The political battlefield: negotiating space to protect indigenous and traditional knowledge under capitalism

Abstract

Knowledge has increasingly become an essential resource in the global economy, hence the capitalist tendency to regard it as a form of capital and as a motor for innovation and profit. Like any other capitalist commodity, conflicts over the ownership and use of various types of knowledge have arisen, thereby calling for legal protection. Nation‐states as well as inter‐state organisms are developing these legal frameworks in order to regulate the conflicts between different social actors. Consequently, thinking on knowledge and power has evolved to include the protection of knowledge from those who seek to gain control of it through the acquisition of legal rights, for instance, intellectual property (IP) rights. In many commercialised industrialised countries, legal frameworks have already been developed to protect IP. These include patents and copyrights as well as other trademarks, database rights and so on. However, in many developing countries with a weak technological base and less commercialisation IP protection mechanisms have not yet become firmly established. This is happening even though they have genetic resources and traditional knowledge that are of value to them and to the world at large. The protection of indigenous knowledge has existed as long as the knowledge itself, but the recognition of such mechanisms has been tightly controlled by stronger powers. In this article we argue that, whatever local communities choose to do to protect their indigenous knowledge, in the context of the current IP regime and the power of commercially driven global actors, the concept of traditional or indigenous knowledge itself becomes political. If the traditionality of knowledge can be reasonably questioned from an epistemological point of view, it would seem possible to claim rights and recognition for local communities in a highly controversial and economically relevant international arena.

Commercialization of Innovations Through Internationalization: A Systematic Literature Review

“…In addition, three articles from Greece have been written about innovation performance of young firms, acquisition of technologies by international corporations and on the development of transnational technology transfer (Fafaliou et al 2010, Manolopoulos et al 2009, Protogerou et al 2017. Unsurprisingly, a lot of studies from Germany still rely on protection of knowledge from those who seek to gain control of it through the acquisition of legal rights, such as intellectual property rights, as knowledge is becoming an essential resource in the global economy (Busingye and Keim 2009). In this context, fast and efficient adjustment to changing market conditions is one of the company core-competences for long lasting strengthening of market position (Lass et al 2013).…”

Traditional knowledge system in disaster risk reduction: Exploration, acknowledgement and proposition

“…Imposing external knowledge or modern technology of DRR on the indigenous and local people would rather make the road tough for the emergency managers and planners in formulating and implementing the DRR project. It is because native populations basically consider their knowledge to be a part of their own cultural identity (Busingye & Keim 2009). At the same time, relying too much on modern technology alone would make the local people too dependent on external forces (Takeuchi & Shaw 2008) for safeguarding themselves from any disaster.…”

“…The concept has a sufficient overlap, which allows them to be used interchangeably (Ryser 2012). However, the term ‘traditional knowledge’ would appear to be a more encompassing one (Busingye & Keim 2009) and normally would refer to a more generalised expression of knowledge associating both the indigenous as well as the local people with time-honoured ideas and practices (Ryser 2012).…”

Exploring grassroots innovation phenomenon through the lived experience of an Indian grassroots innovator

“…In contrast, some view commercialization as an act of emancipation and liberation, provided knowledge-holders, innovators and community are involved in the process and are benefiting from the commodification and commercialization output (Vermeylen, 2007;Vivekanandan et al, 2004;Gupta, 2003;Cécora, 1999;). With a focus on indigenous communities, Busingye and Keim (2009) argue they are not opposed to technological advancement but to the use, that is made thereof through the patent rights and the dynamics of the free market. Therefore, there is a necessity to explore the underpinning social, economic, moral exchange dynamics and interpersonal relationship experienced by the GIrs at ideation, opportunity recognition, prototyping and scaling stage of GI.…”