IPRs, Technological Development, and Economic Development
In the year 2000 some $142 billion in royalties were paid internationally by users of a specific piece of knowledge that were protected under Intellectual Property Right law (IPR) to those parties that owned these rights. Under current circumstances where knowledge & innovation play an increasingly significant role in the economy (Foray & Lundvall 1996, Cowan, David and Foray 2000, Cooke 2002, Dolfsma & Soete 2006, Dolfsma 2005). IPRs have become increasingly prominent in debates and are almost unanimously deemed to favor economic development by policymakers, and certainly by policymakers in developed countries. While it has been acknowledged that some parties may benefit more from a system of IPRs than others, in relative terms a Pareto improvement is the expected outcome (Langford 1997). This has not always been the case. In addition, the academic (economic) community is almost unanimous about the system of IPR overshooting its goals. This has been the motivation to include IPRs in the WTO negotiations. The TRIPS agreement (Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights) has resulted in 1994 from these negotiations. Especially during the 1990s the number of patents granted has grown tremendously despite the fact that many a scholar still supports Machlup’s (1958, p.28) conclusion that: “it would be irresponsible, on the basis of our present knowledge of its consequences, to recommend instituting one. But since we have had a patent system for a long time, it would be irresponsible, on the basis of our present knowledge, to recommend abolishing it.” From other corners, where specific effects of IPRs are considered, a different and less circumspect sound may be heard. Examples of this are attempts to make available HIV/AIDS drugs at a reduced price compared to what the pharmaceutical companies that have the patents on these drugs demand. I will focus on patents. Empirical and theoretical findings bearing on the question of IPRs’ effect on technological development, and thus prospect for economic development, are reviewed. Static and dynamic effects are distinguished. Areas where static effects may be expected include transfer of knowledge, balance of payment effects, effects for large as opposed to small firms, and effect on the ‘extent of the market’. Areas for dynamic effects include technological development and technological preemption. The list may not be exhaustive, and effects are interlocking: they may be mutually reinforcing or they may conflict. I will mostly focus on ‘dynamic’ effects.
|Date of creation:||26 Jan 2006|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: RSM Erasmus University & Erasmus School of Economics, PoBox 1738, 3000 DR Rotterdam|
Phone: 31-10-408 1182
Fax: 31-10-408 9020
Web page: http://www.erim.eur.nl/
More information through EDIRC
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Adams, William James & Encaoua, David, 1994.
"Distorting the direction of technological change,"
European Economic Review,
Elsevier, vol. 38(3-4), pages 663-673, April.
- Adams, W.J. & Encaoua, D., 1992. "Distorting the Direction of Technological Change," Papiers d'Economie MathÃ©matique et Applications 92-02, UniversitÃ© PanthÃ©on-Sorbonne (Paris 1).
- Suzanne Scotchmer & Jerry Green, 1990. "Novelty and Disclosure in Patent Law," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 21(1), pages 131-146, Spring.
- Jock Langford, 1997. "Intellectual Property Rights: Technology Transfer and Resource Implications," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 79(5), pages 1576-1583.
- Shavell, Steven & van Ypersele, Tanguy, 2001. "Rewards versus Intellectual Property Rights," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 44(2), pages 525-547, October.
- SHAVELL, Steven & VAN YPERSELE, Tanguy, "undated". "Rewards versus intellectual property rights," CORE Discussion Papers RP 1597, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
- Steven Shavell & Tanguy van Ypersele, 1999. "Rewards versus Intellectual Property Rights," NBER Working Papers 6956, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Shavell, S. & van Ypersele de Strihou, T.P.M.C., 1999. "Rewards versus intellectual property rights," Discussion Paper 1999-26, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
- Harris, Christopher J & Vickers, John S, 1985. "Patent Races and the Persistence of Monopoly," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(4), pages 461-481, June.
- Arundel, Anthony, 2001. "The relative effectiveness of patents and secrecy for appropriation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 611-624, April.
- Mazzoleni, Roberto & Nelson, Richard R., 1998. "The benefits and costs of strong patent protection: a contribution to the current debate," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 273-284, July.
- Edwin Mansfield, 1986. "Patents and Innovation: An Empirical Study," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(2), pages 173-181, February.
- Dolfsma, Wilfred, 2005. "Towards a dynamic (Schumpeterian) welfare economics," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 69-82, February.
- Dolfsma, W.A., 2004. "Towards a Dynamic (Schumpeterian) Welfare Economics," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2004-026-ORG, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
- Wilfred Dolfsma & Luc Soete (ed.), 2006. "Understanding the Dynamics of a Knowledge Economy," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 3799.
- Richard R. Nelson, 1959. "The Simple Economics of Basic Scientific Research," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 67, pages 297-297.
- Cowan, Robin & David, Paul A & Foray, Dominique, 2000. "The Explicit Economics of Knowledge Codification and Tacitness," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, vol. 9(2), pages 211-253, June.
- Cowan Robin & David Paul & Foray Dominique, 1999. "The Explicit Economics of Knowledge Codification and Tacitness," Research Memorandum 025, Maastricht University, Maastricht Economic Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
- Robin Cowan & Paul A. David & Dominique Foray, 1999. "The Explicit Economics of Knowledge Codification and Tacitness," Working Papers 99027, Stanford University, Department of Economics.
- Lerner, Josh, 1995. "Patenting in the Shadow of Competitors," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 38(2), pages 463-495, October.
- Richard C. Levin & Alvin K. Klevorick & Richard R. Nelson & Sidney G. Winter, 1987. "Appropriating the Returns from Industrial Research and Development," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, vol. 18(3), pages 783-832.
- Lanjouw, Jean O & Schankerman, Mark, 2004. "Protecting Intellectual Property Rights: Are Small Firms Handicapped?," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 47(1), pages 45-74, April.
- Paul Romer, 2002. "When Should We Use Intellectual Property Rights?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(2), pages 213-216, May. Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ems:eureri:7301. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (RePub)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.