Morin, J-F and R.E. Gold, 2014, "An Integrated Model of Legal Transplantation: The Diffusion of Intellectual Property Law in Developing Countries", International Studies Quarterly, vol. 58(4). p. 781-792 (original) (raw)
Related papers
SSRN Electronic Journal, 2013
Why do some countries adopt exogenous rules into their domestic law when those rules contravene their specific interests? We draw on the policy-diffusion literature to identify four causal mechanisms that we hypothesize explain the adoption of such rules. While existing literature treats these mechanisms as independent, we argue that each works in combination with the others to facilitate legal transplantation. While one mechanism-coercion-tends to initiate the transplantation process, it fades over time and three others largely supplant it: contractualization, socialization, and regulatory competition. These mechanisms act in a mutually supportive manner. We test our claims via a quantitative analysis of legal transplants in the field of intellectual property (IP) that incorporates an original index of IP protection in 121 developing countries over 14 years. This article concludes with a plea for theoretical eclecticism, acknowledging multi-causality and context-conditionality. Any comprehensive explanation of legal transplantation must include the identification of mutual reinforcement between causal mechanisms, rather than simply rank their relative contributions. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT. Value Addition through Genomics and GE3LS (ValGEN), a Government of Canada (through Genome Canada) sponsored project, Genome Prairie, and Genome Quebec supported the authors' research. The authors would like to thank scholars of both political science and law including
Intellectual Property Rights Adoption in Developing Countries
This paper studies the incentives that developing countries have to enforce intellectual properties rights (IPR). On the one hand, free-riding on rich countries technology reduces the investment cost in R&D. On the other hand, it yields apotential indirect cost: a firm that violates IPR cannot legally export in a country that enforces them. IPR act like a barrier to entry of the advanced economy markets. Moreover free-riders cannot prevent other to copy their own innovation. The analysis, which distinguishes between large and small developing countries, predicts that small ones should be willing to respect IPR if they want to export and access advanced economies markets, while large emerging countries, such as China and India, will be more reluctant to do so as their huge domestic markets develop. Global welfare is higher under the full protection regime if the developing country does not innovate. It is higher under a partial regime if both countries have access to similar R&D tech...
The Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights in Developing Countries
The development and advancement of economy in today’s world focuses on information-based technology. Therefore, an intellectual property right has played a major role as a protection of considerable interest of developed nations. As a result of initiation of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the progression of an agreement for standards of trade-related intellectual property rights, backed up by tough measures from United States, system of intellectual property rights protection has been globalized. Nevertheless, developing countries have to encounter some problems with regard to enforcing and implementing westernized intellectual property rights law.
Harmonisation or Differentiation in Intellectual Property Protection? The Lessons of History
Prometheus, 2005
Developing countries find themselves pressured to harmonise their intellectual property (IP) standards so that they match those of the United States, Europe and Japan. This article provides historical evidence to support the authors’ claim that when developed countries demand that the rest of the world adopt their current IP regulations, developed countries are preventing other countries from adopting appropriate patent and copyright standards for their levels of development. Developed countries thereby deny a freedom to others that they themselves enjoyed when they were developing.
This paper looks at the insertion of China and India in the contested and highly legalised regime of intellectual property rights (IP). In doing so it pays particular attention at two dimensions, the internal adoption of this regime and external endorsement/contestation of international IP norms. Much has been written about whether emerging countries will challenge or support the maintenance of an open rules-based multilateral trade system. In this context, the differentiated integration of these two countries in the IP regime is notable. Domestically, China despite much criticism for widespread IP infringement has followed a maximalist interpretation of TRIPS. India, on the contrary has followed other emerging countries in pursuing a more critical, minimalist understanding. These positions have also been visible at the multilateral arena. This empirical finding runs contrary to the assumption that defiance results from market power. The divergence is the more surprising given a recent explosion of patent filings in both countries. From a political economy perspective, this should translate into support for stricter rules under TRIPS. In explanaining the two countries' divertent insertion this paper looks beyond economic (market) power and domestic interests and underlines the role of ideational legacies, domestic interests and regulatory capacity. The paper thus stresses the need to look deep into domestic politics and ideational cleavages, as well as at their evolution over time, in order to better understand the international behaviour of emerging countries.
In recent years, several developing countries have adopted regulatory laws to remain relevant in an increasingly globalized world and to make a successful transition from protected to market economies. Whilst developing countries and multilateral organizations supporting them, are aware that in order to succeed, adopted laws must be compatible with the context for which they are intended, there is less clarity as to the processes through which compatibility is generated. This article draws upon comparative law and development economics literatures to argue that the compatibility of a transplant is shaped by the interplay of institutions through which it is adopted. The article also argues that in addition to compatibility, a transplant must enjoy a degree of legitimacy to be effective in the adopting country and the institutions which generate compatibility may also enhance such legitimacy. In order to understand the compatibility and legitimacy generating potential of the interplay of institutions in developing countries, the article examines and compares the adoption of competition laws by India and Pakistan in 2002 and 2007 respectively. The article also examines the manner in which legitimacy impacts the post-adoption interpretation of transplants and highlights its significance for the implementation of the transplants in either country.
New Political Economy, 2018
Rising economies face a crucial dilemma when establishing their position on international patent law. Should they translate their increasing economic strength into political power to further developing countries' interests in lower levels of international patent protection? Or, anticipating a rising domestic interest in stronger international patent protection, should they adopt a position that favors maximal patent protection? Drawing on multiple case studies using a most similar system design, we argue that rising economies, after having been coerced into adopting more stringent patent standards, tend to display ambivalent positions, trapped in bureaucratic politics and caught between conflicting domestic constituencies. We find that the recent proliferation of international institutions and the expansion of transnational networks have contributed to fragmentation and polarization in domestic patent politics. As a result, today's emerging economies experience a more tortuous transformative process than did yesterday's. This finding is of particular relevance for scholars studying rising powers, as well as for those working on policy diffusion, regulatory regimes, transnational networks and regime complexes.
Asian-Pacific Law & Policy Journal, 2012
The cases of India, Brazil, Indonesia, and Vietnam illustrate the potential outcomes of different responses to the tension between international obligations, IPR regime strength, and economic growth. India successfully resisted decades of international pressure to implement a stronger IPR regime and emerged as a world-leading supplier of affordable generic drugs. Meanwhile, both Brazil and Indonesia bowed to international pressure to implement stronger IPR protections, and both countries continue to struggle to maintain their once promising domestic pharmaceutical industries. Vietnam currently stands on the cusp of rapid economic transition. Prematurely implementing stronger IPR protections will significantly impact the success or failure of that transition. These cases highlight the importance of properly balancing economic growth and IPR regime strength for LDC and developing countries currently pursuing entry into the global economic order.