IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ess/wpaper/id2308.html

Statistical Trends in Pharmaceutical Research for Poor Countries

Author

Listed:
  • Jean O Lanjouw

Abstract

Introducing patent rights in developing country markets might stimulate greater R and D investment targeting their specific health needs – areas long neglected. This paper examines this argument using statistical data and survey evidence. We identify a set of diseases where 99 per cent of the burden is estimated to fall in lower income countries. Because science gaps and market potential will influence R and D priorities, this group is broke into a subset that already have low-cost and effect treatments, and those that to not.

Suggested Citation

  • Jean O Lanjouw, 2009. "Statistical Trends in Pharmaceutical Research for Poor Countries," Working Papers id:2308, eSocialSciences.
    • Handle: RePEc:ess:wpaper:id:2308
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.eSocialSciences.com/data/articles/Document126112009170.5472528.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Wesley M. Cohen & Richard R. Nelson & John P. Walsh, 2000. "Protecting Their Intellectual Assets: Appropriability Conditions and Why U.S. Manufacturing Firms Patent (or Not)," NBER Working Papers 7552, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Lanjouw, Jean O. & Cockburn, Iain M., 2001. "New Pills for Poor People? Empirical Evidence after GATT," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 265-289, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Jing-Yuan Chio & Laura Magazzini & Fabio Pammolli & Massimo Riccaboni, 2012. "The Value of Failures in Pharmaceutical R&D," Working Papers 1/2012, IMT School for Advanced Studies Lucca, revised Jan 2012.
    2. Werner Hölzl, 2007. "Intellectual Property Rights, Innovation and European IPR Policy," Austrian Economic Quarterly, WIFO, vol. 12(1), pages 71-82, May.
    3. Margaret K. Kyle & Anita M. McGahan, 2012. "Investments in Pharmaceuticals Before and After TRIPS," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 94(4), pages 1157-1172, November.
    4. Ugo Pagano & Maria Alessandra Rossi, 2016. "The knowledge economy, the crash and the depression," Department of Economics University of Siena 741, Department of Economics, University of Siena.
    5. Dosi, Giovanni & Palagi, Elisa & Roventini, Andrea & Russo, Emanuele, 2023. "Do patents really foster innovation in the pharmaceutical sector? Results from an evolutionary, agent-based model," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 212(C), pages 564-589.
    6. Lo, Shih-tse, 2011. "Strengthening intellectual property rights: Experience from the 1986 Taiwanese patent reforms," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 29(5), pages 524-536, September.
    7. Jean O. Lanjouw, 2003. "Intellectual Property and the Availability of Pharmaceuticals in Poor Countries," NBER Chapters, in: Innovation Policy and the Economy, Volume 3, pages 91-130, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. Hu, Albert Guangzhou & Jefferson, Gary H., 2009. "A great wall of patents: What is behind China's recent patent explosion?," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(1), pages 57-68, September.
    9. Jing-Yuan Chiou & Laura Magazzini & Fabio Pammolli & Massimo Riccaboni, 2016. "Learning from successes and failures in pharmaceutical R&D," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 26(2), pages 271-290, May.
    10. Chang-Yang Lee & Ji-Hwan Lee & Ajai S. Gaur, 2017. "Are large business groups conducive to industry innovation? The moderating role of technological appropriability," Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Springer, vol. 34(2), pages 313-337, June.
    11. Henri A. Schildt & Markku V.J. Maula & Thomas Keil, 2005. "Explorative and Exploitative Learning from External Corporate Ventures," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 29(4), pages 493-515, July.
    12. repec:osf:socarx:qzmf8_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Galasso, Alberto & Schankerman, Mark, 2013. "Patents and Cumulative Innovation:Causal Evidence from the Courts," IIR Working Paper 13-16, Institute of Innovation Research, Hitotsubashi University.
    14. Andrés Langebaek R. & Diego Vásquez E., 2007. "Determinantes de la actividad innovadora en la industria manufacturera colombiana," Borradores de Economia 433, Banco de la Republica de Colombia.
    15. Crass, Dirk & Garcia Valero, Francisco & Pitton, Francesco & Rammer, Christian, 2016. "Protecting innovation through patents and trade secrets: Determinants and performance impacts for firms with a single innovation," ZEW Discussion Papers 16-061, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    16. Iain M. Cockburn & Megan J. MacGarvie, 2011. "Entry and Patenting in the Software Industry," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(5), pages 915-933, May.
    17. Aiello, Francesco & Albanese, Giuseppe & Piselli, Paolo, 2019. "Good value for public money? The case of R&D policy," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 41(6), pages 1057-1076.
    18. Beschorner, Patrick Frank Ernst, 2008. "Do Shorter Product Cycles Induce Patent Thickets?," ZEW Discussion Papers 08-098, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    19. Luintel, Kul B. & Khan, Mosahid, 2017. "Ideas production and international knowledge spillovers: Digging deeper into emerging countries," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(10), pages 1738-1754.
    20. Carlino, Gerald & Kerr, William R., 2015. "Agglomeration and Innovation," Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics, in: Gilles Duranton & J. V. Henderson & William C. Strange (ed.), Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics, edition 1, volume 5, chapter 0, pages 349-404, Elsevier.
    21. Fontana, Roberto & Nuvolari, Alessandro & Shimizu, Hiroshi & Vezzulli, Andrea, 2013. "Reassessing patent propensity: Evidence from a dataset of R&D awards, 1977–2004," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(10), pages 1780-1792.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:ess:wpaper:id:2308. 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: Padma Prakash (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.esocialsciences.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.