IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/polsoc/v39y2011i2p143-174.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Political Contradictions of Incremental Innovation: Lessons from Pharmaceutical Patent Examination in Brazil

Author

Listed:
  • Kenneth C. Shadlen

    (London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK, k.shadlen@lse.ac.uk)

Abstract

Neodevelopmental patent regimes aim to facilitate local actors’ access to knowledge and also encourage incremental innovations. The case of pharmaceutical patent examination in Brazil illustrates political contradictions between these objectives. Brazil’s patent law includes the Ministry of Health in the examination of pharmaceutical patent applications. Though widely celebrated as a health-oriented policy, the Brazilian experience has become fraught with tensions and subject to decreasing levels of both stability and enforcement. I show how one pillar of the neodevelopmental regime, the array of initiatives to encourage incremental innovations, has fostered the acquisition of innovative capabilities in the Brazilian pharmaceutical sector, and how these new capabilities have altered actors’ policy preferences and thus contributed to the erosion of the coalition in support of the other pillar of the neodevelopmental regime, the health-oriented approach to examining pharmaceutical patents. The analysis of capability-derived preference formation points to an endogenous process of coalitional change.

Suggested Citation

  • Kenneth C. Shadlen, 2011. "The Political Contradictions of Incremental Innovation: Lessons from Pharmaceutical Patent Examination in Brazil," Politics & Society, , vol. 39(2), pages 143-174, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:polsoc:v:39:y:2011:i:2:p:143-174
    DOI: 10.1177/0032329211402601
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0032329211402601
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0032329211402601?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. G. M.P. Swann, 2009. "The Economics of Innovation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 13211.
    2. Ryan, Michael P., 2010. "Patent Incentives, Technology Markets, and Public-Private Bio-Medical Innovation Networks in Brazil," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 38(8), pages 1082-1093, August.
    3. Sisule F. Musungu, 2008. "The Use of Flexibilities in TRIPS by Developing Countries: Can They Promot Access to Medicines?," Working Papers id:1649, eSocialSciences.
    4. Carlos H. de Brito Cruz & Luiz de Mello, 2006. "Boosting Innovation Performance in Brazil," OECD Economics Department Working Papers 532, OECD Publishing.
    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. Sampat, Bhaven N. & Shadlen, Kenneth C., 2017. "Secondary pharmaceutical patenting: A global perspective," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(3), pages 693-707.

    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. Jae-Seung Han & Sang-Yong Lee, 2013. "The impact of technology transfer contract on a firm’s market value in Korea," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 38(5), pages 651-674, October.
    2. Harishankar Jagadeesh & Subash Sasidharan, 2014. "Do Stronger IPR Regimes Influence R&D Efforts? Evidence from the Indian Pharmaceutical Industry," Global Business Review, International Management Institute, vol. 15(2), pages 189-204, June.
    3. Sweet, Cassandra Mehlig & Eterovic Maggio, Dalibor Sacha, 2015. "Do Stronger Intellectual Property Rights Increase Innovation?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 665-677.
    4. Frank R. Lichtenberg, 2014. "Has Medical Innovation Reduced Cancer Mortality?," CESifo Economic Studies, CESifo Group, vol. 60(1), pages 135-177.
    5. Cowling, Marc & Ughetto, Elisa & Lee, Neil, 2018. "The innovation debt penalty: Cost of debt, loan default, and the effects of a public loan guarantee on high-tech firms," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 166-176.
    6. Alhassan Abdul-Wakeel Karakara & Evans Osabuohien, 2020. "ICT adoption, competition and innovation of informal firms in West Africa: a comparative study of Ghana and Nigeria," Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 14(3), pages 397-414, June.
    7. ManYing Kang & Marcel Ausloos, 2017. "An Inverse Problem Study: Credit Risk Ratings as a Determinant of Corporate Governance and Capital Structure in Emerging Markets: Evidence from Chinese Listed Companies," Economies, MDPI, vol. 5(4), pages 1-23, November.
    8. Vitaliy Roud & Thomas Wolfgang Thurner, 2018. "The Influence of State‐Ownership on Eco‐Innovations in Russian Manufacturing Firms," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 22(5), pages 1213-1227, October.
    9. Laura Barbieri & Daniela Bragoli & Flavia Cortelezzi & Giovanni Marseguerra, 2015. "Public Support to Innovation Strategies," DISCE - Quaderni del Dipartimento di Scienze Economiche e Sociali dises1509, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Dipartimenti e Istituti di Scienze Economiche (DISCE).
    10. Massimo Colombo & Annalisa Croce & Samuele Murtinu, 2014. "Ownership structure, horizontal agency costs and the performance of high-tech entrepreneurial firms," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 42(2), pages 265-282, February.
    11. Olusola O. Ololade & Palesa P. Rametse, 2018. "Determining factors that enable managers to implement an environmental management system for sustainable construction: A case study in Johannesburg," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(8), pages 1720-1732, December.
    12. 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.
    13. Schankerman, Mark & Schuett, Florian, 2016. "Screening for Patent Quality," CEPR Discussion Papers 11688, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    14. Christoph P. Kiefer & Pablo Del Río González & Javier Carrillo‐Hermosilla, 2019. "Drivers and barriers of eco‐innovation types for sustainable transitions: A quantitative perspective," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(1), pages 155-172, January.
    15. Richard Harris & John Moffat, 2011. "R&D, Innovation and Exporting," SERC Discussion Papers 0073, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    16. Wipo, 2011. "World Intellectual Property Report 2011- The Changing Face of Innovation," WIPO Economics & Statistics Series, World Intellectual Property Organization - Economics and Statistics Division, number 2011:944, January.
    17. Christian Rammer & Gastón P Fernández & Dirk Czarnitzki, 2021. "Artificial Intelligence and Industrial Innovation: Evidence from Firm-Level Data," Working Papers of Department of Economics, Leuven 674605, KU Leuven, Faculty of Economics and Business (FEB), Department of Economics, Leuven.
    18. Adu-Gyamfi, Richard & Kuada, John & Asongu, Simplice, 2018. "An Integrative Framework for Entrepreneurship Research in Africa," MPRA Paper 89133, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. Davide Consoli & Pier Paolo Patrucco, 2011. "Complexity and the Coordination of Technological Knowledge: The Case of Innovation Platforms," Chapters, in: Handbook on the Economic Complexity of Technological Change, chapter 8 Edward Elgar Publishing.
    20. Chu, Angus C. & Pan, Shiyuan, 2013. "The Escape-Infringement Effect Of Blocking Patents On Innovation And Economic Growth," Macroeconomic Dynamics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 17(4), pages 955-969, June.

    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:sae:polsoc:v:39:y:2011:i:2:p:143-174. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.