IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/pra/mprapa/31822.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Endogenous R&D and Intellectual Property Laws in Developed and Emerging Economies

Author

Listed:
  • Bagchi, Aniruddha
  • Roy, Abhra

Abstract

The incentive of providing protection of intellectual property has been analyzed, both for an emerging economy as well as for a developed economy. The optimal patent length and the optimal patent breadth within a country are found to be positively related to each other for a fixed structure of laws abroad. Moreover, a country can respond to stronger patent protection abroad by weakening its patent protection under certain circumstances and by strengthening its patent protection under other circumstances. These results depend upon the curvature of the R&D production function. Finally, we investigate the impact of an increase in the willingness-to-pay in the emerging economy and find conditions under which there is an improvement in both patent length as well as patent breadth in the emerging economy.

Suggested Citation

  • Bagchi, Aniruddha & Roy, Abhra, 2011. "Endogenous R&D and Intellectual Property Laws in Developed and Emerging Economies," MPRA Paper 31822, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    • Handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:31822
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/31822/1/MPRA_paper_31822.pdf
    File Function: original version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Chen, Yongmin & Puttitanun, Thitima, 2005. "Intellectual property rights and innovation in developing countries," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(2), pages 474-493, December.
    2. Nancy T. Gallini, 1992. "Patent Policy and Costly Imitation," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 23(1), pages 52-63, Spring.
    3. Jeong-Eon Kim & Harvey E. Lapan, 2008. "Heterogeneity of southern countries and southern intellectual property rights policy," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 41(3), pages 894-925, August.
    4. Arijit Mukherjee & Enrico Pennings, 2004. "Imitation, patent protection, and welfare," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 56(4), pages 715-733, October.
    5. Suzanne Scotchmer, 2004. "The Political Economy of Intellectual Property Treaties," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 20(2), pages 415-437, October.
    6. Donald J. Wright, 2005. "Optimal Global Patent Design," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 161(1), pages 18-37, March.
    7. 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.
    8. Richard Gilbert & Carl Shapiro, 1990. "Optimal Patent Length and Breadth," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 21(1), pages 106-112, Spring.
    9. Scotchmer, Suzanne, 2003. "The Political Economy of Intellectual Property Treaties," Berkeley Olin Program in Law & Economics, Working Paper Series qt9j50z2gz, Berkeley Olin Program in Law & Economics.
    10. Jean Tirole, 1988. "The Theory of Industrial Organization," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262200716, December.
    11. Zigic, Kresimir, 1998. "Intellectual property rights violations and spillovers in North-South trade," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 42(9), pages 1779-1799, November.
    12. Keith E. Maskus, 2000. "Intellectual Property Rights in the Global Economy," Peterson Institute Press: All Books, Peterson Institute for International Economics, number 99, October.
    13. Denicolo, Vincenzo, 1996. "Patent Races and Optimal Patent Breadth and Length," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(3), pages 249-265, September.
    14. DeBrock, Lawrence M, 1985. "Market Structure, Innovation, and Optimal Patent Life," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 28(1), pages 223-244, April.
    15. 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.
    16. Scotchmer, Suzanne, 2001. "The Political Economy of Intellectual Property Treaties," Department of Economics, Working Paper Series qt1383g11z, Department of Economics, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
    17. Bulow, Jeremy I & Geanakoplos, John D & Klemperer, Paul D, 1985. "Multimarket Oligopoly: Strategic Substitutes and Complements," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 93(3), pages 488-511, June.
    18. Yong Yang, 1998. "Why Do Southern Countries Have Little Incentive to Protect Northern Intellectual Property Rights?," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 31(4), pages 800-816, November.
    19. Scotchmer, Suzanne, 2001. "The Political Economy of Intellectual Property Treaties," Competition Policy Center, Working Paper Series qt3pr2040r, Competition Policy Center, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
    20. repec:jpe:journl:32 is not listed on IDEAS
    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. Aniruddha Bagchi & Abhra Roy, 2012. "Endogenous Research and Development and Intellectual Property Laws in Developed and Emerging Economies," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 78(3), pages 895-930, January.
    2. 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.
    3. Alireza Naghavi & Yingyi Tsai, 2015. "Cross-Border Intellectual Property Rights: Contract Enforcement and Absorptive Capacity," Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Scottish Economic Society, vol. 62(2), pages 211-226, May.
    4. 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.
    5. Auriol, Emmanuelle & Biancini, Sara & Paillacar, Rodrigo, 2019. "Universal intellectual property rights: Too much of a good thing?," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 51-81.
    6. Linda Cohen, "undated". "Patented drugs, generic alternatives, and intellectual property regimes in developing countries," American Law & Economics Association Annual Meetings 1066, American Law & Economics Association.
    7. Leonard F.S. Wang & Arijit Mukherjee, 2014. "Patent Protection, Innovation and Technology Licensing," Australian Economic Papers, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(3-4), pages 245-254, December.
    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. Popov, V., 2011. "Do We Need to Protect Intellectual Property Rights?," Journal of the New Economic Association, New Economic Association, issue 11, pages 107-126.
    10. Scotchmer, Suzanne, 2003. "The Political Economy of Intellectual Property Treaties," Berkeley Olin Program in Law & Economics, Working Paper Series qt9j50z2gz, Berkeley Olin Program in Law & Economics.
    11. Staiger, Robert & Bagwell, Kyle & Bown, Chad, 2015. "Is the WTO Passé?," CEPR Discussion Papers 10672, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    12. Scotchmer, Suzanne, 2001. "The Political Economy of Intellectual Property Treaties," Department of Economics, Working Paper Series qt1383g11z, Department of Economics, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
    13. Suzanne Scotchmer, 2004. "The Political Economy of Intellectual Property Treaties," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 20(2), pages 415-437, October.
    14. Gaoju Yang & Yilu Zhang & Xiao Yu, 2020. "Intellectual property rights and the upgrading of the global value chain status," Pacific Economic Review, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(2), pages 185-204, May.
    15. Kyle Bagwell & Chad P. Bown & Robert W. Staiger, 2016. "Is the WTO Passé?," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 54(4), pages 1125-1231, December.
    16. 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..
    17. Liao, Pei-Cheng & Wong, Kar-yiu, 2009. "R&D subsidy, intellectual property rights protection, and North-South trade: How good is the TRIPS agreement?," Japan and the World Economy, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 191-201, March.
    18. Evrin, Alperen, 2013. "International Specialization in Research & Development," MPRA Paper 62392, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. Arijit Mukherjee, 2017. "Patent Protection and R&D with Endogenous Market Structure," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 65(1), pages 220-234, March.
    20. Sumner J La Croix & Denise Eby Konan, 2006. "Have Developing Countries Gained From the Marriage Between Trade Agreements and Intellectual Property Rights?," Working Papers 200605, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Department of Economics.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • F20 - International Economics - - International Factor Movements and International Business - - - General
    • O34 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Intellectual Property and Intellectual Capital
    • O31 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives

    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:pra:mprapa:31822. 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: Joachim Winter (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/vfmunde.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.