Stage-dependent intellectual property rights (original) (raw)
Related papers
2011
This paper examines how the role of patents and utility models in innovation and economic growth varies by level of economic development. Using a panel dataset of over 70 countries, we find that patent protection is an important determinant of innovation and that patentable innovations contribute to economic growth in developed countries, but not in developing. Instead, in developing economies, a minor form of intellectual property rights (IPRs)–namely utility models–is conducive to innovation and growth, controlling for other factors.
Nonlinear Effects of Intellectual Property Rights on Technological Innovation
Journal of Economic Integration, 2018
This study investigates the influence of intellectual property rights on innovation under the assumption that an optimal threshold has been reached beyond which the protection by the Institute of Pacific Relations, the non-governmental organization, is no longer working as an incentive for innovation. We estimate a threshold model applied to panel data on 10 emerging countries for 1985~2015. The results revealed a significant influence of the threshold of the intellectual property rights on innovation. In other words, the impact of protection by the Institute of Pacific Relations on innovation is significant, which implies a nonlinear relationship. It was also shown to play an indirect role by increasing the impact of human capital and economic development on innovation. These results have important implications for designing economic policy. In the emerging country, a minimum level of protection by the institute of pacific relations is needed to ensure an incentive encouraging technological innovation. Therefore, there is an inverse-U relationship between the intellectual property rights and innovation.
Regulation and Governance, 2019
While policymakers often make bold claims on the positive impact of intellectual property (IP) rights on both developed and developing country economies, the empirical literature is more ambiguous. IP rights have both incentive and inhibitory effects that are difficult to isolate in the abstract and dependent on economic context. To unravel these contradictory effects, this article introduces an index that evaluates the strength of IP protection in 124 developing countries for the years 1995 to 2011. We illustrate the value of this index to economics study and show evidence that is consistent with IP leading to increased growth. Our results are further consistent with two causal pathways highlighted in the literature: that IP leads to greater levels of technology transfer and increased domestic inventive activity. Yet, other aspects of our study fit uneasily with this simple story. We find, for example, evidence suggesting that increased levels of growth lead to greater levels of IP protection, contradictory evidence in the literature linking IP with growth, a lack of evidence that increased levels of IP protection lead to actual use of the IP system and problems with what IP indexes measure. Because of this, we suggest another – and so far undertheorized – explanation of the links between IP and growth: that IP may have few direct effects on growth and that any causality is due to belief rather than actual deployment of IP.
Does intellectual property lead to economic growth? Insights from a novel IP dataset
Regulation & Governance, 2017
While policymakers often make bold claims as to the positive impact of intellectual property (IP) rights on both developed and developing country economies, the empirical literature is more ambiguous. IP rights have both incentive and inhibitory effects that are difficult to isolate in the abstract and are dependent on economic context. To unravel these contradictory effects, this article introduces an index that evaluates the strength of IP protection in 124 developing countries for the years 1995 to 2011. We illustrate the value of this index to economics study and show evidence that is consistent with IP leading to increased growth. Our results are further consistent with two causal pathways highlighted in the literature: that IP leads to greater levels of technology transfer and increased domestic inventive activity. Yet other aspects of our study fit uneasily with this simple story. For example, we find evidence suggesting that increased levels of growth lead to greater levels of IP protection, contradictory evidence in the literature linking IP with growth, a lack of evidence that increased levels of IP protection lead to actual use of the IP system, and problems with what IP indexes measure. Because of this, we suggest anotherand so far undertheorizedexplanation of the links between IP and growth: that IP may have few direct effects on growth and that any causality is a result of belief rather than actual deployment of IP.
Does Intellectual Property Lead to Economic Growth? Insights from an Improved IP Dataset
Social Science Research Network, 2017
While policymakers often make bold claims as to the positive impact of intellectual property (IP) rights on both developed and developing country economies, the empirical literature is more ambiguous. IP rights have both incentive and inhibitory effects that are difficult to isolate in the abstract and are dependent on economic context. To unravel these contradictory effects, this article introduces an index that evaluates the strength of IP protection in 124 developing countries for the years 1995 to 2011. We illustrate the value of this index to economics study and show evidence that is consistent with IP leading to increased growth. Our results are further consistent with two causal pathways highlighted in the literature: that IP leads to greater levels of technology transfer and increased domestic inventive activity. Yet other aspects of our study fit uneasily with this simple story. For example, we find evidence suggesting that increased levels of growth lead to greater levels of IP protection, contradictory evidence in the literature linking IP with growth, a lack of evidence that increased levels of IP protection lead to actual use of the IP system, and problems with what IP indexes measure. Because of this, we suggest anotherand so far undertheorizedexplanation of the links between IP and growth: that IP may have few direct effects on growth and that any causality is a result of belief rather than actual deployment of IP.
The Growth Effects of National Patent Policies*
Review of international economics, 2008
We construct a two-country (innovative North and imitating South) model of product-cycle trade, fully endogenous Schumpeterian growth, and national patent policies. A move towards harmonization based on stronger Southern intellectual property rights (IPR) protection accelerates the long-run global rates of innovation and growth, reduces the North-South wage gap, and has an ambiguous effect on the rate of international technology transfer. Patent harmonization constitutes a suboptimal global-growth policy. However, if the global economy is governed by a common patent policy regime, then stronger global IPR protection: (a) increases the rates of global innovation and growth; (b) accelerates the rate of international technology transfer; and (c) has no impact on the North-South wage gap.
Intellectual Property Enforcement, Exports and Productivity: Evidence from China
SSRN Electronic Journal, 2018
We study how provincial-level enforcement of intellectual property rights (IPRs) affects Chinese firms' decisions regarding exit, export, and the channels through which to receive technology transfer. Our findings provide insights into how variations in IPRs enforcement alter productivity. Our model combines the standard theory of heterogeneous firms with the endogenous choices of those firms concerning how they absorb international technologies through imitation or licensing. We show that, in this setting, the exit and export cutoff productivities differ from those in the standard environment, leading to a different sorting mechanism. We also predict that stronger IPRs change the decisions firms make concerning their mode of technology transfer, further altering their productivity and export possibilities. Empirical tests based on a comprehensive dataset of Chinese firms from 2000 to 2006 support the model predictions.