Chu, Angus C. (2007): Special Interest Politics and Intellectual Property Rights: An Economic Analysis of Strengthening Patent Protection in the Pharmaceutical Industry.
Download (266kB) | Preview
Since the 80’s, the pharmaceutical industry has benefited substantially from a series of policy changes that have strengthened the patent protection for brand-name drugs as a result of the industry’s political influence. This paper incorporates special interest politics into a quality-ladder model to analyze the policymakers’ tradeoff between the socially optimal patent length and campaign contributions. The welfare analysis suggests that the presence of a pharmaceutical lobby distorting patent protection is socially undesirable in a closed-economy setting but may improve social welfare in a multi-country setting, which features an additional efficiency tradeoff between monopolistic distortion and international free-riding on innovations.
|Item Type:||MPRA Paper|
|Institution:||University of Michigan|
|Original Title:||Special Interest Politics and Intellectual Property Rights: An Economic Analysis of Strengthening Patent Protection in the Pharmaceutical Industry|
|Keywords:||campaign contributions; intellectual property rights; patent length; special interest politics|
|Subjects:||O - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth > O3 - Innovation ; Research and Development ; Technological Change ; Intellectual Property Rights > O34 - Intellectual Property and Intellectual Capital
D - Microeconomics > D7 - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making > D72 - Political Processes: Rent-Seeking, Lobbying, Elections, Legislatures, and Voting Behavior
O - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth > O3 - Innovation ; Research and Development ; Technological Change ; Intellectual Property Rights > O31 - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives
|Depositing User:||Angus C. Chu|
|Date Deposited:||03. Aug 2007|
|Last Modified:||14. Feb 2013 15:09|
Aghion, P. and P. Howitt, 1992, A model of growth through creative destruction. Econometrica 60, 323-351. Angell, M., 2005, The truth about the drug companies: how they deceive us and what to do about it (Random House, New York). Ansolabehere, S., J. M. de Figueiredo and J. M. Snyder, 2003, Why is there so little money in U.S. politics. Journal of Economic Perspectives 17, 105-130. Becker, G. S., 1983, A theory of competition among pressure groups for political influence. Quarterly Journal of Economics 98, 371-400. Besley, T. and S. Coate, 2001, Lobbying and welfare in a representative democracy. Review of Economics Studies 68, 67-82. Coate, S. and S. Morris, 1999, Policy persistence. American Economic Review 89, 1327-1336. Chu, A. C., 2007, Optimal patent breadth: quantifying the effects of patent breadth and blocking patent. University of Michigan Working Paper. Dinopoulos, E., A. Gungoraydinoglu and C. Syropoulos, 2005, Patent protection and global Schumpeterian growth, in: E. Dinopoulos, P. Krishna, A. Panagariya and K. Wong, eds., Globalization: prospects and problems; papers in honor of Jagdish Bhagwati (Routledge, New York). Drazen, A., 2000, Political economy in macroeconomics (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ). Eisenberg, R. S., 2001, The shifting functional balance of patents and drug regulation. Health Affairs 19, 119-135. Feenstra, R. C., 2004, Advanced international trade: theory and evidence (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ). Gallini, N. T., 2002, The economics of patents: lessons from recent U.S. patent reform. Journal of Economic Perspectives 16, 131-154. Gilbert, R. and C. Shapiro, 1990, Optimal patent length and breadth. RAND Journal of Economics 21, 106-112. Grossman, G. M. and E. Helpman, 1991, Quality ladders in the theory of growth. Review of Economic Studies 58, 43-61. Grossman, G. M. and E. Helpman, 1994, Protection for sale. American Economic Review 84, 833-850. Grossman, G. M. and E. Helpman, 2001, Special interest politics (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA). Grossman, G. M. and E. Helpman, 2002, Interest groups and trade policy (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ). Grossman, G. M. and E. Lai, 2004, International protection of intellectual property. American Economic Review 94, 1635-1653. Helpman, E. and T. Persson, 2001, Lobbying and legislative bargaining. Advances in Economic Analysis & Policy 1, article 3. Jaffe, A. B., 2000, The U.S. patent system in transition: policy innovation and the innovation process. Research Policy 29, 531-557. Jones, C. I., 1995a, Time series tests of endogenous growth models. Quarterly Journal of Economics 110, 495-525. Jones, C. I., 1995b, R&D-based models of economic growth. Journal of Political Economy 103, 759-784. Jones, C. I., 1999, Growth: with or without scale effects. American Economic Review Papers and Proceedings 89, 139-144. Jones, C. I., 2002, Sources of U.S. economic growth in a world of ideas. American Economic Review 92, 220-239. Judd, K. L., 1985, On the performance of patents. Econometrica 53, 567-586. Krueger, A. O., 1974, The political economy of the rent-seeking society. American Economic Review 64, 291-303. Krusell, P. and J. Rios-Rull, 1996, Vested interests in a positive theory of stagnation and growth. Review of Economic Studies 63, 301-329. Lai, E., 2005, Was global patent protection too weak before TRIPS?. City University of Hong Kong Working Paper. Lai, E. and L. D. Qiu, 2003, The North’s intellectual property rights standard for the South?. Journal of International Economics 59, 183-209. Mitra, D., 1999, Endogenous lobby formation and endogenous protection: a long run model of trade policy determination. American Economic Review 89, 1116-1134. National Institute for Health Care Management Foundation, 2000, Prescription drugs and intellectual property protection: finding the right balance between access and innovation. Nordhaus, W., 1969, Invention, growth, and welfare (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA). North, D. C., 2005, Understanding the process of economic change (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ). O’Donoghue, T. and J. Zweimuller, 2004, Patents in a model of endogenous growth. Journal of Economic Growth 9, 81-123. Persson, T. and G. Tabellini, 2000, Political economics: explaining economic policy (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA). Posner, R. A., 1975, The social costs of monopoly regulation. Journal of Political Economy 83, 807-828. Scotchmer, S., 2004, Innovation and incentives (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA). Segerstrom, P. S., 1998, Endogenous growth without scale effects. American Economic Review 88, 1290-1310. Snyder, J. M. Jr., 1990, Campaign contributions as investments: the U.S. House of Representatives, 1980-1986. Journal of Political Economy 98, 1195-1227.