Intellectual property rights and global imitation chains: the north–south–east model

  • Caner DemirEmail author
  • Aykut Lenger
Original Paper


This study investigates the effects of intellectual property rights (IPR) protection on economies by proposing a three-pole global economy model. The main proposition of the study is that the classical two-pole approach (north–south) does not reflect the technological heterogeneity and conflicts within the developing world. Therefore, a three-pole world economy model which consists of the following regions has been designed; the north which innovates the northern products, the east which innovates the eastern products and also tries to imitate the northern products, and lastly, the south which tries to imitate both the eastern products and the northern products that have been already imitated by the east. Thus, the model suggests a world system depending on global imitation chains. The numeric simulation results reveal firstly, the northern region benefits from tighter IPR policies in any case; secondly, stronger protection of IPR certainly exerts negative effects in the south while it brings benefits the eastern region in a way that highlights the main contribution of the paper.


Intellectual property rights Imitation Developing countries 

JEL Classification

O34 O39 O19 



The authors are grateful to two anonymous reviewers for their invaluable comments and critiques which have greatly contributed to the improvement of the earlier version of this paper.


  1. Akiyama, T., & Furukawa, Y. (2009). Intellectual property rights and appropriability of innovation. Economics Letters, 103(3), 138–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Banerjee, D., & Chatterjee, I. (2010). The impact of piracy on innovation in the presence of technological and market uncertainty. Information Economics and Policy, 22(4), 391–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boldrin, M., & Levine, D. K. (2004). 2003 Lawrence R. Klein lecture the case against intellectual monopoly. International Economic Review, 45(2), 327–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boldrin, M., & Levine, D. K. (2006). Globalization, intellectual property, and economic prosperity. Spanish Economic Review, 8(1), 23–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Branstetter, L., & Saggi, K. (2011). Intellectual property rights, foreign direct investment and industrial development. The Economic Journal, 121(555), 1161–1191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chu, A. C., Cozzi, G., & Galli, S. (2014). Stage-dependent intellectual property rights. Journal of Development Economics, 106, 239–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cozzi, G. (2017a). Endogenous growth, semi-endogenous growth… or both? A simple hybrid model. Economics Letters, 154, 28–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cozzi, G. (2017b). Combining semi-endogenous and fully endogenous growth: A generalization. Economics Letters, 155, 89–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. CTI. (2017). The state of counterfeit goods in Tanzania. Confederation of Tanzania Industries (CTI) research report.Google Scholar
  10. Grinols, E., & Lin, H. C. (2006). Global patent protection: Channels of north and south welfare gain. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 30(2), 205–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Grossman, G. M., & Helpman, E. (1991). Quality ladders and product cycles. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106(2), 557–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Grossman, G. M., & Lai, E. L. C. (2004). International protection of intellectual property. American Economic Review, 94(5), 1635–1653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gustafsson, P., & Segerstrom, P. S. (2011). north–south trade with multinational firms and increasing product variety. International Economic Review, 52(4), 1123–1155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. He, Y., & Maskus, K. E. (2012). Southern innovation and reverse knowledge spillovers: A dynamic FDI model. International economic review, 53(1), 279–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Helpman, E. (1993). Innovation, imitation, and intellectual property rights. Econometrica, 61(6), 1247–1280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jones, C. I. (1995). R&D-based models of economic growth. Journal of political Economy, 103(4), 759–784.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kim, J. E., & Lapan, H. E. (2008). Heterogeneity of southern countries and southern intellectual property rights policy. Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d’économique, 41(3), 894–925.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lai, E. L. C. (1998). International intellectual property rights protection and the rate of product innovation. Journal of Development Economics, 55(1), 133–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lai, E. L. C., & Qiu, L. D. (2003). The north’s intellectual property rights standard for the south? Journal of International Economics, 59(1), 183–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lorenczik, C., & Newiak, M. (2012). Imitation and innovation driven development under imperfect intellectual property rights. European Economic Review, 56(7), 1361–1375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Molana, H., & Vines, D. (1989). North–south growth and the terms of trade: a model on kaldorian lines. The Economic Journal, 99(396), 443–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mondal, D., & Gupta, M. R. (2006). Innovation, imitation and intellectual property rights: A note on Helpman’s model. Journal of Economics, 87(1), 29–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. OECD/EUIPO. (2016). Trade in counterfeit and pirated goods: mapping the economic impact. Paris: OECD Publishing. Scholar
  24. Parello, C. P. (2008). A north–south model of intellectual property rights protection and skill accumulation. Journal of Development Economics, 85(1–2), 253–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. World Development Indicators. (2019). Washington, DC: The World Bank. Accessed 11 Jan 2019.

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsManisa Celal Bayar UniversitySalihliTurkey
  2. 2.Department of EconomicsEge UniversityBornovaTurkey

Personalised recommendations