IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cpr/ceprdp/4712.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Welfare Effects of Intellectual Property in a North-South Model of Endogenous Growth with Comparative Advantage

Author

Listed:
  • Saint-Paul, Gilles

Abstract

This Paper develops a model for analysing the costs and benefits of intellectual property enforcement in LDCs. The North is more productive than the South and is the only source of innovator. There are two types of goods, and each bloc has a comparative advantage in producing a specific type of good. If comparative advantage is strong enough, even under piracy there are goods that the South will not produce. Piracy will then lead to a reallocation of innovative activity in favour of these goods. That may harm consumers (including consumers in the South) to the extent that these goods have smaller dynamic learning externalities than the other goods, and that their share in consumption is small. Thus, whether or not piracy is in the interest of the South depends on how important are the goods for which it has a comparative advantage to its consumers, and what the growth potential of these goods is. While, all else equal, the North tends to lose more (or gain less) from piracy than the South, because monopoly profits eventually accrue to the North, the South may lose more than the North if there is a strong enough home bias in favour of the goods for which it has a comparative advantage.

Suggested Citation

  • Saint-Paul, Gilles, 2004. "Welfare Effects of Intellectual Property in a North-South Model of Endogenous Growth with Comparative Advantage," CEPR Discussion Papers 4712, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  • Handle: RePEc:cpr:ceprdp:4712
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://cepr.org/publications/DP4712
    Download Restriction: CEPR Discussion Papers are free to download for our researchers, subscribers and members. If you fall into one of these categories but have trouble downloading our papers, please contact us at subscribers@cepr.org
    ---><---

    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. 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. Gould, David M. & Gruben, William C., 1996. "The role of intellectual property rights in economic growth," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(2), pages 323-350, March.
    3. Smith, Pamela J., 1999. "Are weak patent rights a barrier to U.S. exports?," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 151-177, June.
    4. OLIVIER, Jacques & GOH, Ai-Ting, 2001. "Free trade and protection of intellectual property rights : can we have one without the other?," HEC Research Papers Series 730, HEC Paris.
    5. Gancia, Gino & Bonfiglioli, Alessandra, 2008. "North-South trade and directed technical change," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 76(2), pages 276-295, December.
    6. Dornbusch, Rudiger & Fischer, Stanley & Samuelson, Paul A, 1977. "Comparative Advantage, Trade, and Payments in a Ricardian Model with a Continuum of Goods," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 67(5), pages 823-839, December.
    7. McCalman, Phillip, 2001. "Reaping what you sow: an empirical analysis of international patent harmonization," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(1), pages 161-186, October.
    8. Lee, Jeong-Yeon & Mansfield, Edwin, 1996. "Intellectual Property Protection and U.S. Foreign Direct Investment," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 78(2), pages 181-186, May.
    9. Benassy, Jean-Pascal, 1996. "Taste for variety and optimum production patterns in monopolistic competition," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 52(1), pages 41-47, July.
    10. Mathias Thoenig & Thierry Verdier, 2003. "A Theory of Defensive Skill-Biased Innovation and Globalization," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 93(3), pages 709-728, June.
    11. Gilles Saint-Paul, 2005. "To What Extent Should Less-Developed Countries Enforce Intellectual Property Rights?," World Economics, World Economics, 1 Ivory Square, Plantation Wharf, London, United Kingdom, SW11 3UE, vol. 6(3), pages 175-196, July.
    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. Gancia, Gino & Bonfiglioli, Alessandra, 2008. "North-South trade and directed technical change," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 76(2), pages 276-295, December.
    2. Gino A.Gancia, 2003. "Globalization, Divergence and Stagnation," Development Working Papers 174, Centro Studi Luca d'Agliano, University of Milano.
    3. Léger, Andréanne, 2006. "Intellectual Property Rights and Innovation in Developing Countries: Evidence from Panel Data," Proceedings of the German Development Economics Conference, Berlin 2006 17, Verein für Socialpolitik, Research Committee Development Economics.
    4. Borota, Teodora, 2010. "Innovation and Imitation in a Model of North-South TradeRecent evidence on world trade patterns reveals North-South specialization across," Working Paper Series 2010:6, Uppsala University, Department of Economics.
    5. Eicher, Theo & García-Peñalosa, Cecilia, 2008. "Endogenous strength of intellectual property rights: Implications for economic development and growth," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 52(2), pages 237-258, February.

    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. Saint-Paul, Gilles, 2004. "To What Extent Should Less-Developed Countries Enforce Intellectual Property?," CEPR Discussion Papers 4713, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    2. 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).
    3. Anja, Breitwieser & Neil, Foster, 2012. "Intellectual property rights, innovation and technology transfer: a survey," MPRA Paper 36094, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Gino A.Gancia, 2003. "Globalization, Divergence and Stagnation," Development Working Papers 174, Centro Studi Luca d'Agliano, University of Milano.
    5. Gancia, Gino & Bonfiglioli, Alessandra, 2008. "North-South trade and directed technical change," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 76(2), pages 276-295, December.
    6. Edwin L Lai, 2004. "The Economics of Intellectual Property Protection in the Global Economy," Levine's Working Paper Archive 122247000000000481, David K. Levine.
    7. Kanwar, Sunil, 2007. "Intellectual Property Protection and Technology Transfer: Evidence From US Multinationals," University of California at San Diego, Economics Working Paper Series qt606508js, Department of Economics, UC San Diego.
    8. Kamal Saggi, 2016. "Trade, Intellectual Property Rights, and the World Trade Organization," Vanderbilt University Department of Economics Working Papers 16-00014, Vanderbilt University Department of Economics.
    9. Maria Pluvia ZUNIGA & Emmanuel COMBE, 2002. "Introducing Patent Protection In The Pharmaceutical Sector:," Region et Developpement, Region et Developpement, LEAD, Universite du Sud - Toulon Var, vol. 16, pages 191-221.
    10. 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.
    11. Zheng, Zhijie & Huang, Chien-Yu & Yang, Yibai, 2020. "Patent protection, innovation, and technology transfer in a Schumpeterian economy," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).
    12. GianCarlo Moschini, 2004. "Intellectual Property Rights and the World Trade Organization: Retrospect and Prospects," Chapters, in: Giovanni Anania & Mary E.. Bohman & Colin A. Carter & Alex F. McCalla (ed.), Agricultural Policy Reform and the WTO, chapter 19, pages 474-511, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    13. Michael A. Klein, 2015. "Foreign Direct Investment and Intellectual Property Protection in Developing Countries," CAEPR Working Papers 2015-018, Center for Applied Economics and Policy Research, Department of Economics, Indiana University Bloomington.
    14. Pamela J. Smith & Sebastian J. Anti, 2022. "How does TRIPs compliance affect the economic growth of developing countries? Application of the Synthetic Control method," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 45(12), pages 3873-3906, December.
    15. Juan Carlos Escanciano, 2015. "Uniformly Consistent Estimation of Linear Regression Models with Strictly Exogenous Instruments," CAEPR Working Papers 2015-023, Center for Applied Economics and Policy Research, Department of Economics, Indiana University Bloomington.
    16. Usha Nair‐Reichert & Roderick Duncan, 2008. "Patent Regimes, Host Country Policies, and the Nature of MNE Activities," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 16(4), pages 783-797, September.
    17. Hall, Bronwyn H. & Helmers, Christian, 2019. "The impact of international patent systems: Evidence from accession to the European Patent Convention," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(9), pages 1-1.
    18. Auriol, Emmanuelle & Biancini, Sara & Paillacar, Rodrigo, 2015. "Intellectual Property Rights Protection and Trade," CEPR Discussion Papers 10602, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    19. Lai, Edwin L. -C. & Qiu, Larry D., 2003. "The North's intellectual property rights standard for the South?," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 59(1), pages 183-209, January.
    20. Etienne Pfister & Bruno Deffains & Myriam Doriat-Duban & Stéphane Saussier, 2006. "Institutions and contracts: Franchising," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 21(1), pages 53-78, January.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Piracy; Intellectual property; Innovation; Growth; Comparative advantage;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • F12 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Models of Trade with Imperfect Competition and Scale Economies; Fragmentation
    • F13 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Trade Policy; International Trade Organizations
    • O30 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - General
    • O34 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Intellectual Property and Intellectual Capital

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:cpr:ceprdp:4712. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cepr.org .

    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.