IPR and Global Economic Disparity

Introduction

Intellectual property rights have become a bone of contention in the relations between the developing and developed world. With the technological advancement of the developed world, far outpacing the developing world, there is a gap in the intellectual property that has accumulated in the developed world, especially in the area of patents, which are significantly higher in the developed world. While the developing countries have tried to close the gap in technological prowess between themselves and the developed world by imitation and copying, the developed world has depended on the use of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) law to restrain such imitation on the part of firms.

The research problem that this dissertation seeks to explore comes from the conflict between the developed and developing countries on the issue of IPR law and its strict application in the developing countries’ jurisdictions. In the past few years, many developing countries have found themselves under the pressure to introduce laws that strengthen the IPR protection in their jurisdictions. There is also a pressure for these countries to implement the TRIPS agreement. Those who argue in favour of strengthening the IPR laws in developing countries suggest that stronger IPR laws would be beneficial to both developing countries as well as developed countries as these laws will create a framework and a regime within which firms of both sides will be protected in their innovations. On the other hand, those who criticise this approach argue that stronger IPR laws in developing countries would be detrimental to the interests of the developing countries. IPR laws increase imitation costs, and reduce

access to global information which is why firms in developing countries are placed at a competitive disadvantage in global markets as compared to the firms from developed countries which enjoy rights attached to their patents and IPR laws in their jurisdiction. Another angle in support of IPR laws is that even though these may come with a higher cost of implementation, there are decided benefits attached because of increased investment from MNCs that are more confident in investing in countries that have stricter IPR law protection. There are also potential benefits from technology transfer from developed countries, and increased Foreign Direct Investment in technology products. These can help developing countries to offset the high costs attached to the implementation of the IPR law and TRIPS agreement.

From the perspective of the developing countries, there is a self-perception of structural weakness and inequality that is also a reason for their rejection of stricter IPR laws. The dependency theory has been posited by some social theorists to explain the phenomenon of developing countries not achieving comparable economic development as the developed countries. Colonialism and its legacy are partly to be blamed for this perception as well as the actual conditions of the world trade system which is heavily inclined towards the developed countries. The world system which is heavily in favour of the developed countries, has seemingly trapped newly liberated countries in the 20th century into a system that shows lack of infrastructure and market support to help them produce and market commodities on favourable terms. In such conditions critics of the stricter IPR regime argue that efforts of developed countries to impose a global IPR regime is a way of aiding the developed world’s ability to control and exploit technical knowledge and expertise, including vast resources lying latent in the developing world.

This dissertation seeks to explore the two sides of the debate on stricter IPR law for developing countries. The dissertation contains two substantive chapters. The first concerns the arguments that are made to show how IPR law is an obstacle for the development of the developing countries. The second substantive chapter reviews the evidence relating to IPR protection in the developing nations and suggests that the broad policy argument in its favour may be more unclear than its strong supporters seem to allow. The conclusion at the end of the dissertation summarises the principal points and relates the findings of the dissertation.

Conclusion

This dissertation reviewed the literature on the debate on IPR law implementation in the context of the developing nations. The principal inquiries in this dissertation were related to the objections to strict IPR law implementation in developing nations as well as the potential benefits of this approach. This part of the dissertation conveys the principal findings of the dissertation. The principal finding of this dissertation, based on the review of relevant literature, is that the a broad policy argument in its favour is more unclear than its strong supporters allow. Coming from this angle, a strong IPR protection in the developing world may not be a sound economic policy.

One of the important findings of this research is that strong IPR rules for developing countries that are of the same level as developed countries may lead to the slowing down of the industrial development for these countries. This is because the domestic firms of developing countries may not get any opportunities to copy and adapt technologies that are available in the developed world, which is a denial of an important strategy of reverse engineering. Developing countries will find it difficult to work around the patents and the attached rights that are already created in the developed world and will consequently not be able to achieve the development of technologies at similar stages of growth that the developed countries achieved.

Another noteworthy point is that stronger IPR laws lead to the increase of the prices of technologies in developing countries. This happens when the developing countries have applied stricter protection of rights of foreigners or foreign firms leading to difficult conditions of competition by domestic firms that do not have the same level of technological development and thus deny the markets cheaper domestic alternatives to these foreign technologies. Consequently, the impact is to make the technology more expensive for the local consumers of developing countries. Therefore, from the perspective of affordable accessibility of technologies, the consumers of the developing countries are faced with the prospect of paying higher costs for the same products and goods because there are no cheaper domestic alternatives.

On the brighter side, there are positive links between IPR protection and innovation in developing countries. As IPR becomes stricter in developing countries, domestic firms are prevented from copying or imitating technologies of the developed world. This pushes the domestic firms to innovate more and push for their own patents for innovative technologies. For such conditions to be created, there must be an optimal level of IPR protection in the developing countries, that can balance the trade-off between facilitation of imitation of developed countries’ advanced technologies and incentivising innovations by domestic firms. This is not possible in countries that have low levels of economic development, because in such countries, development will depend to some extent on imitation of developed countries’ technologies so as to increase the developing country’s technological ability. Once technological ability of a country has reached a specific level or threshold, then the developing country may find it more beneficial to encourage domestic innovations, rather than imitation, which is why eventually, the developing countries will come to provide a higher protection of IPR law so as to also protect domestic innovation. In other words,

The argument that IPR law is beneficial to developing countries in terms of their domestic innovation, is not generalisable to all developing countries as it essentially depends on the level of economic and technological development in the developing countries. Therefore, this argument only serves to strengthen the role of imitation in developing countries. Therefore, this is a paradox that for developing countries to achieve some level of economic and technological advancement, it would first have to allow and facilitate imitation through lower levels of IPR protection.

Another benefit of a stronger IPR framework is that there is more potential of technology transfer to developing countries from developed countries. Firms from developed countries may choose not to transfer technology to the developing countries that have lax IPR protection because they will not get much protection against imitation in the developing countries. However, as this research has found, the link between technology transfer and IPR law is not unambiguous. Example can be taken of Korea, which benefitted from technology transfer through licensing arrangements and sub- contracting agreements despite the lack of a strong IPR law. Therefore, the potential link of technology transfer with a stronger IPR law is not strong or unambiguous enough to offset the arguments against the application of stronger IPR law in the developing world.

Finally, it may be noted that one of the strong arguments against the strict application of the TRIPS Agreement in the developing countries is that without yielding corresponding benefits for developing countries, the TRIPS agreement is leading to higher costs for developing countries that want to upgrade their technological capabilities. The burden imposed by the TRIPS agreement comes due to the administering and enforcing IPR reforms in order to implement TRIPS, which has raised ethical concerns for the developing countries for using scarce resources available to developing countries so as to benefit a handful of private multinational companies.

To conclude, this dissertation did not find any strong arguments for the application of stricter IPR laws in the developing countries. On the contrary, there is evidence that shows that such approach is against the interests of the developing countries. Therefore, the evidence on this issue is not strong or unambiguous enough to argue in favour of a strong IPR protection law in the developing countries.

Bibliography

Books

Amin S, Unequal Development: An Essay on the Social Formations of Peripheral Capitalism (Monthly Review Press 1976).

Binley M, Intellectual Property Rights: A Strategic Instrument for Developing Countries (Toronto: Ontario Centre For International Business 1992).

Magnus Blomstrom, Foreign Investment and Spillovers Routledge Revivals (Routledge 2014).

Cardoso FH and Faletto E, Dependency and development in Latin America (University of California Press 1979)

Cherunilam, International Economics (New Delhi: Tata McGraw-Hill 2008).

S Chauduri, Intellectual Property Rights And Innovation MNCs in Pharmaceutical Industry in India after TRIPS (New Delhi: Institute for Studies in Industrial Development 2014).

Dutfield G, Intellectual Property Rights, Trade and Biodiversity (London: Earthscan 2000).

Fink C and Primo Braga CA, ‘How Stronger Protection of Intellectual Property Rights Affects International Trade Flows’ in C Fink and E Mansfield (eds) Intellectual Property and Development: Lessons from Recent Economic Research (New York: World Bank/Oxford University Press 2004)

Ghidini G, Innovation, competition and consumer welfare in intellectual property law (Edward Elgar Publishing 2010).

Lanjouw JO and MacLeod M, ‘Statistical Trends in Pharmaceutical Research for Poor Countries’ (Brookings Working Paper 2005).

Park WG and Lippoldt D, The Impact of Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights on Trade and Foreign Direct Investment in Developing Countries (Paris: OECD 2003)

Radovesic S, ‘International Technology Transfer and Catch-up in Economic Development’ (Elgar 1999) Rosenberg N, Integrating Intellectual Property Rights and Development Policy (Cambridge University Press 1982).

Shannon TR, An introduction to the world-system perspective (Routledge 2018).

So A, Social change and development: Modernization, dependency, and world-systems theory (Newbury Park, London: SAGE Publications) pp. 169–199.

Smith BC, Understanding Third World politics: theories of political change and development (Macmillan International Higher Education 2016).

Waelde C, Brown A, Cornwell J & Kheria S, Contemporary Intellectual Property: Law and Policy (Oxon: Oxford University Press 2016).

Wallerstein I, The Modern World System: Capitalist agriculture and the origins of the European world-economy in the sixteenth century (Academic Press 1976).

Journals

Awokuse TO and Yin H, ‘Intellectual Property Rights Protection and the Surge in FDI in China’ (2009) Journal of Comparative Economics.

Baer W, ‘Import Substitution and Industrialization in Latin America: Experiences and Interpretations’ (1972) 7 Latin American Research Review 95.

Baldwin R, ‘The World Trade Organization and the future of multilateralism’ (2016) 30(1) Journal of Economic Perspectives 95.

Bowles P, ‘The Developmental State and Late Industrialization’ (2017) The Essential Guide to Critical Development Studies 211.

Branstetter L, ‘Intellectual Property Rights, Innovation and Development: Is Asia Different?’ (2017) 8(1) Millennial Asia 5.

Branstetter L, Fisman R, Foley CF and Saggi K, ‘Does intellectual property rights reform spur industrial development?’ (2011) 83(1) Journal of International Economics 27.

Brown MF, ‘Heritage trouble: recent work on the protection of intangible cultural property’ (2005) 12(1) International Journal of Cultural Property 40.

Busse M and Heffeker C, ‘Political risk, institutions and foreign direct investment’ 2007 (23)2 European Journal of Political Economy 397.

Chaudhuri S, Goldberg P and Jia P, ‘Estimating the effects of global patent protection in pharmaceuticals: A case study of quinolones in India (2006) 96(5) American Economic Review 1477.

Chen Y and Puttitanun T, ‘Intellectual property rights and innovation in developing countries’ (2005) 78(2) Journal of development economics 474.

Deere C, The implementation game: the TRIPS Agreement and the global politics of intellectual property reform in developing countries (Oxford University Press 2009).

Dutfield G, ‘TRIPS-related Aspects of Traditional Knowledge’ (2001) 33 Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law 233.

Dutta A and Sharma S, ‘Intellectual Property Rights in Developing Countries: Evidence from India’, unpublished paper (2008).

Jessop B, ‘The World Market,‘North-South’ Relations, and Neoliberalism’ (2018) Alternate Routes: A Journal of Critical Social Research 29.

Khanh Doanh N and Heo Y, ‘Impacts of intellectual property rights on trade flows in ASEAN countries’ (2007) Journal of International and Area Studies 1.

Lai ELC and Qiu LD, ‘The North’s Intellectual Property Rights Standard for the South?’ (2004) 59 Journal of International Economics 183

Lanjouw JO and Cockburn IM, ‘New Pills for Poor People? Empirical Evidence after GATT’ (2001) 29(2) World Development 265.

Liu WH and Lin YC, ‘Foreign Patent Rights and High-tech Exports: Evidence from Taiwan’ (2005) 37(13) Applied Economics 1543.

Maskus KE and Penubarti M, ‘How Trade-related Are Intellectual Property Rights?’ (1995) 39(3–4) Journal of International Economics 227.

Minagawa Jr T, Trott P and Hoecht A, ‘Counterfeit, imitation, reverse engineering and learning: reflections from Chinese manufacturing firms’ (2007 37(5)) R&D Management 455.

Nicholson MW, ‘The Impact of Industry Characteristics and IPR Policy on Foreign Direct Investment’ (2007) 143(1) Review of World Economics 27.

Park WG and Lippoldt D, ‘International Licensing and the Strengthening of Intellectual Property Rights in Developing Countries during the 1990s’ (2005) 40(1) OECD Economic Studies 7.

Park WG and Lippoldt DC, ‘Technology transfer and the economic implications of the strengthening of intellectual property rights in developing countries’ (OECD Trade Policy Working Papers, No. 62, OECD Publishing 2008).

Peng MW, Ahlstrom D, Carraher SM, and Shi WS, ‘History and the debate over intellectual property’ (2017) 13(1) Management and Organization Review 15.

Primo Braga CA and Fink C, ‘Economic Justification for the Grant of Intellectual Property Rights: Patterns of Convergence and Conflict’ (1997) 439(72) Chicago–Kent Law Review 439.

Qiu LD and Lai ELC, ‘Protection of trade for innovation: the roles of Northern and Southern tariffs’ (2004) 16(4) Japan and the World Economy 449.

Paterson RK, and Karjala DS, ‘Looking beyond intellectual property in resolving protection of the intangible cultural heritage of indigenous peoples’ (2003) 11 Cardozo J. Int'l & Comp. L. 633.

Reiffen D and Ward MR, ‘Generic Drug Industry Dynamics’(2005) 87(1) Review of Economics and Statistics 37.

Saggi K, ‘Trade, foreign direct investment, and international technology transfer: A survey’ (2002) 17(2) The World Bank Research Observer 191.

Sarma UK and Barpujari I, ‘Revisiting the Debate on Intellectual Property Rights and Traditional Knowledge of Biodiversity: Accommodating Local Realities and Perspectives’ (2012) 3(4) The International Indigenous Policy Journal 1

Shannon TR, An introduction to the world-system perspective (Routledge 2018).

Shiva V, ‘North-South conflicts in intellectual property rights’ (2000) 12(4) Peace Review: A Journal of Social Justice 50.

Weber S and Bussell J, ‘Will Information Technology Reshape the North-South Asymmetry of Power in the Global Political Economy?’ (2005) 40(2) Studies in Comparative International Development 62.

Yang L and Maskus KE, ‘Intellectual property rights, technology transfer and exports in developing countries’ (2009) 90(2) Journal of Development Economics 231.

Reports

Branstetter LG, Fisman R and Foley CF, Do stronger intellectual property rights increase international technology transfer? Empirical evidence from US firm-level panel data (The World Bank 2004).

Maskus KE and Fink C (eds.), Intellectual property and development: lessons from recent economic research (The World Bank 2005).

OECD, Foreign Direct Investment for Development: Maximizing Benefits, Minimizing Costs (OECD 2002).

Salazar R, Louwaars NP and Visser B, ‘On Protecting Farmers’ New Varieties: New Approaches to Rights on Collective Innovations in Plant Genetic Resources’ (CAPRi Working Papers 2006).