Transcript IPRs and Innovation

Intellectual
Property,
Innovation and
Growth
Mike Palmedo
PIJIP, American University
May 10, 2012
Photo (CC) Vermin, Inc.
Abbreviated Lit. Review
UK Commission on Intellectual Property Rights, 2002
“…strong IP rights alone provide neither the necessary nor
sufficient incentives for firms to invest in particular countries…
The evidence that foreign investment is positively associated with
IP protection in most developing countries is lacking.”
Robert L. Ostergard, 2003
“…no consistent evidence emerged to show that IPR contributed
significantly to economic growth cross-nationally. Furthermore,
when the nations are split into developed and developing
countries, results to suggest otherwise did not emerge."
infojustice.org/tpp
Abbreviated Lit. Review
Fink and Mascus, 2005
“Existing research suggests that countries that strengthen their
IPR are unlikely to experience a sudden boost in inflows of FDI.
At the same time, the empirical evidence does point to a positive
role for IPRs in stimulating formal technology transfer.”
“Developing countries should carefully assess whether the
economic benefits of such rules outweigh their costs. They also
need to take into account the costs of administering and
enforcing a reformed IPR system”
“We still know relatively little about the way technology diffuses
internationally.”
infojustice.org/tpp
Abbreviated Lit. Review
Mascus, 2008 (On integrating IPRs into development
policies)
“Middle income countries must strike a complicated balance
between promoting domestic learning and diffusion, through
limited IP protection, and gaining greater access to international
technologies through a strong regime… it makes little sense for
these nations to adopt the strongly protectionist IP standards
that exist in the U.S., the EU and other developed economies.
Rather, they should take advantage of the remaining policy
space provided by the TRIPS Agreement.”
“It is questionable whether the poorest countries should devote
significant development resources to legal reforms and
enforcement of IPR.”
infojustice.org/tpp
Abbreviated Lit. Review
Saggi, 2008 (Reviewing empirical studies on technology
transfer)
Overall, it is fair to say that the existing empirical evidence
regarding the overall technology-transfer impacts of increased
IPR protection in developing countries is inconclusive at this
stage. What is not yet clear is whether sufficient information
flows will be induced to procure significant dynamic gains in
those countries through more learning and local innovation.”
“Developing countries need not only to obtain foreign
technologies but also to learn how to use them to their fullest
potential. In this context, it is useful to make a distinction
between the initial introduction of a technology into a country
and its subsequent diffusion within the domestic economy.”
infojustice.org/tpp
Abbreviated Lit. Review
Koff et al., 2011 (Reporting on interviews with firms and
govt. officials in countries with TRIPS-Plus FTAs)
• TRIPS-Plus IPRs viewed as “important, but not essential” for
attracting investment. Many other factors matter (taxes, human
capital, clustering, etc).
• Many countries had recently changed laws to comply with
TRIPS, so changes for FTAs had a smaller effect on investment.
• The way in which the obligations were implemented was
important. It is not wise to simply impose one legal framework
on top of another. Implementation of FTAs requires taking
specific nations’ legal systems into account.
infojustice.org/tpp
Foreign Direct Investment
2006
2010
Change
Guatemala
11.13
12.90
1.77
t=0.99
Peru
12.03
11.71
-0.03
t=-0.13
Nicaragua
09.03
11.08
2.04
t=0.75
Source: World Bank Enterprise Survey. Percentage of respondents indicating
that 10% or more of their firm was owned by foreign investors.
infojustice.org/tpp
Use of Foreign-Licensed Technology
2006
2010
Change
Guatemala
23.64
15.58
-8.06***
t=-2.64
Peru
10.56
14.47
3.92**
t=1.81
6.84
12.80
5.96**
t=2.07
Nicaragua
Source: World Bank Enterprise Survey. Percentage of firms which reported
using technology licensed from foreign companies.
infojustice.org/tpp
Flexible Copyright and FDI
2001-2010
180
FDI inward, $mil
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0
10
20
Rank in CI Flexibility Index
infojustice.org/tpp
30
Sources Cited
• UK Commission on Intellectual Property Rights. Integrating Intellectual Property Rights and
Development Policy. 2002. Available at: http://www.iprcommission.org/
• Robert L. Ostergard., Jr. “Policy Beyond Assumptions: Intellectual Property Rights and
Economic Growth.” Chapter 2 of The Development Dilemma: The Political Economy of
Intellectual Property Rights in the International System. LFB Scholarly Publishing, New York.
2003
• Carsten Fink and Keith Maskus. “Why We Study Intellectual Property and What We Have
Learned.” Chapter one of Intellectual Property and Development: Lessons from Economic
Research. 2005. http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTRANETTRADE/Resources/Pubs/IPRsbook.pdf
• Carsten Fink. "Enforcing Intellectual Property Rights: An Economic Perspective." International
Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development. 2008. http://ictsd.org/i/publications/42762/
• Alexander Koff, Laura Baughman, Joseph Francois and Christine McDaniel. "Study on the
Economic Impact of 'TRIPS-Plus' Free Trade Agreements." International Intellectual Property
Institute and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. August 2011. Available at http://iipi.org/wpcontent/uploads/2011/09/IIPI-USPTO-TRIPS-Plus-Study-10-Aug-2011.pdf
• Mike Palmedo. Working Paper. “The Economic Effect of the Intellectual Property Obligations
in Free Trade Agreements” http://infojustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/PalmedoWorking-Paper-May-2012.pdf
• Consumers International IP Watchlist Report, 2012. http://a2knetwork.org/watchlist
infojustice.org/tpp
Thank You!
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
• infojustice.org/tpp
• twitter.com/info_justice
CONTACT:
• Mike Palmedo
• [email protected]
Photo (CC) Vermin, Inc.