IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/tugdwp/179067.html

Reforming and Reinforcing the Revolution: The Post-TRIPS Politics of Patents in Latin America

Author

Listed:
  • Shadlen, Kenneth C.

Abstract

National policies toward intellectual property (IP) were revolutionized in the 1990s, as countries adopted new systems to conform to the World Trade Organization’s (WTO) Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs). TRIPS-style IP regimes make patents available for more types of knowledge, grant long periods of patent protection, and endow patent owners with strong rights of exclusion. This paper analyzes two contrasting patterns of political mobilization and pressures for change that newly-introduced, TRIPS-style regimes became subject to by the early 21st Century. Most governments faced pressures to address aspects of their IP systems regarding pharmaceutical patents; governments came under pressure to reform their new patent systems, calling into question the appropriateness and utility of broad and strong private rights of exclusion as tools for disseminating knowledge. Most governments also faced pressures to modify aspects of their patent systems more broadly related to science, technology, and indigenous innovation (STI); governments came under pressure to reinforce their new patent systems, buttressing the role of private rights of exclusion as mechanisms to incentivize the creation and distribution of knowledge and technology. I provide a political explanation for the contrasting trajectories of reform and reinforcement by examining how different policy arrangements generate and mobilize interests for continuity and discontinuity. The focus is on asymmetric patterns of interest mobilization: those actors who benefit from policy interventions tend to mobilize more than those who suffer; those actors who suffer retain the capacities for mobilization and resistance more in the area of health-drugs than STI.

Suggested Citation

  • Shadlen, Kenneth C., 2009. "Reforming and Reinforcing the Revolution: The Post-TRIPS Politics of Patents in Latin America," Working Papers 179067, Tufts University, Global Development and Environment Institute.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:tugdwp:179067
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.179067
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/179067/files/09-02PostTRIPSApril09.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.179067?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. Sell,Susan K., 2003. "Private Power, Public Law," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521819145, January.
    2. Edwin Mansfield, 1986. "Patents and Innovation: An Empirical Study," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(2), pages 173-181, February.
    3. Sell,Susan K., 2003. "Private Power, Public Law," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521525398, January.
    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. Timothy A. Wise, 2012. "The Cost to Mexico of U.S. Corn Ethanol Expansion," GDAE Working Papers 12-01, GDAE, Tufts University.
    2. Filomeno, Felipe Amin, 2013. "State capacity and intellectual property regimes: Lessons from South American soybean agriculture," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 139-152.

    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. Kenneth C. Shadlen, "undated". "Reforming and Reinforcing the Revolution: The Post-TRIPS Politics of Patents in Latin America," GDAE Working Papers 09-02, GDAE, Tufts University.
    2. David Clayton, 2011. "Trade‐Offs And Rip‐Offs: Imitation‐Led Industrialisation And The Evolution Of Trademark Law In Hong Kong," Australian Economic History Review, Economic History Society of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 51(2), pages 178-198, July.
    3. Bayer, Patrick & Marcoux, Christopher & Urpelainen, Johannes, 2013. "Leveraging private capital for climate mitigation: Evidence from the Clean Development Mechanism," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 14-24.
    4. Mohammed El Said, 2020. "Radical Approaches During Unusual Circumstances: Intellectual Property Regulation and the COVID-19 Dilemma," Development, Palgrave Macmillan;Society for International Deveopment, vol. 63(2), pages 209-218, December.
    5. Archibugi, Daniele & Filippetti, Andrea, 2010. "The globalisation of intellectual property rights: four learned lessons and four theses," MPRA Paper 21930, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Anne Roemer-Mahler, 2013. "Business conflict and global politics: The pharmaceutical industry and the global protection of intellectual property rights," Review of International Political Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(1), pages 121-152, February.
    7. Emilie Cloatre & Robert Dingwall, 2013. "“Embedded regulation:” The migration of objects, scripts, and governance," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 7(3), pages 365-386, September.
    8. Suma Athreye & Lucia Piscitello & Kenneth C. Shadlen, 2020. "Twenty-five years since TRIPS: Patent policy and international business," Journal of International Business Policy, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 3(4), pages 315-328, December.
    9. Jean-Paul Moatti & Bruno Ventelou, 2009. "Économie de la santé dans les pays en développement des paradigmes en mutation," Revue économique, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 60(2), pages 241-256.
    10. Valbona Muzaka, 2013. "Intellectual property protection and European 'competitiveness'," Review of International Political Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(4), pages 819-847, August.
    11. Daniel Berliner & Aseem Prakash, 2012. "From norms to programs: The United Nations Global Compact and global governance," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 6(2), pages 149-166, June.
    12. Francesca Spigarelli & Hao Way, 2012. "The rising Chinese pharmaceutical industry: local champions vs global players," Working Papers 1206, c.MET-05 - Centro Interuniversitario di Economia Applicata alle Politiche per L'industria, lo Sviluppo locale e l'Internazionalizzazione.
    13. Matthew David & Debora J. Halbert, 2017. "Intellectual Property & Global Policy," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 8(2), pages 149-158, May.
    14. Nitsan Chorev, 2013. "Restructuring neoliberalism at the World Health Organization," Review of International Political Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(4), pages 627-666, August.
    15. Madison Cartwright, 2021. "Business conflict and international law: The political economy of copyright in the United States," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(1), pages 152-167, January.
    16. Ann Florini, 2014. "The Public Roles of the Private Sector in Asia: The Emerging Research Agenda," Asia and the Pacific Policy Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 1(1), pages 33-44, January.
    17. Valbona Muzaka, 2013. "Contradictions, frames and reproductions: The emergence of the WIPO Development Agenda," Review of International Political Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(1), pages 215-239, February.
    18. Suzuki, Mao, 2020. "Profits before patients? Analyzing donors’ economic motives for foreign aid in the health sector," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 132(C).
    19. Jean‐Frédéric Morin & Madison Cartwright, 2020. "The US and EU’s Intellectual Property Initiatives in Asia: Competition, Coordination or Replication?," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 11(5), pages 557-568, November.
    20. Susan K. Sell, 2020. "What COVID-19 Reveals About Twenty-First Century Capitalism: Adversity and Opportunity," Development, Palgrave Macmillan;Society for International Deveopment, vol. 63(2), pages 150-156, December.

    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:tugdwp:179067. 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://edirc.repec.org/data/gdtufus.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.