scholarly journals The Alignment of Innovation Policy and Social Welfare: Evidence from Pharmaceuticals

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 ◽  
pp. 95-123 ◽  
Author(s):  
Margaret K. Kyle
2018 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 253
Author(s):  
Gregorio Giménez

Purpose: This article offers a critical view of the impact of patents on economic activity.Design/methodology/approach: We develop two analytic innovation models. They help us to understand how the strength of the patent system affects 1) the industry profits 2) the social welfare.Findings: The strengthening of patent systems could cause a decline in the activities of imitation and, therefore, a decrease in competition, a reduction in the production and assimilation of new technologies and could create barriers to entry into technology-intensive sectors, increasing the costs of production. We will show that a lower strength patent system and an increase in the activities of imitation can i) increase the benefits to industry as a whole ii) lead to greater social surplus.Originality/value and social implications: Much of the literature on innovation has traditionally seen imitation processes as harmful to the development of new technologies, and detrimental to the welfare of consumers, producers and society at large. That is why policies aimed at strengthening the patent system and discouraging imitation processes are associated with improvements in social welfare, —fostering innovation, trade, foreign investment and technology transfer—. However, our findings should lead us to rethink how optimal innovation policy should be designed. The problems associated with restrictions on the free market involve costs that outweigh the social benefits that patents can provide. Market mechanisms can effectively reward innovators for being the first to bring a product into the market, without the need to grant a monopoly.


2019 ◽  
pp. 203-220
Author(s):  
Jason Potts

Chapter 9 draws out a particular formulation of the institutional approach to policy that is based around permissionless innovation and the work of Calestous Juma. It distinguishes between two types of innovation policy from the perspective of government: (1) being supportive of “friends of innovation,” or (2) being against “enemies of innovation.” It argues from a public choice theoretical perspective that modern innovation policy is usually configured as (1), i.e., supporting investment in innovation, but it would actually be better if it were (2), namely configured so as to seek to oppose those who seek to stifle new ideas in order to protect their existing investments and economic rents. The chapter proposes inclusive innovation as a new social contract for innovation. I argue that this is a long run social welfare maximizing policy approach, but implies that the role of policy is largely to facilitate social Coasean bargaining in order to compensate the losers.


2004 ◽  
Vol 34 (136) ◽  
pp. 339-356
Author(s):  
Tobias Wölfle ◽  
Oliver Schöller

Under the term “Hilfe zur Arbeit” (aid for work) the federal law of social welfare subsumes all kinds of labour disciplining instruments. First, the paper shows the historical connection of welfare and labour disciplining mechanisms in the context of different periods within capitalist development. In a second step, against the background of historical experiences, we will analyse the trends of “Hilfe zur Arbeit” during the past two decades. It will be shown that by the rise of unemployment, the impact of labour disciplining aspects of “Hilfe zur Arbeit” has increased both on the federal and on the municipal level. For this reason the leverage of the liberal paradigm would take place even in the core of social rights.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document