Evidence‐Based Intellectual Property Policymaking: An Integrated Review of Methods and Conclusions

Abstract

Governments have long been interested in making intellectual property (IP) policy based on sound evidence. There is a large body of literature addressing the economic impacts of IP, but little of it is accessible to policy makers. This article aims to improve understanding of how IP contributes to the economic performance of a country's innovative sectors. A detailed literature review and meta-analysis identifies existing methodologies and analytical frameworks. The article organizes the literature and conclusions into four major archetypes, and explains the advantages/disadvantages of each approach. First, data for advocacy is used primarily by special-interest lobby groups. This literature is accessible to policy makers, but rarely transparent, verified or peer reviewed. Second, valuations of aggregate economic contributions of IP-related industries are influential worldwide. This literature usefully allows us to compare data internationally, but makes unfounded or misleading assumptions about the importance of IP to a particular industry. Third, innovation indices and rankings are increasingly used to assess comparative progress over time. This literature reports on a broad-base of IP and innovative activity, but risks turning into a statistical horse race. Fourth, the literature on scholarly theoretical and empirical research and modelling is extensive. This literature often relies on sound evidence, but tends to use the available information-patent data-without explaining the context in which firms may or may not choose to use formal IPRs. It is also rarely accessible to policy makers in the format or timelines required. None of these frameworks alone are fully capable of providing complete, reliable information about the economic importance of intellectual property in any one particular country. An approach that positions and integrates various frameworks, methods and data sources is, therefore, appropriate. The key challenge for the future is to connect empirical data and micro-economic analyses about firms' strategic responses to IP policy changes with statistics and macro-economic insights on overall economic performance or social welfare.

Does intellectual property protection deliver economic benefits? A multi‐outcome meta‐regression analysis of the evidence

“…The stock in 2018 has been underpinned by respective annual growth rates of 5.2% and 15.5% since 2013, with China and India emerging as major contributors to the growth in patent and trademark registrations. 2 Against this background, we observe a stark discrepancy between the pessimistic/cautious conclusions derived in most narrative reviews by economists (Boldrin & Levine, 2013;Chang, 2001;De Beer, 2016;Gallini, 2002;Hall & Harhoff, 2012) and the optimistic/sanguine claims about the benefits of IP protection encountered in some work by legal scholars (e.g., Acri, 2016;Haber, 2016;Lehman, 1996) or in reviews/reports sponsored by business interest groups or official IP bodies (e.g., Dixon, 2011;OECD, 2015;WIPO, 2015). Whereas work in the former category draws attention to the trade-off between the incentive-correction and monopoly-power effects of IP protection; work in the latter category tends to emphasize the incentive-correction effects and conclude that IP protection is a significant driver of innovation, knowledge diffusion, and economic growth.…”

Untitled

“…Kaip minėta, skiriami empirinis ir doktrininis požiūriai į teisinio reglamentavimo modernizavimą. Empirinis požiūris paremtas svarstymu apie išimtinių autorių teisių apsaugos reglamentavimo poveikį kūrybinės industrijos ir jos dalyvių ekonominei perspektyvai, rengiant modernizuotą šių teisių reglamentavimą 33 . Šiuo požiūriu akcentuojama, kad teisėkūros procesų rezultatai autorių teisės ir išimtinių autorių teisių srityje turi ekonominę reikšmę tiek kūrybinės industrijos, tiek jos dalyvių veikimo bei plėtros perspektyvoms.…”

RCEP and Trans‐Pacific Intellectual Property Norms: Implications for India

“…(Amin (); Bhuyan (); Beer (); Chander and Sunder (); Díaz (); Fowler et al (); Gangjee (); Gantz (); Haokip (); Pessach (); Ping He (); Ragavan (); Scaria and Sinha (); Sen (); Seshadri (); Sun (); Television Broadcasts Limited v Telstra Corporation Limited (); Wignaraja (); Yu (); Yu ())…”