Difference between revisions of "Kanwar and Evenson (2003)"
m (1 revision imported) |
|||
(One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
|Authentic Link=http://oep.oxfordjournals.org/content/55/2/235.abstract | |Authentic Link=http://oep.oxfordjournals.org/content/55/2/235.abstract | ||
|Link=https://ideas.repec.org/p/egc/wpaper/831.html | |Link=https://ideas.repec.org/p/egc/wpaper/831.html | ||
− | |Reference=Evenson (1990); Lanjouw and Cockburn (2001); Lerner (1994); Gould and Gruben (1996); Park and Ginarte (1997); | + | |Reference=Evenson (1990);Lanjouw and Cockburn (2001);Lerner (1994);Gould and Gruben (1996);Park and Ginarte (1997); |
− | |Plain Text Proposition=* Evidence was found to support the claim that protection of intellectual property rights encourages technological change insofar as intellectual property protection was found to have a strong positive investment on R&D investment. | + | |Plain Text Proposition=* Evidence was found to support the claim that protection of intellectual property rights encourages technological change insofar as intellectual property protection was found to have a strong positive investment on R&D investment.* There appeared to be some basis for the claim that relationship between R&D and protection may not be backward-bending |
− | + | |FundamentalIssue=2. Relationship between creative process and protection - what motivates creators (e.g. attribution; control; remuneration; time allocation)? | |
− | * There appeared to be some basis for the claim that relationship between R&D and protection may not be backward-bending | + | |EvidenceBasedPolicy=A. Nature and Scope of exclusive rights (hyperlinking/browsing; reproduction right),D. Licensing and Business models (collecting societies; meta data; exchanges/hubs; windowing; crossborder availability) |
− | |FundamentalIssue=2. Relationship between creative process and protection - what motivates creators (e.g. attribution; control; remuneration; time allocation)? | ||
− | |EvidenceBasedPolicy=A. Nature and Scope of exclusive rights (hyperlinking/browsing; reproduction right), D. Licensing and Business models (collecting societies; meta data; exchanges/hubs; windowing; crossborder availability) | ||
|Discipline=O3: Technological Change • Research and Development • Intellectual Property Rights, O31: Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives | |Discipline=O3: Technological Change • Research and Development • Intellectual Property Rights, O31: Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives | ||
|Intervention-Response=Results imply that the lack of an incentive structure can be a significant mitigating factor for technological change even when other constraints such as internal funds, availability of skills and trade orientation may not be binding. | |Intervention-Response=Results imply that the lack of an incentive structure can be a significant mitigating factor for technological change even when other constraints such as internal funds, availability of skills and trade orientation may not be binding. | ||
Line 20: | Line 18: | ||
|Data Year=1981-1990 | |Data Year=1981-1990 | ||
|Data Type=Secondary data | |Data Type=Secondary data | ||
− | |Data Source= | + | |Data Source=Heston et al (2001);Barro and Lee (2000);United Nations (1999);World Bank |
+ | |Method of Collection=Survey Research (quantitative; e.g. sales/income reporting) | ||
|Method of Analysis=Quantitative Analysis Methods, Descriptive statistics (counting; means reporting; cross-tabulation) | |Method of Analysis=Quantitative Analysis Methods, Descriptive statistics (counting; means reporting; cross-tabulation) | ||
|Cross-country=Yes | |Cross-country=Yes | ||
|Comparative=No | |Comparative=No | ||
+ | |Government or policy=No | ||
+ | |Literature review=No | ||
}} | }} | ||
|Dataset={{Dataset | |Dataset={{Dataset | ||
|Sample Size=58 | |Sample Size=58 | ||
− | |Level of Aggregation=Country | + | |Level of Aggregation=Country |
|Data Material Year=1981-1990 | |Data Material Year=1981-1990 | ||
}} | }} | ||
}} | }} |
Latest revision as of 13:32, 30 April 2021
Contents
Source Details
Kanwar and Evenson (2003) | |
Title: | Does Intellectual Property Protection Spur Technological Change? |
Author(s): | Kanwar, S., Evenson, R. |
Year: | 2003 |
Citation: | Kanwar, S., & Evenson, R. (2003). Does intellectual property protection spur technological change?. Oxford Economic Papers, 235-264. |
Link(s): | Definitive , Open Access |
Key Related Studies: | |
Discipline: | |
Linked by: |
About the Data | |
Data Description: | Data on all the variables was available only for 29 countries for the period 1981-1990. |
Data Type: | Secondary data |
Secondary Data Sources: | |
Data Collection Methods: | |
Data Analysis Methods: | |
Industry(ies): | |
Country(ies): | |
Cross Country Study?: | Yes |
Comparative Study?: | No |
Literature review?: | No |
Government or policy study?: | No |
Time Period(s) of Collection: |
|
Funder(s): |
Abstract
Of the diverse factors motivating technological change, one factor that has received increasing attention in the recent past has been the protection of intellectual property rights. Given fairly recent changes in the international policy ethos where a regime of stronger intellectual property protection has become a fait accompli for most developing countries (and the developed too), it is of some significance to ask whether more stringent protection of intellectual property does indeed encourage innovation. And this is the question which this paper examines, utilising cross‐country panel data on R&D investment, patent protection and other country‐specific characteristics spanning the period 1981–95. The evidence unambiguously indicates the significance of intellectual property rights as incentives for spurring innovation.
Main Results of the Study
- Evidence was found to support the claim that protection of intellectual property rights encourages technological change insofar as intellectual property protection was found to have a strong positive investment on R&D investment.* There appeared to be some basis for the claim that relationship between R&D and protection may not be backward-bending
Policy Implications as Stated By Author
Results imply that the lack of an incentive structure can be a significant mitigating factor for technological change even when other constraints such as internal funds, availability of skills and trade orientation may not be binding.
Coverage of Study
Datasets
Sample size: | 58 |
Level of aggregation: | Country |
Period of material under study: | 1981-1990 |