IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/revage/v26y2004i4p445-471.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Plant Variety Protection, Innovation, and Transferability: Some Empirical Evidence

Author

Abstract

Under the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, all member-countries of the World Trade Organization are required to provide an “effective” system of plant variety protection within a specific time frame. In many developing countries, this has led to a divisive debate about the fundamental desirability of extending intellectual property rights to agriculture. Empirical studies on the economic impacts of plant variety protection, especially its ability to generate large private sector investments in plant breeding and to facilitate the transfer of technology, have been very limited. This paper examines two aspects of the international experience of plant variety protection: (a) the relationship between legislation, research, and development expenditures and plant variety protection grants, i.e., the innovation effect and (b) the role of plant variety protection in facilitating the flow of varieties across countries, i.e., the transferability effect. Copyright 2004, Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • C. S. Srinivasan, 2004. "Plant Variety Protection, Innovation, and Transferability: Some Empirical Evidence," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 26(4), pages 445-471.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:revage:v:26:y:2004:i:4:p:445-471
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1111/j.1467-9353.2004.00193.x
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hausman, Jerry & Hall, Bronwyn H & Griliches, Zvi, 1984. "Econometric Models for Count Data with an Application to the Patents-R&D Relationship," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 52(4), pages 909-938, July.
    2. Pakes, Ariel & Griliches, Zvi, 1980. "Patents and R&D at the firm level: A first report," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 5(4), pages 377-381.
    3. Cary Fowler & Melinda Smale & Samy Gaiji, 2001. "Unequal Exchange? Recent Transfers of Agricultural Resources and their Implications for Developing Countries," Development Policy Review, Overseas Development Institute, vol. 19(2), pages 181-204, June.
    4. Cincera, Michele, 1997. "Patents, R&D, and Technological Spillovers at the Firm Level: Some Evidence from Econometric Count Models for Panel Data," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(3), pages 265-280, May-June.
    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. Venkatesh, P. & Pal, Suresh, 2014. "Impact of Plant Variety Protection on Indian Seed Industry," Agricultural Economics Research Review, Agricultural Economics Research Association (India), vol. 27(1).
    2. Venkatesh, P. & Sangeetha, V. & Pal, Suresh, 2015. "India’s Experience of Plant Variety Protection: Trends, Determinants and Impact," 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California 200413, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.

    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. Danguy, Jérôme & de Rassenfosse, Gaétan & van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, Bruno, 2010. "The R&D-patent relationship: An industry perspective," EIB Papers 7/2009, European Investment Bank, Economics Department.
    2. Roberta Piergiovanni & Enrico Santarelli, 2013. "The more you spend, the more you get? The effects of R&D and capital expenditures on the patenting activities of biotechnology firms," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 94(2), pages 497-521, February.
    3. Gopinath, Munisamy & Vasavada, Utpal, 1999. "Patents, R&D, And Market Structure In The U.S. Food Processing Industry," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 24(1), pages 1-13, July.
    4. Kornelius Kraft & Jörg Stank & Ralf Dewenter, 2011. "Co-determination and innovation," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 35(1), pages 145-172.
    5. Anna Laura Baraldi & Claudia Cantabene & Giulio Perani, 2014. "Reverse causality in the R&D-patents relationship: an interpretation of the innovation persistence," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(3), pages 304-326, April.
    6. Czarnitzki, Dirk & Kraft, Kornelius & Thorwarth, Susanne, 2009. "The knowledge production of 'R' and 'D'," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 105(1), pages 141-143, October.
    7. Haschka, Rouven E. & Herwartz, Helmut, 2020. "Innovation efficiency in European high-tech industries: Evidence from a Bayesian stochastic frontier approach," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(8).
    8. Jérôme Danguy & Gaetan de Rassenfosse & Bruno van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, 2014. "On the origins of the worldwide surge in patenting: an industry perspective on the R&D–patent relationship," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, vol. 23(2), pages 535-572.
    9. de Rassenfosse, Gaétan & Schoen, Anja & Wastyn, Annelies, 2014. "Selection bias in innovation studies: A simple test," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 287-299.
    10. Yang, Chih-Hai & Huang, Yi-Ju & Lin, Hsuan-Yu, 2014. "Do Stronger Intellectual Property Rights Induce More Innovations? A Cross-Country Analysis," Hitotsubashi Journal of Economics, Hitotsubashi University, vol. 55(2), pages 167-188, December.
    11. AndreÌ s LoÌ pez & Eugenia Orlicki, 2009. "Who Uses the Patent System in Developing Countries? A Study of Patent Propensities in Argentina, 1992-2001," Microeconomics Working Papers 22785, East Asian Bureau of Economic Research.
    12. Grafström, Jonas & Poudineh, Rahmat, 2023. "No evidence of counteracting policy effects on European solar power invention and diffusion," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 172(C).
    13. Bruno Crepon & Emmanuel Duguet & Jacques Mairesse, 1998. "Research, Innovation And Productivity: An Econometric Analysis At The Firm Level," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 7(2), pages 115-158.
    14. Rouven E. Haschka & Helmut Herwartz, 2022. "Endogeneity in pharmaceutical knowledge generation: An instrument‐free copula approach for Poisson frontier models," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(4), pages 942-960, November.
    15. Sun, Xiuli & Li, Haizheng & Ghosal, Vivek, 2020. "Firm-level human capital and innovation: Evidence from China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 59(C).
    16. Blundell, Richard & Griffith, Rachel & Windmeijer, Frank, 2002. "Individual effects and dynamics in count data models," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 108(1), pages 113-131, May.
    17. Hall, Bronwyn H. & Ham Ziedonis, Rosemarie, 1999. "Patent Paradox Revisited: Determinants of Patenting in the U.S. Semiconductor Industry, 1980-94," Department of Economics, Working Paper Series qt1rg1088v, Department of Economics, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
    18. Blazsek, Szabolcs & Escribano, Alvaro, 2010. "Knowledge spillovers in US patents: A dynamic patent intensity model with secret common innovation factors," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 159(1), pages 14-32, November.
    19. Chadha, Alka, 2009. "TRIPs and patenting activity: Evidence from the Indian pharmaceutical industry," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 499-505, March.
    20. Daniel Johnson, 2002. ""Learning-by-Licensing": R&D and Technology Licensing in Brazilian Invention," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(3), pages 163-177.

    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:oup:revage:v:26:y:2004:i:4:p:445-471. 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: Oxford University Press or Christopher F. Baum (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaeaaea.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.