bruno van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, 2011. "The quality factor in patent systems," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 20(6), pages 1755-1793, December.
    12. Bisharat Hussain Chang & Khalil Ahmed Channa & Emmanuel Uche & Osamah Ibrahim Khalaf & Osamah Waheed Ali, 2022. "Analyzing the impacts of terrorism on innovation activity: A cross country empirical study," Advances in Decision Sciences, Asia University, Taiwan, vol. 26(Special), pages 124-161, December.
    13. Nancy Gallini & Suzanne Scotchmer, 2002. "Intellectual Property: When Is It the Best Incentive System?," NBER Chapters, in: Innovation Policy and the Economy, Volume 2, pages 51-78, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    14. Erwin Arkenbout & Frans van Dijk & Peter van Wijck, 2004. "Copyright in the Information Society: Scenario's and Strategies," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 17(2), pages 237-249, March.
    15. Gandjour, Afschin & Chernyak, Nadja, 2011. "A new prize system for drug innovation," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 102(2), pages 170-177.
    16. repec:sol:wpaper:08-041 is not listed on IDEAS
    17. Galasso, Alberto & Mitchell, Matthew & Virag, Gabor, 2018. "A theory of grand innovation prizes," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(2), pages 343-362.
    18. Blanc, Antoine & Huault, Isabelle, 2014. "Against the digital revolution? Institutional maintenance and artefacts within the French recorded music industry," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 10-23.
    19. 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.
    20. Bruno Pottelsberghe de la Potterie & Nicolas Zeebroeck, 2008. "A brief history of space and time: The scope-year index as a patent value indicator based on families and renewals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 75(2), pages 319-338, May.
    21. de Saint-Georges, Matthis & van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, Bruno, 2013. "A quality index for patent systems," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(3), pages 704-719.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;

    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:ags:ajaees:367845. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journalajaees.com/index.php/AJAEES/index .

    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.