Skip to main content

Policy Space in Intellectual Property Rights and Technology Transfer: A New Economic Research Agenda

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Intellectual Property and Development: Understanding the Interfaces

Abstract

My purpose in writing this chapter is to pose a number of questions that have not been satisfactorily addressed, if at all, by economists working in the area of intellectual property rights (IPRs), trade, foreign direct investment, and technology diffusion. There is always a basic tradeoff between fundamental gains and losses from protecting IPRs, or rather reforming them in a manner that offers more certainty and exclusivity to rights holders. On the one hand, such reforms may be expected to improve the functioning of formal markets in which technologies are traded across borders, at least in recipient emerging countries with supportive economic and policy frameworks. On the other hand, those reforms raise the costs of technology imitation by local firms and impose administrative burdens on domestic authorities. They may also limit the policy flexibility those authorities have to regulate the use of exclusive rights and encourage broad adoption and diffusion of incoming technical knowledge. In this chapter I offer some thoughts on these questions, with a particular emphasis on policy issues surrounding international technology transfer and IPRs. In the second section I discuss available evidence on how patent reforms seem to affect flows of technology through formal markets. Following that is a review of various policy flexibilities that matter in this context, considering the limited evidence about how well they work. In the last substantive section I address some of the broader policy questions that affect technology diffusion, most of which have not been studied systematically by empirical economists. In that context, the section sets out an agenda for economic research that would focus on understanding how broader policies and conditions could improve access to global technologies, even in the presence of IPRs reforms. That analysis is partly speculative, attempting to envision how to peel back the veil of ignorance covering key issues in this area of inquiry.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Odagiri et al. (2010).

  2. 2.

    Keller (2004), Hoekman et al. (2005).

  3. 3.

    Markusen (2002).

  4. 4.

    Hovhanissyan and Keller (2015).

  5. 5.

    Blalock and Gertler (2008), Keller (2010).

  6. 6.

    Yang and Maskus (2001), Markusen (2001), Hoekman et al. (2005).

  7. 7.

    Arora et al. (2001), Maskus (2012a, b).

  8. 8.

    The definition of “excessive” scope has long been a contentious issue in innovation economics, even within countries. It is yet more complicated in the international arena. Grossman and Lai (2004), Scotchmer (2004).

  9. 9.

    Keller (2010).

  10. 10.

    Hoekman et al. (2005), Branstetter et al. (2011).

  11. 11.

    Aitken and Harrison (1999).

  12. 12.

    Eaton and Kortum (1996).

  13. 13.

    Hu and Jaffe (2003).

  14. 14.

    Hu (2009).

  15. 15.

    Ivus (2010).

  16. 16.

    Maskus and Yang (2018).

  17. 17.

    Nunnenkamp and Spatz (2004).

  18. 18.

    Javorcik (2004).

  19. 19.

    Du et al. (2008).

  20. 20.

    Branstetter et al. (2006).

  21. 21.

    Branstetter et al. (2011).

  22. 22.

    Lai et al. (2017).

  23. 23.

    Odagiri et al. (2010).

  24. 24.

    Goeschl and Swanson (2000).

  25. 25.

    Qian (2008).

  26. 26.

    Hoekman et al. (2005), Maskus and Saggi (2014) offer full discussions.

  27. 27.

    Hausmann and Rodrik (2003), Foray (2012).

  28. 28.

    Correa (1999), Maskus and Reichman (2004), Maskus (2012a).

  29. 29.

    Maskus (2012b).

  30. 30.

    Maskus and Okediji (2010).

  31. 31.

    Palangkaraya et al. (2017).

  32. 32.

    Xue and Liang (2010), Suttmeier and Yao (2011).

  33. 33.

    Maskus (2012a).

References

  • Aitken, B. J., & Harrison, A. E. (1999). Do domestic firms benefit from direct foreign investment? Evidence from Venezuela. American Economic Review, 89, 605–618.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arora, A., Fosfuri, A., & Gambardella, A. (2001). Markets for technology: The economics of innovation and corporate strategy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blalock, G., & Gertler, P. J. (2008). Welfare gains from foreign direct investment through technology transfer to local suppliers. Journal of International Economics, 74, 402–421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Branstetter, L., Fisman, R., & Fritz Foley, C. (2006). Do stronger intellectual property rights increase international technology transfer? Empirical evidence from U.S. firm-level panel data. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 121, 321–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Branstetter, L., Fisman, R., Fritz Foley, C., & Saggi, K. (2011). Does intellectual property rights reform spur industrial development? Journal of International Economics, 83, 27–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Correa, C. M. (1999). Reviewing the TRIPS agreement: Fostering technology transfer to developing countries. The Journal of World Intellectual Property, 2, 939–960.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Du, J., Lu, Y., & Tao, Z. (2008). Economic institutions and FDI location choice: Evidence from US multinationals in China. Journal of Comparative Economics, 36, 412–429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eaton, J., & Kortum, S. (1996). Trade in ideas: Patenting and productivity in the OECD. Journal of International Economics, 40, 251–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foray, D. (2012). Smart specialization and the new industrial policy agenda. European Commission, Innovation for Growth, Policy Brief No. 8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goeschl, T., & Swanson, T. (2000). Genetic use restriction technologies and the diffusion of yield gains to developing countries. Journal of International Development, 12, 1159–1178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grossman, G. M., & Lai, E. L.-C. (2004). International protection of intellectual property. American Economic Review, 94, 1635–1653.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hausmann, R., & Rodrik, D. (2003). Economic development as self-discovery. Journal of Development Economics, 72, 603–633.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoekman, B. M., Maskus, K. E., & Saggi, K. (2005). Transfer of technology to developing countries: Unilateral and multilateral policy options. World Development, 33, 1587–1602.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hovhanissyan, N., & Keller, W. (2015). International business travel: An engine of innovation? Journal of Economic Growth, 20, 75–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hu, A. G. (2009). The regionalization of knowledge flows in East Asia: Evidence from patent citations data. World Development, 37, 1465–1477.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hu, A. G., & Jaffe, A. B. (2003). Patent citations and international knowledge flow: The cases of Korea and Taiwan. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 21, 849–880.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ivus, O. (2010). Do stronger patent rights raise high-tech exports to the developing world? Journal of International Economics, 81, 38–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Javorcik, B. S. (2004). The composition of foreign direct investment and protection of intellectual property rights: Evidence from transition economies. European Economic Review, 48, 39–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keller, W. (2004). International technology diffusion. Journal of Economic Literature, 42, 752–782.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keller, W. (2010). International trade, foreign direct investment, and technology spillovers. In B. H. Hall & N. Rosenberg (Eds.), Handbook of the economics of innovation (Vol. 2, pp. 793–829). Amsterdam: Elsevier-North Holland.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lai, H., Maskus, K. E. & Yang, L. (2017). Patent reform, exports, and productivity of heterogeneous firms in developing countries: Evidence from China. Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Working Paper.

    Google Scholar 

  • Markusen, J. R. (2001). Contracts, intellectual property rights and multinational investment in developing countries. Journal of International Economics, 53, 189–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markusen, J. R. (2002). Multinational firms and the theory of international trade. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Maskus, K. E. (2012a). Private rights and public problems: The global economics of intellectual property in the 21st century. Washington DC: Peterson Institute for International Economics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maskus, K. E. (2012b). Intellectual property rights, technology transfer and development: The case of compulsory licensing. In H. H. Lidgard, et al. (Eds.), Sustainable technology transfer: A guide to global aid and trade development (pp. 89–120). The Hague: Kluwer Law International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maskus, K. E. & Okediji, R. L. (2010). Intellectual property rights and international technology transfer to address climate change: Risks, opportunities and policy options. International Center for Trade and Sustainable Development, Program on Intellectual Property Rights and Sustainable Development, Issue Paper No. 32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maskus, K. E., & Reichman, J. H. (2004). The globalization of private knowledge goods and the privatization of global public goods. Journal of International Economic Law, 7, 279–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maskus, K.E. and Saggi, K. (2014). International technology transfer: An analysis from the perspective of developing countries. World Intellectual Property Organization, Committee on Development and Intellectual Property.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maskus, K. E. & Yang, L. (2018). Domestic patent rights, access to technologies, and the structure of exports. Canadian Journal of Economics, 51, 483–509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nunnenkamp, P., & Spatz, J. (2004). Intellectual property rights and foreign direct investment: A disaggregated analysis. Review of World Economy, 140, 393–414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Odagiri, H., Goto, A., Sunami, A., & Nelson, R. R. (Eds.). (2010). Intellectual property rights, development, and catch-up. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palangkaraya, A., Jensen, P., & Webster, E. (2017). The effect of patents on trade. Journal of International Economics, 105, 1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Qian, Y. (2008). Impacts of entry by counterfeiters. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 123, 1577–1609.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scotchmer, S. (2004). Innovation and incentives. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suttmeier, R. P., & Yao, X. (2011). China’s IP transition: Rethinking intellectual property rights in a rising China. Special Report No 29: The National Bureau of Asian Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Xue, L., & Liang, Z. (2010). Relationships between IPR and technology catch-up: Some evidence from China. In H. Odagiri, et al. (Eds.), Intellectual property rights, development, and catch-up (pp. 317–360). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Yang, G., & Maskus, K. E. (2001). Intellectual property rights, licensing, and innovation in an endogenous product cycle model. Journal of International Economics, 53, 169–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Keith E. Maskus .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Maskus, K.E. (2019). Policy Space in Intellectual Property Rights and Technology Transfer: A New Economic Research Agenda. In: Correa, C., Seuba, X. (eds) Intellectual Property and Development: Understanding the Interfaces. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-2856-5_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-2856-5_1

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-13-2855-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-13-2856-5

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics