IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ess/wpaper/id772.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Estimating the Effects of Global Patent Protection in Pharmaceuticals: A Case Study of Quinolones in India

Author

Abstract

In the context of the TRIPS agreement and the accompanying debate about the merits of the requirement to enforce product patents for pharmaceuticals, this paper provides a rigorously-derived estimate of the possible impact of pharmaceutical product patents on prices and welfare in a developing economy. Using detailed product-level data on monthly pharmaceutical prices and sales over a two year period from January 1999 to December 2000, the study estimates key price and expenditure elasticities and supply-side parameters for the fluoroquinolone (quinolone henceforth) segment of systemic anti-bacterials (i.e., antibiotics) in the Indian pharmaceuticals market. These estimates are then used to carry out counterfactual simulations of what prices, profits, and consumer welfare would have been, had the fluoroquinolone molecules under study been under patent in India as they were in the U.S. at the time. [BREAD Working Paper No. 125, July 2006]

Suggested Citation

  • Shubham Chaudhuri, 2006. "Estimating the Effects of Global Patent Protection in Pharmaceuticals: A Case Study of Quinolones in India," Working Papers id:772, eSocialSciences.
    • Handle: RePEc:ess:wpaper:id:772
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.eSocialSciences.com/data/articles/Document127122006267.045925E-03.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    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. Deardorff, Alan V, 1992. "Welfare Effects of Global Patent Protection," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 59(233), pages 35-51, February.
    3. Gene M. Grossman & Edwin L.-C. Lai, 2004. "International Protection of Intellectual Property," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 94(5), pages 1635-1653, December.
    4. Lanjouw, J.O., 1997. "The Introduction of Pharmaceutical Product Patents in India: "Heartless Exploitation of the Poor and Suffering"?," Papers 775, Yale - Economic Growth Center.
    5. Sara Ellison Fisher & Iain Cockburn & Zvi Griliches & Jerry Hausman, 1997. "Characteristics of Demand for Pharmaceutical Products: An Examination of Four Cephalosporins," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 28(3), pages 426-446, Autumn.
    6. Richard G. Frank & David S. Salkever, 1997. "Generic Entry and the Pricing of Pharmaceuticals," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 6(1), pages 75-90, March.
    7. Guifang Yang & Maskus, Keith E., 2003. "Intellectual property rights, licensing, and innovation," Policy Research Working Paper Series 2973, The World Bank.
    8. McFadden, Daniel L., 1984. "Econometric analysis of qualitative response models," Handbook of Econometrics, in: Z. Griliches† & M. D. Intriligator (ed.), Handbook of Econometrics, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 24, pages 1395-1457, Elsevier.
    9. Kremer, Michael R., 1998. "Patent Buyouts: A Mechanism for Encouraging Innovation," Scholarly Articles 3693705, Harvard University Department of Economics.
    10. Hausman, Jerry A & Leonard, Gregory K, 2002. "The Competitive Effects of a New Product Introduction: A Case Study," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 50(3), pages 237-263, September.
    11. Nevo, Aviv, 2001. "Measuring Market Power in the Ready-to-Eat Cereal Industry," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 69(2), pages 307-342, March.
    12. Jerry A. Hausman, 1996. "Valuation of New Goods under Perfect and Imperfect Competition," NBER Chapters, in: The Economics of New Goods, pages 207-248, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    13. Christensen, Laurits R & Jorgenson, Dale W & Lau, Lawrence J, 1975. "Transcendental Logarithmic Utility Functions," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 65(3), pages 367-383, June.
    14. Helpman, Elhanan, 1993. "Innovation, Imitation, and Intellectual Property Rights," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 61(6), pages 1247-1280, November.
    15. Goldberg, Pinelopi Koujianou, 1995. "Product Differentiation and Oligopoly in International Markets: The Case of the U.S. Automobile Industry," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 63(4), pages 891-951, July.
    16. 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.
    17. Mattias Ganslandt & Keith E. Maskus & Eina V. Wong, 2001. "Developing and Distributing Essential Medicines to Poor Countries: The DEFEND Proposal," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 24(6), pages 779-795, June.
    18. Steven T. Berry, 1994. "Estimating Discrete-Choice Models of Product Differentiation," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 25(2), pages 242-262, Summer.
    19. Z. John Lu & William S. Comanor, 1998. "Strategic Pricing Of New Pharmaceuticals," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 80(1), pages 108-118, February.
    20. Fink, Carsten, 2000. "How stronger patent protection in India might affect the behavior of transnational pharaceutical industries," Policy Research Working Paper Series 2352, The World Bank.
    21. Michael Kremer, 1998. "Patent Buyouts: A Mechanism for Encouraging Innovation," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 113(4), pages 1137-1167.
    22. repec:hhs:iuiwop:552 is not listed on IDEAS
    23. Berry, Steven & Levinsohn, James & Pakes, Ariel, 1995. "Automobile Prices in Market Equilibrium," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 63(4), pages 841-890, July.
    24. Donald W. K. Andrews & Moshe Buchinsky, 2000. "A Three-Step Method for Choosing the Number of Bootstrap Repetitions," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 68(1), pages 23-52, January.
    25. 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.
    26. Trajtenberg, Manuel, 1989. "The Welfare Analysis of Product Innovations, with an Application to Computed Tomography Scanners," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 97(2), pages 444-479, April.
    27. Jerry A Hausman & Gregory K Leonard, 2002. "The Competitive Effects of a New Product Introduction: A Case Study," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 50(3), pages 237-263, September.
    28. Keith E. Maskus, 2000. "Intellectual Property Rights in the Global Economy," Peterson Institute Press: All Books, Peterson Institute for International Economics, number 99, October.
    29. Wright, Brian Davern, 1983. "The Economics of Invention Incentives: Patents, Prizes, and Research Contracts," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 73(4), pages 691-707, September.
    30. Chin, J.C. & Grossman, G.M., 1988. "Intellectual Property Rigths And North-South Trade," Papers 143, Princeton, Woodrow Wilson School - Public and International Affairs.
    31. Deaton, Angus S & Muellbauer, John, 1980. "An Almost Ideal Demand System," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 70(3), pages 312-326, June.
    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. Nevo, Aviv, 1997. "Mergers with Differentiated Products: The Case of Ready-to-Eat Cereal," Competition Policy Center, Working Paper Series qt1d53t6ts, Competition Policy Center, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
    2. Federico Ciliberto & GianCarlo Moschini & Edward D. Perry, 2019. "Valuing product innovation: genetically engineered varieties in US corn and soybeans," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 50(3), pages 615-644, September.
    3. Bokhari, Farasat A.S. & Mariuzzo, Franco, 2018. "Demand estimation and merger simulations for drugs: Logits v. AIDS," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 653-685.
    4. Wright, Brian D. & Pardey, Philip G. & Nottenburg, Carol & Koo, Bonwoo, 2007. "Agricultural Innovation: Investments and Incentives," Handbook of Agricultural Economics, in: Robert Evenson & Prabhu Pingali (ed.), Handbook of Agricultural Economics, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 48, pages 2533-2603, Elsevier.
    5. Leheyda, Nina, 2008. "Private Incentives to Innovate: Interplay of New Products and Brand-Name Reputation," ZEW Discussion Papers 08-120, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    6. Ivan Moreno-Torres, 2011. "What if there was a stronger pharmaceutical price competition in Spain? When regulation has a similar effect to collusion," Working Papers XREAP2011-02, Xarxa de Referència en Economia Aplicada (XREAP), revised May 2011.
    7. Lee Branstetter & Chirantan Chatterjee & Matthew J. Higgins, 2016. "Regulation and welfare: evidence from paragraph IV generic entry in the pharmaceutical industry," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 47(4), pages 857-890, November.
    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. Paris Cleanthous, 2011. "Evaluating Innovation and Moral Hazard in Pharmaceuticals," University of Cyprus Working Papers in Economics 03-2011, University of Cyprus Department of Economics.
    10. Auriol, Emmanuelle & Biancini, Sara & Paillacar, Rodrigo, 2023. "Intellectual property rights protection and trade: An empirical analysis," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 162(C).
    11. Hudson, John & Minea, Alexandru, 2013. "Innovation, Intellectual Property Rights, and Economic Development: A Unified Empirical Investigation," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 66-78.
    12. Toro-Gonzalez, Daniel & McCluskey, Jill J. & Mittelhammer, Ron, 2014. "Beer Snobs Do Exist: Estimation of Beer Demand by Type," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 39(2), pages 1-14.
    13. Arcidiacono, Peter & Ellickson, Paul B. & Landry, Peter & Ridley, David B., 2013. "Pharmaceutical followers," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 31(5), pages 538-553.
    14. Genakos, Christos D., 2004. "Differential merger effects: the case of the personal computer industry," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 6726, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    15. Dhar, Tirtha Pratim & Chavas, Jean-Paul & Cotterill, Ronald W., 2003. "An Economic Analysis of Product Differentiation under Latent Separability," 2003 Annual meeting, July 27-30, Montreal, Canada 21892, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    16. Julia González & M. Victoria Lacaze, 2012. "Preferences, Market Structure, and Welfare Evaluations in the Argentinean FFP Industry: A Case in Buenos Aires Province," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(3), pages 341-360, June.
    17. Hausman, Jerry A. & Leonard, Gregory K., 2007. "Estimation of patent licensing value using a flexible demand specification," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 139(2), pages 242-258, August.
    18. Josh Lerner, 2002. "Patent Protection and Innovation Over 150 Years," NBER Working Papers 8977, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    19. Tovar, Jorge, 2012. "Consumers’ Welfare and Trade Liberalization: Evidence from the Car Industry in Colombia," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 40(4), pages 808-820.
    20. Dongling Huang & Christian Rojas & Frank Bass, 2008. "What Happens When Demand Is Estimated With A Misspecified Model?," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 56(4), pages 809-839, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    International Patent Protection; Pharmaceuticals; TRIPS; Demand Estimation;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • O34 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Intellectual Property and Intellectual Capital
    • D12 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - Consumer Economics: Empirical Analysis

    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:772. 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.