IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/fip/fedder/y1997iqivp15-20.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Intellectual property rights and product effectiveness

Author

Abstract

Recent economic literature concludes that an invention-importing country, where domestic invention is scarce or nonexistent, may reduce its welfare and, in some cases, world welfare, by protecting intellectual property developed elsewhere. The analysis presented in this article uses economic theory to show that such a conclusion may not be fully warranted for a wide range of products, such as antibiotics, fungicides, herbicides, and pesticides, whose effectiveness diminishes with cumulative use. Both developed and developing countries may find that protecting intellectual property rights for these products will enhance welfare - even when their invention is provided for free.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:fip:fedder:y:1997:i:qiv:p:15-20
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.dallasfed.org/~/media/documents/research/er/1997/er9704b.pdf
    File Function: Full Text
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    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. Vishwasrao, Sharmila, 1994. "Intellectual property rights and the mode of technology transfer," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(2), pages 381-402, August.
    4. Helpman, Elhanan, 1993. "Innovation, Imitation, and Intellectual Property Rights," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 61(6), pages 1247-1280, November.
    5. 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.
    6. Nancy T. Gallini, 1992. "Patent Policy and Costly Imitation," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 23(1), pages 52-63, Spring.
    7. Richard Gilbert & Carl Shapiro, 1990. "Optimal Patent Length and Breadth," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 21(1), pages 106-112, Spring.
    8. Chin, J.C. & Grossman, G.M., 1988. "Intellectual Property Rigths And North-South Trade," Papers 143, Princeton, Woodrow Wilson School - Public and International Affairs.
    9. Taylor, M Scott, 1994. "TRIPs, Trade, and Growth," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 35(2), pages 361-381, May.
    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. Stéphane Mechoulan, 2007. "Market structure and communicable diseases," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(2), pages 468-492, May.
    2. Badulescu, Dan & Baylis, Katherine R., 2006. "Pesticide Regulation Under NAFTA: Harmonization in Process?," Commissioned Papers 24163, Canadian Agricultural Trade Policy Research Network.

    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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).
    7. Anja, Breitwieser & Neil, Foster, 2012. "Intellectual property rights, innovation and technology transfer: a survey," MPRA Paper 36094, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. Richard K. Perrin, 1999. "Intellectual property rights and developing country agriculture," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 21(3), pages 221-229, December.
    11. 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.
    12. Josh Lerner, 2002. "Patent Protection and Innovation Over 150 Years," NBER Working Papers 8977, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    13. 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).
    14. 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.
    15. 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.
    16. Gino A.Gancia, 2003. "Globalization, Divergence and Stagnation," Development Working Papers 174, Centro Studi Luca d'Agliano, University of Milano.
    17. 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.
    18. Goldsmith, Peter D. & Ramos, Gabriel & Steiger, Carlos, 2001. "Intellectual Property Protection And The International Marketing Of Agricultural Biotechnology: Firm And Host Country Impacts," 2001 Annual meeting, August 5-8, Chicago, IL 20672, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    19. Sumner J. La Croix & Denise Eby Konan, 2002. "Intellectual Property Rights in China: The Changing Political Economy of Chinese–American Interests," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(6), pages 759-788, June.
    20. 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.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Intellectual property; Imports;

    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:fip:fedder:y:1997:i:qiv:p:15-20. 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: Amy Chapman (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/frbdaus.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.