The strength of pharmaceutical IPRs vis-Ã -vis foreign direct investment in clinical research: Preliminary findings
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5912/jcb487Keywords:
clinical trial, foreign direct investment, intellectual property rights, pharmaceutical, developing countryAbstract
This article examines the effect of the intellectual property (IP) environment in developing countries on the level of foreign direct investment (FDI) and technology transfer occurring in the biopharmaceutical field in these countries. In particular, it considers the correlation between the strength of IP protection in several developing countries (using the Pharmaceutical IP Index) and the number of clinical trials taking place in these countries (as a proxy of biomedical FDI). The article finds that overall, the strength of national pharmaceutical IP environments provide a good estimate of the level of clinical trials taking place in these countries. Accordingly, countries with a more robust level of pharmaceutical IP protection tend to enjoy a greater level of clinical trial activity by multinational research-based companies. In other words, by choosing to improve their level of protection of pharmaceutical IPRs (together with other factors), developing countries may also be exposed to higher levels of biomedical FDI, not least in the field of clinical trials.
References
Park, W. and Lippoldt, D. (2008) Technology Transfer and the Economic Implications of the Strengthening of Intellectual Property Rights in Developing Countries. Working Paper No. 62, OECD.
Léger, A. (2006) Intellectual Property Rights and Innovation in Developing Countries: Evidence from Panel Data. Proceedings of the German Development Economics Conference, Berlin.
Robbins, C. (2006, 2008) Measuring Payments for the Supply and Use of Intellectual Property. International Association for Official Statistics (IAOS), Ottawa.
Bramley-Harker, E., Lewis, D., Farahnik, J. and Rozek, R. (2007) Key Factors in Attracting Internationally Mobile Investments by the Research-Based Pharmaceutical Industry. London: NERA Economic Consulting.
Berndt, E., Cockburn, I. and Thiers, F. (2007) The Globalization of Clinical Trials for New Medicines into Emerging Economies: Where are they Going and Why? Paper presented at the UNU-MERIT Conference, Maastricht, http://www.merit.unu.edu/MEIDE/papers/2007/BERNDT_COCKBURN_THIERS_The%20globalization%20of%20clinical%20trials%20for%20new%20medicines%20into%20emerging%20economies.pdf.
Bailey, W., Cruickshank, C. and Sharma, N. (2006) Make your move: Taking clinical trials to the best location. ATKearney, http://www.atkearney.com/index.php/Publications/make-your-move.html.
OECD. (2008) OECD Benchmark Definition of Foreign Direct Investment, 4th edn., Paris, p. 17.
Lippoldt, D. (2006) Intellectual Property Rights, Pharmaceuticals and Foreign Direct Investment, Groupe d'Economie Mondiale de Sciences Po, Paris, http://www.gem.sciences-po.fr/content/publications/pdf/lippoldt_IPRs_Pharma_FDI1106.pdf.
DiMasi, J. and Grabowski, H. (2007) The biopharmaceutical R&D: Is biotech different? Managerial and Decision Economics 28: 472.
PhRMA. (2010) Pharmaceutical Industry Profile, Washington, DC: PhRMA, p. 27.
See, for example, Bailey et al,5 Bramley-Harker et al,4 and Dunne, M. ‘Drug Development in Developing Countries: A Pharmaceutical Company's Perspective', Pfizer Global Research and Development.
Goldman, J. (2010) Foreign Direct Investment in the Biopharmaceutical Sector in Korea. ICON Clinical Research.
European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership (EDCTP). (2010) 2011 roadmap. p. 2, http://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/planned_ia/docs/
_rtd_016_renewal_edctp_en.pdf.
PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC). (2010) Clinical Trials in Poland: Key Challenges, Warsaw: PricewaterhouseCoopers, p. 48.
See also:Allen Consulting Group. (2006) Drivers of Pharmaceutical Industry Investment: Understanding Australia's Competitive Position. Final Report to Medicines Australia and Research Australia.
Holmes, E. and Low, E. (2007) BMS Phase 2 Initiative Funding Framework. Ministry of Health/National Medical Research Council, http://www.nmrc.gov.sg/content/dam/nmrc_internet/documents/news/BMS%20Phase%202%20Funding%20Framework.pdf.
Spring Singapore. (2010) Industry Background and Statistics, http://www.spring.gov.sg/enterpriseindustry/bhs/pages/industry-background-statistics.aspx.
Singaporean Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR). (2008) National Survey of R&D in Singapore, 2003–2008, http://www.a-star.edu.sg/Portals/0/media/RnD_Survey/RnD_2008.pdf.
Chanda, R. (2011) India-EU relations in health services: Prospects and challenges. Globalization and Health 7 (1): 15.
UNCTAD. (2005) World Investment Report: Transnational Corporations and the Internationalization of R&D. p. 193.
Rapp, R. and Rozek, R. (1990) Benefits and costs of intellectual property protection in developing countries. Journal of World Trade 24 (5): 75–102.
Park, W. and Ginarte, J.C. (2007) Intellectual property rights and economic growth. Contemporary Economic Policy 15 (3): 51–61.
Pugatch, M.P. (2006) Measuring the strength of national pharmaceutical intellectual property regimes: Creating a new pharmaceutical IP index. Journal of World Intellectual Property 9 (4): 373–391, See also: Pugatch, M.P. (2007), Measuring the Strength of National Pharmaceutical Intellectual Property Regimes in Eight Countries: Using a Pharmaceutical IP Index to Benchmark India. Journal of World Investment and Trade 8(4): 573–591. Note: The Pharmaceutical IP Index has been used to benchmark the IP environments of a range of countries, including the United States, United Kingdom, Singapore, China, Brazil, India, Thailand, the Philippines, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand and, recently, Canada.
