Band and Gerafi (2013)
|Band and Gerafi (2013)|
|Title:||Foreign ownership of firms in IP intensive industries|
|Author(s):||Band, J., Gerafi, J.|
|Citation:||Band, J. & Gerafi, J. (2013). Foreign ownership of firms in IP intensive industries. Policy Bandwidth. Available at SSRN 2333839.|
|Link(s):||Definitive , Open Access|
|Key Related Studies:|
|Linked by:||Band (2013a), Band (2013b)|
|About the Data|
|Data Description:||The data is extracted from statistical information concerning intellectual property in 20 countries across the world, mostly in North America, Western Europe and East Asia.|
|Data Type:||Secondary data|
|Secondary Data Sources:|
|Data Collection Methods:|
|Data Analysis Methods:|
|Cross Country Study?:||Yes|
|Government or policy study?:||No|
|Time Period(s) of Collection:||
For decades, U.S. domestic and foreign IP policy has been predicated on the assumption that U.S. firms dominated both domestic and foreign markets for IP products. In an effort to evaluate the standing of U.S. firms in IP intensive industries, this paper identifies the “nationality” of the leading firms in several important IP industries. The paper finds that for many industries, this assumption of U.S. dominance is no longer correct. This suggests that at times, IP policies adopted by Congress and the Executive Branch may benefit foreign corporations at the expense of U.S. consumers. There is absolutely nothing sinister about foreign ownership of firms in IP intensive industries, including foreign ownership of companies originally established in the U.S. This is to be expected in a globalized economy with multinational corporations and complex cross-border supply chains. Moreover, many countries in Western Europe and East Asia are at the same level of technological and economic development as the United States. The critical point is that in such a globalized economy, U.S policymakers should no longer assume without reflection that the beneficiaries of protectionist IP policies are U.S. firms and, by extension, U.S. workers and shareholders.
Main Results of the Study
- Four of the “Big Six” publishers, the largest English language trade publishers, are foreign-owned. More than 80 % of the global revenue of the Big Six is generated by these foreign-owned companies. These foreign-owned companies publish more than two thirds of the trade books in the U.S. Only seven of the world’s 50 largest publishers of all categories are U.S.-owned.
- Two of the three major record labels are foreign-owned. These two labels have a market share of 59 %. Thirteen of the twenty best-selling recording artists are foreign. Of the 50 most popular motion pictures in the United States in 2012, 50 % were filmed partly or entirely outside of the United States. 70 % of the most recent generation of game consoles were manufactured by Japanese companies.
- In 2011, foreign companies obtained 7,000 more U.S. patents than U.S. companies. In 2011 and 2012, seven of the top ten companies receiving U.S. patents were foreign. 57 % of the global revenue of the fifteen largest pharmaceutical companies was generated by foreign-owned companies. The majority of the employees of both the U.S. and the foreign-owned pharmaceutical companies work outside of the United States.
Policy Implications as Stated By Author
Assessing the U.S. global standing in IP-intensive industries is important because it helps to determine the optimal level of domestic IP protection, as well as what IP standards the U.S. should be urging upon its trading partners. Many countries in Western Europe and East Asia are at the same level of technological and economic development as the United States. The critical point is that in such a globalized economy, U.S policymakers should no longer assume without reflection that the beneficiaries of protectionist IP policies are U.S. firms and, by extension, U.S. workers and shareholders.
Coverage of Study
|Level of aggregation:||Country|
|Period of material under study:||2010-2011|