North-South Technological Diffusion: A New Case for Dynamic Gains from Trade

The dynamic implications of foreign aid and its variability

“…Discussions of this phenomenon in the context of low-income countries and development usually refer to the importance of the export industries for growth (Michaely, 1981). Indeed, a number of theoretical studies have elaborated the idea that trade can be the engine of growth for developing countries through technological diffusion and learning by doing (Grossman and Helpman, 1991;Barro and Sala-i-Martin, 1997;Connolly, 1999;Bigsten et al, 2002). Empirical papers have also found a positive relation between trade and growth (Levine and Renelt, 1992;Sala-i-Martin, 1997).…”

Intellectual Property Rights and Endogenous Economic Growth – Uncovering the Main Gaps in the Research Agenda

“…Stryszowski (2006) identifies and discusses studies which maintain that strong IPR protection is beneficial for (the) innovating economies (e.g., Connolly and Valderrama, 2005). However, this study also highlights works that have found negative effects of IPR protection on lagging economies, based on the existence of a mechanism in which strong IPR protection tends to raise consumer prices and to diminish trade benefits that could be essential for developing economies (for example, Hekpman, 1993).…”

“…Furukawa (2010) and Panagopoulos (2009) find an inverted U relationship between IPR protection and innovation (and economic growth). Kwan and Lai (2003) and Connolly and Valderrama (2005) argue that IPR are important to R&D investment and (to) welfare. , 1997;Tandon, 1982;David and Olsen, 1992;Merges and Nelson, 1994;Taylor, 1994;Michel and Nyssen, 1998;Goh and Oliver, 2002;Iwaisako and Futagami, 2003;Futagami and Iwaisako, 2007;Naghavi, 2007;Dinopoulos and Kottaridi, 2008;Naghavi, 2007;Dinopoulos and Kottaridi, 2008;Eicher and Garcia-Peñalosa, 2008;Koléda, 2008;Chu, 2009a;Panagopoulos, 2009) limit the definition of IPR to one of their forms -patents (considered as the most important form of IPR, as discussed above).…”

“…Glass and Saggi (2002) and Gupta (2008, 2009), who define IPR as the rise in the imitation cost. Connolly and Valderrama (2005) give a similar definition, assuming that imitators pay a licence fee which is similar to an increase in the fixed cost of the imitative research; Kwan and Lai (2003) consider IPR part of the imitation rate which can be influenced by some factors such as patents, trademarks, copyrights and trade secrets; Furukawa (2007) also defines IPR as a mixed measure of patent and copyright; Glass and Wu (2007) associate the measure of IPR with (the) imitation intensity, whereas Dinopoulos and Segerstrom (2010) define IPR as a reduction in the exogenous rate of imitation.…”

Trade, Growth, and Technology Equalization

“…In models that have scale effects, opening a country to trade in effect increases its size, which then leads to a higher growth rate through the scale effect. For example, Kremer (1990) argues that trade increases the relevant population size and thereby raises the rate of technical progress; Barro and Sala-i-Martin (1997) and Connolly (2000) present models in which trade expands markets and so raises profitability of producing intermediate goods, leading to more production of those goods and consequently higher growth. In models of technology transfer, trade is a vehicle for the exchange of technological knowhow.…”