IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/9114.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Political Economy of Intellectual Property Treaties

Author

Listed:
  • Suzanne Scotchmer

Abstract

Intellectual property treaties have two main types of provisions: national treatment of foreign inventors, and harmonization of protections. I address the positive question of when countries would want to treat foreign inventors the same as domestic inventors, and how their incentive to do so depends on reciprocity. I also investigate an equilibrium in which regional policy makers choose IP policies that serve regional interests, conditional on each other's policies. I compare these policies with a notion of what is optimal, and argue that harmonization will involve stronger IP protection than independent choices. Harmonization can either enhance or reduce global welfare. Levels of public and private R&D spending will be lower than if each country took account of the uncompensated externalities that its R&D spending confers on other countries. The more extensive protection engendered by attempts at harmonization are a partial remedy.

Suggested Citation

  • Suzanne Scotchmer, 2002. "The Political Economy of Intellectual Property Treaties," NBER Working Papers 9114, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  • Handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:9114
    Note: ITI LE PR
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w9114.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Helpman, Elhanan, 1993. "Innovation, Imitation, and Intellectual Property Rights," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 61(6), pages 1247-1280, November.
    2. Keith E. Maskus, 1993. "Intellectual property rights and the Uruguay Round," Economic Review, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, vol. 78(Q I), pages 10-25.
    3. Barbara J. Spencer & James A. Brander, 1983. "International R & D Rivalry and Industrial Strategy," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 50(4), pages 707-722.
    4. Robert W. Staiger & Kyle Bagwell, 1999. "An Economic Theory of GATT," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(1), pages 215-248, March.
    5. Keith Maskus, 1998. "The international regulation of intellectual property," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 134(2), pages 186-208, 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. Suzanne Scotchmer, 2003. "The political economy of intellectual property treaties," Proceedings, Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, issue nov.
    2. repec:cdl:oplwec:qt9j50z2gz is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Gilles Koléda, 2005. "Northern and Southern Patent Novelty Requirements Harmonization, Growth and Trade," DEGIT Conference Papers c010_025, DEGIT, Dynamics, Economic Growth, and International Trade.
    4. repec:cdl:econwp:qt1383g11z is not listed on IDEAS
    5. repec:cdl:compol:qt3pr2040r is not listed on IDEAS
    6. 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).
    7. Anja, Breitwieser & Neil, Foster, 2012. "Intellectual property rights, innovation and technology transfer: a survey," MPRA Paper 36094, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Gene M. Grossman & Edwin L.-C. Lai, 2006. "International Protection of Intellectual Property: Corrigendum," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 96(1), pages 456-456, March.
    9. Kyle Bagwell & Robert W. Staiger, 2012. "Profit Shifting And Trade Agreements In Imperfectly Competitive Markets," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 53(4), pages 1067-1104, November.
    10. Christian Bjørnskov & Niklas Potrafke, 2012. "Political Ideology and Economic Freedom Across Canadian Provinces," Eastern Economic Journal, Palgrave Macmillan;Eastern Economic Association, vol. 38(2), pages 143-166.
    11. 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.
    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. Teodora Borota & Fabrice Defever & Giammario Impullitti, 2019. "Innovation union: costs and benefits of innovation policy coordination," CEP Discussion Papers dp1640, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    14. Ghosh, Arghya & Morita, Hodaka & Nguyen, Xuan, 2018. "Technology spillovers, intellectual property rights, and export-platform FDI," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 171-190.
    15. Kresimir Zigic, 2001. "Strategic Trade Policy, Spillovers, and the Uncertain Mode of," Industrial Organization 0012008, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    16. Hoekman, Bernard & Mavroidis, Petros C., 2002. "Economic development, competition policy, and the World Trade Organization," Policy Research Working Paper Series 2917, The World Bank.
    17. Emmanuel Combe & Etienne Pfister, 1999. "Le renforcement international des droits de propriété intellectuelle : quels effets en attendre ?," Post-Print halshs-03616762, HAL.
    18. Segerstrom, Paul & Dinopoulos, Elias, 2003. "A Theory of North-South Trade and Globalization," CEPR Discussion Papers 4140, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    19. Peter Nunnenkamp & Julius Spatz, 2004. "Intellectual property rights and foreign direct investment: A disaggregated analysis," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 140(3), pages 393-414, September.
    20. Hong Hwang & Jollene Z. Wu & Eden S. H. Yu, 2016. "Innovation, Imitation and Intellectual Property Rights in Developing Countries," Review of Development Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(1), pages 138-151, February.
    21. Difei Geng & Kamal Saggi, 2018. "Is there a case for non-discrimination in the international protection of intellectual property?," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Kamal Saggi (ed.), Economic Analysis of the Rules and Regulations of the World Trade Organization, chapter 5, pages 109-123, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    22. Darong Dai, 2018. "Intellectual property rights and R&D subsidies: are they complementary policies?," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 125(1), pages 27-49, September.
    23. Belton M. Fleisher & Mi Zhou, 2010. "Are Patent Laws Harmful to Developing Countries? Evidence from China," Working Papers 09-07, Ohio State University, Department of Economics.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • F1 - International Economics - - Trade
    • L5 - Industrial Organization - - Regulation and Industrial Policy

    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:nbr:nberwo:9114. 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://edirc.repec.org/data/nberrus.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.