Adherence to the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) has had varied impacts across the world, and concerns of adverse effects on public well-being, especially in the context of the pharmaceutical sector, are largely debated. In this article, we analyze the effects of TRIPS on public well-being in the context of the pharmaceutical sector. We look at the policies of China, India and Brazil (three major players in the global pharmaceutical industry) and their usage of the TRIPS flexibilities. China, which has not used the TRIPS flexibilities, has benefited from technology transfer and foreign direct investment (FDI) in research & development (R&D). The need for FDI in R&D in India and Brazil as potential destinations for research on neglected tropical diseases (NTDs) is brought out. We conclude that the effects of TRIPS on public well-being are critical for countries which do not have the ability to use the flexibilities. At a time when trade and investment treaties are mostly aimed at stricter commitments on intellectual property rights (IPR) than TRIPS, such countries need to negotiate appropriate investment and knowledge-sharing commitments from their developed counterparts so as not to be adversely affected by agreeing to demands on bending IPR laws.
BranstetterL.FishmanR.FoleyF.SaggiK. (2011). Does intellectual property rights reform spur industrial development?Journal of International Economics, 83(1), 27–36.
FosfuriA. (2002). Country risk and international flows of technology: Evidence from the chemical industry. Working Paper 02–25. Departamento de Economia de la Empresa Universidad Carlos III de Madrid, Madrid.
11.
GoldarB.GuptaI. (2010). Effects of new patents regime on consumers and producers and drugs/medicines in India. Revised Report Submitted to the UNCTAD.
12.
IFPMA & FIIM. (2011). Technology transfer: A collaborative approach to improve global health. Geneva: International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers & Associations.
13.
IvusO. (2010). Do stronger patent rights raise high-tech exports to the developing world?Journal of International Economics, 81(1), 38–47.
14.
JavorcikS. (2004). Does foreign direct investment increase the productivity of domestic firms? In search of spillovers through backward linkages. American Economic Review, 94(3), 605–627.
15.
KanwarS. (2013). Innovation, efficiency, productivity and intellectual property rights: Evidence from a BRIC economy. Working Paper No. 230, Centre for Development Economics, Delhi School of Economics.
16.
KanwarS. (2012). The location of overseas R&D and intellectual property protection. Journal of Development Studies, 48(10), 1453–1469.
17.
KlempererP. (1990). How broad should the scope of patent protection be?RAND Journal of Economics, 21(1), 113–130.
18.
LernerJ. (2002). 150 years of patent protection. American Economic Review, 92(2), 221–225.
19.
ManiS.NelsonR. (2013). TRIPS compliance, national patent regimes and innovation: Evidence and experience from developing countries. Northampton, USA: Edward Elgar Pub.
NordhausW. (1972). The optimum life of a patent: Reply. The American Economic Review, 62 (3), 428–431.
22.
ParkW.LippoldtD. (2005). International licensing and the strengthening of intellectual property rights in developing countries during the 1990s. OECD Economic Studies, 40(1), 7–48.
23.
QianY. (2007). Do national patent laws stimulate domestic innovation in a global patenting environment? A cross-country analysis of pharmaceutical patent protection 1978–2002. Review of Economics and Statistics, 89(3), 436–453.
24.
RangnekarD. (2004). Can TRIPs deter innovation? The anticommons and public goods in agricultural research. Paper for the Second International Workshop on ‘Governance of biodiversity as a global public good: Bioprospection, intellectual property rights and traditional knowledge’. Centre de philosophie du droit at the Université catholique de Louvain.
25.
StiglitzJ. (2006). Making globalization work. New York and London: W.W. Norton and Company Inc.
WinterS. (1989). Patents in complex contexts: Incentives and effectiveness. In WeilV.SnapperJ.W.(Eds), Owning scientific and technical information. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
31.
YangG.MaskusK. (2001). Intellectual property rights and licensing: An econometric investigation. Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv, 137(1), 58–79.
32.
YuP.K. (2005). TRIPs and its discontents. Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review, 10(369), 371–379.
