Effects of TRIPS on Growth, Welfare and Income Inequality in an R&D-Growth Model

Chu, Angus C. and Peng, Shin-Kun (2009): Effects of TRIPS on Growth, Welfare and Income Inequality in an R&D-Growth Model.

Abstract

What are the effects of the WTO’s TRIPS Agreement on growth, welfare and income inequality? To analyze this question, we develop an open-economy R&D-growth model with wealth heterogeneity. Under TRIPS, the North experiences higher growth and welfare at the expense of higher income inequality. As for the South, it experiences higher growth at the expense of lower welfare and higher income inequality. There exists a critical degree for the domestic importance of foreign goods below (above) which global welfare decreases (increases) under TRIPS. In light of our findings, we discuss policy implications on China’s accession to the WTO in 2001.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: endogenous growth; heterogeneity; income inequality; patent policy; TRIPS
• Subjects: D - Microeconomics > D3 - Distribution > D31 - Personal Income, Wealth, and Their Distributions; F - International Economics > F1 - Trade > F13 - Trade Policy ; International Trade Organizations; O - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth > O3 - Innovation ; Research and Development ; Technological Change ; Intellectual Property Rights > O34 - Intellectual Property and Intellectual Capital

References

1. Adams, S., 2008. Globalization and income inequality: implications for intellectual property rights. Journal of Policy Modeling 30, 725-735.

2. Alesina, A., and Rodrik, D., 1994. Redistributive politics and economic growth. Quarterly Journal of Economics 436, 465-490.

3. Atkinson, A., 2000. The changing distribution of income: evidence and explanations. German Economic Review 1, 3-18.

4. Atkinson, A., 2003. Income inequality in OECD countries: data and explanations. CESifo Economic Studies 49, 479-513.

5. Barro, R., 2000. Inequality and growth in a panel of countries. Journal of Economic Growth 5, 5-32.

6. Benabou, R., 1996. Heterogeneity, stratification, and growth: macroeconomic implications of the community structure and school finance. American Economic Review 86, 584-609.

7. Bertola, G., 1993. Factor shares and savings in endogenous growth. American Economic Review 83, 1184-1198.

8. Bertola, G., Foellimi, R., and Zweimuller, J., 2006. Income distribution in macroeconomic models. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

9. Caselli, F., and Ventura, J., 2000. A representative consumer theory of distribution. American Economic Review 90, 909-926.

10. Chen, Y., and Puttitanun, T., 2005. Intellectual property rights and innovation in developing countries. Journal of Development Economics 78, 474-493.

11. Chou, C., and Talmain, G., 1996. Redistribution and growth: Pareto improvements. Journal of Economic Growth 1, 505-523.

12. Chu, A., 2009. Effects of patent policy on income and consumption inequality in an R&D-Growth Model. Southern Economic Journal, forthcoming.

13. Diwan, I., and Rodrik, D., 1991. Patents, appropriate technology, and North-South trade. Journal of International Economics 30, 27-48.

14. Falvey, R., Foster, N., and Greenaway, D., 2006. Intellectual property rights and economic growth. Review of Development Economics 10, 700-719.

15. Foellmi, R., and Zweimuller, J., 2006. Income distribution and demand-induced innovations. Review of Economic Studies 73, 941-960.

16. Forbes, K., 2000. A reassessment of the relationship between inequality and growth. American Economic Review 90, 869-887.

17. Galor, O., and Tsiddon, D., 1997. Technological progress, mobility and economic growth. American Economic Review 87, 363-382.

18. Galor, O., and Zeira, J., 1993. Income distribution and macroeconomics. Review of Economic Studies 60, 33-52.

19. Garcia-Penalosa, C., and Turnovsky, S., 2006. Growth and income inequality: a canonical model. Economic Theory 28, 25-49.

20. Ginarte, J., and Park, W., 1997. Determinants of patent rights: a cross-national study. Research Policy 26, 283-301.

21. Glass, A., and Saggi, K., 2002a. Licensing versus direct investment: implications for economic growth. Journal of International Economics 56, 131-153.

22. Glass, A., and Saggi, K., 2002b. Intellectual property rights and foreign direct investment. Journal of International Economics 56, 387-410.

23. Grossman, G., and Helpman, E., 1991a. Quality ladders in the theory of growth. Review of Economic Studies 58, 43-61.

24. Grossman, G., and Helpman, E., 1991b. Endogenous product cycles. Economic Journal 101, 1241-1229.

25. Grossman, G., and Lai, E., 2004. International protection of intellectual property. American Economic Review 94, 1635-1653.

26. Helpman, E., 1993. Innovation, imitation, and intellectual property rights. Econometrica 61, 1247-1280.

27. Hu, A., and Jefferson, G., 2009. A great wall of patents: what is behind China’s recent patent explosion? Journal of Development Economics, forthcoming.

28. Jones, C., 1999. Growth: with or without scale effects. American Economic Review Papers and Proceedings 89, 139-144.

29. Kuznets, S., 1955. Economic growth and income inequality. American Economic Review 45, 1-28.

30. Lai, E., 1998. International intellectual property rights protection and the rate of product innovation. Journal of Development Economics 55, 133-153.

31. Lai, E., 2005. Was global patent protection too weak before TRIPS? manuscript.

32. Lai, E., and Qiu, L., 2003. The North’s intellectual property rights standard for the South? Journal of International Economics 59, 183-209.

33. Laincz, C., and Peretto, P., 2006. Scale effects in endogenous growth theory: an error of aggregation not specification. Journal of Economic Growth 11, 263-288.

34. Li, C., 1998. Inequality and growth: a Schumpeterian perspective. University of Glasgow Working Paper 9609.

35. Li, C., 2000. Endogenous vs. semi-endogenous growth in a two-R&D sector model. Economic Journal 110, C109-C122.

36. Li, C., 2001. On the policy implications of endogenous technological progress. Economic Journal 111, C164-C179.

37. Li, H., and Zou, H., 1998. Income inequality is not harmful for growth: theory and evidence. Review of Development Economics 2, 318-334.

38. Madsen, J., 2008. Semi-endogenous models versus Schumpeterian growth models: testing the knowledge production function using international data. Journal of Economic Growth 13, 1-26.

39. Nordhaus, W., 1969. Invention, growth, and welfare. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

40. O’Donoghue, T., and Zweimuller, J., 2004. Patents in a model of endogenous growth. Journal of Economic Growth 9, 81-123.

41. Obstfeld, M., and Rogoff, K., 2000. New directions for stochastic open economy models. Journal of International Economics 50, 117-153.

42. Park, W., 2008. International patent protection: 1960-2005. Research Policy 37, 761-766.

43. Peng, S.-K., Thisse, J.-F.; and Wang, P., 2006. Economic integration and agglomeration in a middle product economy. Journal of Economic Theory 131, 1-25.

44. Perotti, R., 1996. Growth, income distribution, and democracy: what the data say. Journal of Economic Growth 1, 149-187.

45. Persson, T., and Tabellini, G., 1994. Is inequality harmful for growth? American Economic Review 84, 600-621.

46. Reed, D., and Cancian, M., 2001. Sources of inequality: measuring the contributions of income sources to rising family income inequality. Review of Income and Wealth 47, 321-333.

47. Saint-Paul, G., and Verdier, T., 1993. Education, democracy, and growth. Journal of Development Economics 42, 399-407.

48. Tanaka, H., Iwaisako, T., and Futagami, K., 2007. Dynamic analysis of innovation and international transfer of technology through licensing. Journal of International Economics 73, 189-212.

49. United Nations Development Programme (2005) “China’s Gini Coefficient Nears .45” The National Human Development Reports for China, December 17, 2005.

50. Yang, G., and Maskus, K., 2001. Intellectual property rights, licensing, and innovation in an endogenous product-cycle model. Journal of International Economics 53, 169-187.

51. Zweimuller, J., 2000. Schumpeterian entrepreneurs meet Engel’s law: the impact of inequality on innovation-driven growth. Journal of Economic Growth 5, 185-206.