We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Production rather than preferences should play the leading role in the theory of markets, as in the book’s analysis of volatility and policymaking. Production is not only the fount of social wealth, it is organized by firms whose decisions are guided by a clear ordering principle, their profitability. There is moreover an institution, the market, that can weed out the firms that fail to pursue profits effectively. But the purging of inefficiency by the market confronts policymakers with the dilemmas of Schumpeterian creative destruction. Policies that compensate firms and their owners for any declines in profitability will also dampen the threat of bankruptcy; the enforcement of productive efficiency can require unfettered competition. An application to international trade illustrates some of the challenges: For foreign competition to lead to productive efficiency, domestic prices must be aligned with world prices, which will push some firms into liquidation.
The problems that afflict Pareto efficiency can be overcome if the criterion is rebuilt on preference-free foundations. A policy change passes the ‘availability test’ if it allows agents to afford whatever they purchased originally: Agents might not then be better off but no one can legitimately object to the change. One way to pass the availability test is to give agents the right to repeat their original transactions; a reform of rent control serves as an example. A second strategy stabilizes prices for consumers while letting the prices that firms face promote efficiency in production. A deregulation of a public utility, for example, can preserve consumer prices while giving firms an incentive to innovate. These policy alternatives show how to resolve the Schumpeterian dilemma of creative destruction: They harness the progressive feature of capitalism, that it fosters technological change, while protecting the individuals who can be harmed by the same forces. Conventional laissez-faire policies are in contrast difficult to justify even from within the orbit of traditional economic theory and can generate bitter social conflict. An application to opening an economy to free trade shows how to combine the advantages of technological change while satisfying the availability test.
This chapter introduces the economic perspective on sweatshops and some alternatives available to workers. It explains the ethical standard – the welfare of Third World sweatshop workers and other poor people in the countries where sweatshops are located – that will be used throughout the book, and it provides an overview of what will be covered in the coming chapters.
This chapter reviews the various organizations that comprise the anti-sweatshop movement and what policies they advocate. It provides a history of the origins and growth of the anti-sweatshop movement.
Out of Poverty provides a comprehensive defence of Third World sweatshops that does not put economic efficiency over people, but instead explores methods of improving the welfare of those in Third World countries. The author explains how sweatshops provide the best opportunity for workers; and how they play an important role in development, leading to better wages and working conditions. Using economic theory, empirical evidence, and historical investigation, Powell argues that the anti-sweatshop movement would harm the very workers it intends to help by creating less-desirable alternatives and undermining development. Including a new chapter on the 2013 Rana Plaza factory collapse in Bangladesh, this revised and expanded second edition also explores how sweatshop wages have changed and how poverty alleviation has progressed in countries with sweatshops in the late 1990s and early 2000s and how boycotting Uyghur forced labor in China differs other sweatshop boycotts.
Edited by
Daniel Benoliel, University of Haifa, Israel,Peter K. Yu, Texas A & M University School of Law,Francis Gurry, World Intellectual Property Organization,Keun Lee, Seoul National University
This chapter provides an introduction to Intellectual Property, Innovation and Economic Inequality. It begins by discussing the problem of economic inequality, including the scale of that problem, types of economic inequality, and extant research on such inequality. The chapter then outlines the structure of this volume, which is divided into three parts: (1) theoretical, empirical, and policy issues; (2) intellectual property and national inequality; and (3) intellectual property and global inequality.
Edited by
Daniel Benoliel, University of Haifa, Israel,Peter K. Yu, Texas A & M University School of Law,Francis Gurry, World Intellectual Property Organization,Keun Lee, Seoul National University
This chapter criticizes the oversimplification of the binary North–South debate on intellectual property, innovation, and global inequality and highlights the wide geographic, sectoral, and income inequalities within middle-income countries. It begins by explaining why the arrival of these countries has called into question the North–South debate. The chapter then moves from the widely studied subject of global inequality to the underexplored topic of national inequality. Focusing on the intellectual property context, the discussion highlights the considerable subnational variations in the economic and technological conditions of middle-income countries. To combat national inequality, this chapter concludes by recommending interventions in three areas: (1) international norm-setting, (2) national policymaking, and (3) academic and policy research.
Edited by
Daniel Benoliel, University of Haifa, Israel,Peter K. Yu, Texas A & M University School of Law,Francis Gurry, World Intellectual Property Organization,Keun Lee, Seoul National University
Low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are confronted with a new world order in which the major economic powers that promoted multilateralism have moved toward nationalism, localization of production, and de-legalization of dispute settlement in favor of balance of power diplomacy. A counterpart to this trend is declining interest in developmental assistance. It remains to be determined how countries that are not part of the new great power dynamic will acclimate to this new world. LMICs have the opportunity to leapfrog in the current technological environment. A key challenge is securing adequate capital investment, including through the private sector. There is a trend among the capital-exporting countries to negotiate bilateral and plurilateral agreements with LMICs that preclude regulatory measures requiring technology transfer as a condition of foreign direct investment. Because individual private investors within LMICs may lack substantial bargaining power, these agreements diminish LMICs’ capacity to secure favorable terms for technology transfer. LMICs confront terms of trade that favor high-income countries and, more broadly, the ascendance of managed trade policy among economically powerful states. These factors portend the perpetuation of the marked disparity in the distribution of global income and wealth. There are no “magic bullet” solutions on the horizon.
Edited by
Daniel Benoliel, University of Haifa, Israel,Peter K. Yu, Texas A & M University School of Law,Francis Gurry, World Intellectual Property Organization,Keun Lee, Seoul National University
This chapter reviews available economic theories and empirical evidence about the potential roles intellectual property (IP) rights play in generating or reducing economic inequality, emphasizing international data. Basic evidence demonstrates the simultaneous growth in internal income inequality across countries and increasing IP protection in the prior 25 years. It is tempting to assign causality from IP to inequality but doing so confidently is challenging and has not yet been accomplished systematically. Through encouraging technology diffusion, global IP reforms likely contribute to convergence in average incomes between advanced economies and select emerging and developing countries.
Edited by
Daniel Benoliel, University of Haifa, Israel,Peter K. Yu, Texas A & M University School of Law,Francis Gurry, World Intellectual Property Organization,Keun Lee, Seoul National University
This chapter explores the impact of intellectual property on increasing income and wealth inequality internationally and domestically, with a focus on law and legal methodology. It begins by setting the scene and background of international intellectual property protection. The chapter then examines the potential of taking into account considerations of income and wealth distribution in the process of interpreting intellectual property rules and explores the potential of the principle of equity. It turns to the overall balance of rights and obligations from an angle of fostering investment in innovation and proposes to recognize creative imitation in the overall equation. It also suggests recalibrating rules on the duration of patents, copyright, trademarks, and trade secret protection. The latter is not subject to limitation and time and may thus contribute to unjustified economic rents detrimental to human investment. This chapter suggests to introduce ceilings of protection and refer to the principle of unjust enrichment in conceptualizing these concerns.
Edited by
Daniel Benoliel, University of Haifa, Israel,Peter K. Yu, Texas A & M University School of Law,Francis Gurry, World Intellectual Property Organization,Keun Lee, Seoul National University
The process of constitutionalizing intellectual property rights highlights absurdities associated with unequal and asymmetrical power relations within the politics of intellectual property and exposes the inherent conflicts between international legal harmonization and unbalanced trade powers in intellectual property constitutionalism. This chapter begins by demonstrating the gap between the mere existence of a constitutional equality provision and its application on the ground. The chapter then examines how inequality is a defining concept in intellectual property that can be articulated in many forms. It discusses intellectual property constitutionalism and highlights the lack of scholarly attention to intellectual property in formal constitutions and the implications. This chapter further demonstrates the incorrect assumption that adding intellectual property rights to a constitution will provide better protection for these rights and discusses how this assumption is predominantly a result of global political inequality and asymmetrical power relations. The chapter evaluates the ideological motivations of countries to adopt intellectual property as a socio-economic right in their formal constitutions. It further introduces and empirically analyzes the results of the collected data. This chapter concludes by discussing the inequality-related consequences of unbalanced constitutional commitments in the intellectual property area.
While growing disparities in wealth and income are well-documented across the globe, the role of intellectual property rights is often overlooked. This volume brings together leading commentators from around the world to interrogate the interrelationship between intellectual property and economic inequality. Interdisciplinary and globally oriented by design, the book features economists, legal scholars, policy analysts, and other experts. Chapters address the impact of intellectual property rights on economic inequality, the effect of economic inequality on the protection and enforcement of these rights, and the potential use of innovation law and policy to help reduce economic inequality. The volume also tackles timely issues like race and gender disparities and the North-South divide in innovation. This book is available as Open Access on Cambridge Core.
The U.S. is losing the competition for good jobs and high-value industries because most of Washington believes trade should be free, the dollar should float, and that innovation comes exclusively from the private sector. In this book, the authors make the bold case that these laissez-faire ideas have failed and that a robust industrial policy is the only way for America to remain prosperous and secure. Trump and Biden have enacted some of its elements, but it needs to be made systematic and comprehensive, including tariffs to protect key industries, a competitive exchange rate, and federal support for commercialization—not just invention—of new technologies. Timely, meticulously researched, and bipartisan, this impressive analysis replaces misunderstandings about industrial policy with lucid explanations of its underlying economic theory, the tools that implement it, and its successes (and failures) in America and abroad. It examines key industries of the past and future – steel, automobiles, television, semiconductors, space, aviation, robotics, and nanotechnology. It concludes with a realistic, actionable policy roadmap. A work of rigor and ambition, Industrial Policy for the United States is essential reading.
Turkey’s Europeanization process provides a particularly interesting case study of the extra-jurisdictional impact of European Union (EU) law, both through policy convergence and through the so-called Brussels effect. Formally, Turkey must adopt certain EU rules due to its status as an EU candidate country, but its candidacy process has been lengthy and uncertain, resulting in partial and uneven adoption of EU rules. Nevertheless, EU-style policymaking has persisted in various policy areas, including environmental and climate policy. This paper aims to analyze the convergence of climate change policies between the EU and Turkey by employing multidimensional scaling, a method that enables the visualization and examination of the connectivity and intensity of cooperation between states. For the period from 2007 to 2023, our comparative analysis demonstrates that policy divergence occurs when the EU’s share of Turkey’s total trade decreases and when political challenges are experienced. On the other hand, periods of policy convergence coincide with periods of increased trade volume and expanded trade opportunities. The results suggest that through its market size and regulatory capacity, the EU exerts soft power which forces Turkey to align its climate policies with the EU to protect and maintain its competitiveness in the European marketplace.
The Appellate Body (AB) of the World Trade Organization (WTO) has not heard an appeal since 2019. This article explores how adjudicators and member states have navigated WTO dispute settlement in this post-AB world. It begins by providing an overview of dispute settlement practice from 2020 to 2022, including by cataloguing appeals into the void, appeals to arbitration, and appeals forewent. It explains the incentives created by the lack of a functioning appeals mechanism and provides background on the alternative appeals procedure agreed to among a subset of WTO members: the Multi-Party Interim Arbitration Arrangement (MPIA). Moreover, it closely examines five WTO disputes: Colombia–Frozen Fries, Turkey–Pharmaceutical Products, EU–Steel Safeguards, Thailand–Cigarettes, and Costa Rica–Avocados. Through these five disputes, the article examines the circumstances in which members have agreed to binding appeals arbitration even absent formally committing to the MPIA, the circumstances in which members have appealed to arbitration or foregone such appeals, and whether facilitated negotiations present a workable alternative to an effective appeals mechanism. Finally, this article closely analyzes the reasoning of two appeals arbitration awards issued to date – Colombia–Frozen Fries and Turkey–Pharmaceutical Products – with a special focus on how those awards depart from AB precedent and what those departures can tell us about the current crisis.
The WTO is founded on commitments that governments make to each other in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. These rules provide a structure for international trade in which governments are generally restricted in when they can raise tariffs on imports and whether they can discriminate among their trading partners. This chapter examines the contemporary framework for international trade and its main rules, including national treatment, bound tariffs, and most-favored nation, as well as the WTO’s dispute settlement process. The Shrimp-Turtle case provides an illustration of how these rules interact with international politics to create new political dynamics.
In response to the invasion of Ukraine, the EU and most other advanced economies imposed extensive sanctions on Russia, intending to harm its production capabilities and hinder its economic activities by restricting its access to international trade and financial markets. This paper develops an empirical framework based on the synthetic control method to assess the impact of the war and the following sanctions on bilateral and sectoral exports to Russia almost in real time. The war and the following sanctions reduced aggregate exports to Russia by a third between March and December 2022, with the effects being stronger for sanctioning countries than for non-sanctioning ones, albeit with substantial country-level heterogeneity within each group. Exports to Russia in high-tech sectors – relatively more targeted by trade sanctions – have been disproportionately affected.
Globalization creates winners and losers, and recent research emphasizes that large corporations are among the biggest beneficiaries of trade while smaller firms may be harmed. How do these redistributive effects impact trade attitudes? Because a growing share of Americans hold highly unfavourable views of big corporations, we argue that the belief that large firms win from trade will provoke hostility towards trade and globalization. To test this theory, we show experimentally that informing people that large corporations benefit from trade makes them markedly more hostile towards trade compared to a treatment emphasizing that firms in exporting industries benefit. Using subgroup and mediation analysis, we find that anti-corporate sentiment drives this effect, particularly concern about corporations’ power in society. Our findings illustrate how distributive consequences and attitudes towards the winners and losers from policy change interact to shape public opinion on economic policy.
This empirical study extends the public choice literature on the allocation of death during war by examining the political economy of foreign fighter deaths in the Russo-Ukrainian War since the 24 February 2022 invasion. The study explores the roles played by various demographic factors, military institutions, and international trade relations in determining the number of foreign fighters from a variety of countries who have died in support of either Ukraine or Russia during the Russo-Ukrainian War. Unlike other related studies, this study also investigates the importance of, and finds evidence in support of, both economic freedom and a robust democracy in shaping the choices made by individuals around the globe to venture to, and die fighting on, the battlefields of Ukraine.