Skip to main content
Article thumbnail
Location of Repository

Welfare effects of intellectual property in a north-south model of endogenous growth with comparative advantage

By Giles Saint-Paul


This paper develops a model for analyzing the costs and benefits of intellectual property enforcement in\ud LDCs. The North is more productive than the South and is the only source of innovator. There are two\ud types of goods, and each bloc has a comparative advantage in producing a specific type of good. If\ud comparative advantage is strong enough, even under piracy there are goods that the South will not\ud produce. Piracy will then lead to a reallocation of innovative activity in favor of these goods. That may\ud harm consumers (including consumers in the South) to the extent that these goods have smaller dynamic\ud learning externalities than the other goods, and that their share in consumption is small. Thus, whether or\ud not piracy is in the interest of the South depends on how important are the goods for which it has a\ud comparative advantage to its consumers, and what the growth potential of these goods is. While, all else\ud equal, the North tends to lose more (or gain less) from piracy than the South, because monopoly profits\ud eventually accrue to the North, the South may lose more than the North if there is a strong enough home\ud bias in favor of the goods for which it has a comparative advantage

Topics: ems
Publisher: Kiel Institute for the World Economy
Year: 2007
OAI identifier:

Suggested articles


  1. (1996). Taste for variety and optimum production patterns in monopolistic competition," doi
  2. (1998). Further information in IDEAS/RePEc
  3. (2002). Free Trade and Protection of Intellectual Property Rights: Can We Have One Without the Other?",
  4. (1996). The role of intellectual property rights in economic growth", doi
  5. (1992). Innovation and growth in the global economy.
  6. (1996). Intellectual Property rights protection and US foreign direct investment",
  7. (1999). Are weak patent rights a barrier to US exports?",
  8. (1999). Further information in IDEAS/RePEc 19

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.