Biotechnology piracy: Rethinking the international protection of intellectual property

Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics

Volumn 50, Issue 1, 2002, Pages 15-34

  Gaisford, James D ^a   Tarvydas, Robert ^a   Hobbs, Jill E ^b   Kerr, William A ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SASKATCHEWAN   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0036521141     PISSN: 00083976     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1744-7976.2002.tb00379.x     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Braga, C. A. P. 1955. Trade-related intellectual property issues: The Uruguay Round agreement and its economic implications. The Uruguay Round and the Developing Economies, edited by W. Martin and L. A. Winters. Washington: World Bank.
2. Ceko, T. and W. A. Kerr. 2000. Accommodating a Square Peg: China's Accession to the WTO. EPRI Report 00-01. Lethbridge: University of Lethbridge, Excellence in the Pacific Research Institute.
3. Chin, J. C. and G. M. Grossman. 1990. Intellectual property rights in north-south trade. In The Political Economy of International Trade: Essays in Honor of Robert E. Baldwin, edited by R. W. Jones and A. O. Krueger. Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell.
4. Deardorff, A. V. 1992. Welfare effects of global patent protection. Economica 59: 35-51.
5. Diwan, I. and D. Rodrik. 1991. Patents, appropriate technology, and north-south trade. Journal of International Economics 30: 27-47.
6. Falconi, C. A. Measuring. 1999. Agricultural biotechnology research capacity in four developing countries. AgBioForum 2 (December): 182-88.
7. Frisvold, G., J. Sullivan and A. Raneses. 1999. Who gains from genetic improvements in U.S. crops? AgBioForum 2 (December): 226-35.
8. Gaisford, J. D. and R. S. Richardson.2000. The TRIPS disagreement: Should GATT traditions have been abandoned? Estey Centre Journal of International Law and Trade Policy 1 (2): 137-69 (www.esteyjournal.com).
9. Giannakas, K. 2001. The economics of intellectual property rights under imperfect enforcement. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Agricultural Economics Association, Chicago, August.
10. Giannakas, K. and M. Fulton. 2000. The economics of coupled farm subsidies under costly and imperfect enforcement. Agricultural Economics 22: 75-90.
11. Gordon, D. V., R. Hannesson and W. A. Kerr. 2001. Of fish and whales: The credibility of threats in international trade disputes. Journal of Policy Modeling 23: 83-98.
12. Gutterman, A. S. 1993. The north-south debate regarding the protection of intellectual property rights. Wake Forest Law Review 28: 89-139.
13. Helpman, E. 1993. Innovation, imitation, and Intellectual Property Rights. Econometrica 61: 1247-80.
14. Kerr, W. A. 1999. International trade in transgenic food products: A new focus for agricultural trade disputes. The World Economy 22 (March): 245-59.
15. Kerr, W. A. and N. Perdikis. 1995. The Economics of International Business. London: Chapman and Hall.
16. Klein, K. K., W. A. Kerr and J. E. Hobbs. 1998. The impact of biotechnology on agricultural markets. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 46 (December): 441-53.
17. Lee, J. Y. and E. Mansfield. 1996. Intellectual property and U.S. foreign direct investment. Review of Economics and Statistics 78: 181-86.
18. Mansfield, E. 1993. The case for and against a uniform worldwide intellectual property rights system. Global Dimensions of Intellectual Property Rights in Science and Technology, edited by M. B. Wallenstein, M. E. McGee and R. A. Schoen. Washington: National Academy Press.
19. Markusen, J. R. 1988. Contracts, Intellectual Property Rights and Multinational Investment in Developing Countries. NBER Working Paper Series 6448.
20. Maskus, K. E. and M. Penubarti. 1995. How trade related are intellectual property rights? Journal of International Economics 39: 227-48.
21. Moschini, G. and H. Lapan. 1997. Intellectual property rights and the welfare effects of agricultural R&D. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 79: 1229-42.
22. Perdikis, N. A. 2000. Conflict of legitimate concerns or pandering to vested interests? Conflicting attitudes towards the regulation of trade in genetically modified goods - The EU and the U.S. Estey Centre Journal of International Law and Trade Policy 1: 51-65 (www.esteyjournal.com).
23. Richardson, R. S. and J. D. Gaisford. 1996. North-south disputes over protection of intellectual property. Canadian Journal of Economics 29: 5376-81.
24. Ringo, F. S. 1994. The trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights agreement in the GATT and legal implications for sub-Saharan Africa: Prospective policy issues for the World Trade Organization. Journal of World Trade 28 (November): 121-39.
25. Sahai, S. 1999. Biotechnology capacity of LDCs in the Asian Pacific rim. AgBioForum 2 (December): 189-97.
26. Smith, P. J. 1999. Are patents a barrier to U.S. exports? Journal of International Economics 48: 151-78.
27. Traxler, G. 1999. Assessing the Prospects for the transfer of genetically modified crop varieties to developing countries. AgBioForum 2 (December): 198-202.
28. Vishwasrao, S. 1994. Intellectual property rights and the mode of technology transfer. Journal of Development Economics 44 (2): 381-402.
29. Vishwasrao, S. 1997. North-south technology transfer through licensing. International Trade Journal 11 (Winter): 485-513.
30. Yampoin, R and W. A. Kerr. 1998. Can trade measures induce compliance with TRIPS? Journal of the Asia Pacific Economy 3 (June): 165-82.