Technology Transfer and the

Role of Intellectual Property Rights

KAMAL SAGGIPresentation at the WTO

October 11th, 2005

Overview

• What is international technology transfer (ITT)?

• Why is it important, especially for developing countries?

• Through what channels does ITT occur?• How pervasive is it? • Does the strengthening of global IPR

protection increase the scope for ITT?

International technology transfer

• Difficult to gauge the overall magnitude of ITT -- occurs through a multitude of channels.

• Trade (especially in capital goods). -- In 1975, approximately 23% of total world trade was trade in capital goods whereas in 1996 this ratio was over 30%.

• Explicit trade in technology: Global payments of fees and royalties for technology transfer increased from $0.85 billion to $100 billion during 1970-2003. An explosion in market mediated ITT. See Figure.

• FDI: deserves special attention. More later.• Many other channels: movement of people, scientific

literature, etc.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

World

Low & middle income

Least developed countries (UN classification)

High income OECD

Trade (% of GDP)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

World

Low & middle income

Least developed countries (UN classification)

High income OECD

Market mediated ITT

Royalty and license fees, payments (BoP, current US$) (bill)

Role of FDI

• Today, intra-firm trade (i.e. trade between subsidiaries and headquarters of multinational firms) may account for one-third of total world trade and sales of subsidiaries of multinational firms now exceed worldwide exports of goods and services.

• While most FDI occurs between industrial countries, developing countries are becoming increasingly important host countries for FDI: 27% of the global stock of FDI today is in developing countries.

Global Stock of FDI (Billions USD)

-

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

Percent of global FDI stock in developing countries

0.05.0

10.015.020.025.030.035.040.045.050.0

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

Percent of global FDI inflows to developing countries

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

45.0

50.0

1971

1973

1975

1977

1979

1981

1983

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

FDI and technology transfer

• Multinational firms are concentrated in industries that have a high ratio of R&D relative to sales and a large share of technical and professional workers. Take advantage of their knowledge based assets in multiple markets.

• In a typical year, roughly 75% of global royalty payments are intra-firm (i.e. between subsidiaries and parent firms). Also even technology transfer between independent firms frequently involves multinationals.

– Has the increase in FDI contributed to ITT? – If so, how? – Technology spillovers and linkages from FDI?

Spillovers from FDI?

• What does the word spillover mean?

• Is it reasonable to even expect spillovers to occur from FDI? The OLI paradigm.

• Multinationals transfer newer technologies internally and license older ones.

• How might knowledge diffuse?

• Demonstration effects

• Labor turnover

• Vertical spillovers.

Channels of spillovers

• Demonstration effects: related to the idea of discovering one’s comparative advantage.

• Labor Movement: Really crucial channel. Mixed evidence so far.

• Vertical Linkages: discuss later.• Evidence on horizontal spillovers? Two types of

empirical studies: sectoral level and plant level.– Sectoral level studies: positive relationship between the extent

of foreign presence and productivity.– Self-selection problem: Does FDI go to the more productive

sectors?

Plant level studies of FDI• These studies cast significant doubts regarding spillovers

from FDI. Typical findings:— Plants with foreign involvement are more productive than

purely domestic plants. Affirmation of FDI’s role in technology transfer.

— Productivity at domestic plants is negatively correlated with the extent of foreign presence. Evidence of weak negative spillovers?

— Overall, a small positive effect of FDI on productivity across all plants.

— Absorptive capacity: stronger evidence of spillovers in low tech sectors.

— Local competition and investment matter.

How to explain negative spillovers?

• Negative spillovers result - is it a cause for serious concern for developing countries?

• Possible explanations: – Market share decline and economies of scale.

– Time needed to adjust to foreign competition — future entrants will be more efficient.

– Studies do not capture the vertical aspect of technology transfer.

• Policy implications:– Difficult to argue in favor of fiscal and financial incentives for FDI

based on horizontal spillovers.

– Competition for FDI is probably not in the interest of the developing countries.

Vertical spillovers from FDI

• Vertical versus horizontal spillovers.

• Multinationals ought to have a strong incentive to transfer technology to potential suppliers.

• Evidence?

• Both econometric studies and case studies are supportive.

• Multinational firms do indeed transfer technology to domestic suppliers and help improve their productivity.

• Misleading to look only at the rivals of multinationals to see how FDI affects productivity.

Arguments for and against IPR protection

• What is the economic rationale for IPRs?• Classic answer: Trade-off between incentive for

innovation and monopoly pricing. Dynamic efficiency requires static inefficiency.

• Several complications here: – Optimal IPRs need to account for the cumulative nature of

innovation. Ideas build on ideas.– Even w/o IPRs, innovators have first-mover advantage: imitation

is costly and it takes time. – Innovation often precedes w/or IPRs – financial securities;

software was not protected historically.– Patents and other IPRs can generate socially wasteful rent-seeking

much like any type of trade protection.

Effect of IPR protection on ITT

• What about countries that do not have much innovative capacity (as yet)?

• Case for stronger IPR protection in such countries has to rest on global response to changes in local policies (i.e. such as an increase in ITT and inward FDI).

• Globalization also implies innovators profit from a bigger market and IPRs may need to be weaker rather than stronger!

• IPRs make sense when fixed costs of innovation are truly large and imitation is cheap. Both things may not often co-exist.

IPRs and ITT (contd.)

• Rosy scenario: stronger IPRs in developing countries lead to more innovation and more ITT from ROW through FDI and technology licensing.

• Do we have any supporting evidence for this?• A qualified yes. TRIPS only 10 years old. We

know patent filing behavior and production shifting via FDI has begun to already respond. See Figure.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

World

Low & middle income

Least developed countries (UN classification)

High income OECD

Post TRIPS

Patent applications, nonresidents (mill)

TRIPS and ITT

• Is strengthening of IPRs conducive to ITT?• Articles 66 and 67 are supposed to facilitate ITT.

But progress seems to have been limited.• Historically, much ITT occurred when TRIPS was

absent.• Developing countries today face new constraints

implied by the TRIPS agreement. • Encouraging ITT will require greater cooperation

from industrialized countries as well as policy reforms in developing ones.