1 Introduction
When it comes to growth, the economies of both developed and developing countries increasingly rely on innovations driven by knowledge, technology, and human creativity, all of which are supported by intellectual property. Unprecedented global challenges reveal certain problems related to the absence of adequate and flexible means that would be conducive to an effective use of innovation and intellectual property in the context of sustainable development. In some cases, the global system of intellectual property works in a manner that is inconsistent with the principle of sustainable development, for instance, hindering innovation in agriculture, increasing the cost of producing medicine, or promoting the development and sale of “dirty” technology.
Paradoxically, confronted with widespread disagreement as to the impact of intellectual property on sustainable development, the questioning of intellectual property as a global public good, the challenges of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, and an increasingly complex, multilateral intellectual property system, international organizations building this system may see their role in the process as increasingly important. There is a growing need for coordinating different policy areas and activities fragmented and dispersed at local or national level, for coordinated financing, providing reliable information and data, and strengthening the political will by inducing governments to design intellectual property solutions for the purpose of sustainable development.
The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development), adopted by the United Nations (UN) in 2015, provides little guidance on how the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) set out in the Agenda should be taken into account within the international intellectual property system. No direct reference to intellectual property is made in the SDGs. Moreover, the Global Indicator Framework for the SDGs, which sets specific indicators for each goal, involving various organizations and agendas in the implementation and measurement of the degree of implementation of individual SDGs, does not take into account SDG indicators
In the context of new global processes and conditions, rethinking the context and principles governing the international intellectual property system has become urgent, as has the role played within it by international organizations. In this chapter we shall analyze the approach of selected international organizations that form part of the intellectual property system to the sustainable development agenda, and discuss when and how the SDGs became part of the policies, agendas, and programs of these organizations.
The first section presents the importance of intellectual property for innovative development and economic growth, highlighting the complex and ambiguous nature of these relationships, which makes managing the international intellectual property regime require special competencies. The second section focuses on analyzing the characteristics of knowledge and intellectual property as global public goods, and presenting the relationship between them. The third section is devoted to an analysis of selected international organizations – the World Trade Organization (WTO), the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), the European Union (EU), and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), which form the basis of the architecture of the international intellectual property system. Based on the concept of global public goods, an attempt was made to assess the degree to which these organizations implement the concept of sustainable development, based on a study of their programs and activities. The chapter ends with some conclusions and inferences.
2 Intellectual Property and its Importance in the Modern World
According to the definition of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), intellectual property is a set of laws relating, inter alia, to literary, artistic, and scientific works, interpretations of artistic performances, scientific discoveries, trademarks, and service marks, as well as other rights resulting from intellectual activity (WIPO, 2004). Intellectual property, therefore, includes intangible creations of the human mind, usually expressed in the form of material objects. It relates to pieces of information or knowledge that are embodied in specific products – goods, but also services. Intellectual property rights, in turn, are the rights held by a person with respect to their intellectual creation. These rights are to best protect the interests of creators, i.e., innovators who have the exclusive right to manage their ideas, including how the ideas are used by other people, for example, through paid licensing.
The role of IP in developing economies is also growing, China being the most striking example of this phenomenon. According to Global Innovation Index data, China is consistently strengthening is position among the world’s most innovative economies; in 2021 it ranked 4th globally (WIPO, 2021). Importantly, the share of income generated in China from intellectual property organizations has been rising: in this respect, China ranked 76th in 2015 and 36th in 2021 (Cornell University et al., 2015; WIPO 2021). China has also recorded a significant increase in the value of PCT patents, moving from 27th place (globally) in 2015 to 13th in 2021 (Cornell University et al., 2015; WIPO, 2021). The country has become an innovation leader among middle-income economies and one that actively uses and generates IP; at present, around 13% of the Chinese GDP is generated by patent-intensive industries.
However, relationships between the processes of knowledge generation, intellectual property protection, innovations, and economic and social development remain ambiguous. The role of intellectual property rights has been amply discussed in literature. Arrow, one of the precursors of the economy of innovation, saw intellectual property rights as a key factor driving research and development, innovation, and economic growth (Arrow, 1962). He agreed with Machlup, who claimed that a time-limited monopoly favors an increase in the number of registered intellectual property rights, allowing more inventions to become commercially applicable (Machlup, 1961). When analyzing the impact of patents on research and development, as well as on economic growth, Eaton and Kortum (1999) argued that lifting patent protection would both reduce investment in research and development, and hinder economic growth. In their empirical study, Arora, Ceccagnoli, and Cohen (2008) proved that patents are an important incentive for research and development, even though
However, intellectual property rights can also prove an important obstacle to research and development, as well as innovation. For example, Grossman and Helpman (1991), who in their research referred directly to the concept of knowledge as a public good, claimed that a strong protection of intellectual property rights limits the possibility of observing and analyzing competing solutions (spillover effects), which, in turn, has a negative effect on innovation and economic growth. Hall and Harhoff (2012) explained that although patent rights create incentives for research and development, they also make it difficult to pool new ideas and inventions; what is more, they increase transaction costs. Similar trends have also been found in relation to other forms of intellectual property (Landes & Posner, 2003). In developing economies, the direct impact of intellectual property on economic growth depends on many factors, including per capita income, research and development potential, institutional efficiency, or human capital (Maskus, 2000; Forero-Pineda, 2006; Chu et al., 2014; Mehlig Sweet & Eterovic Maggio, 2015).
Thus, a higher level of intellectual property protection may have both positive and negative effects on the level of innovation and economic growth. Intellectual property rights have specific economic and social consequences, and may be more or less significant depending on the industry, state of the technology, or geographic region. For example, patents are of key importance for certain sectors of the manufacturing industry, including the pharmaceutical, chemical, and electronic industry; copyright is the primary protection instrument for audiovisual and literary works; trademarks are paramount for industries where brand value provides an important competitive advantage.
Intellectual property systems affect, inter alia, technological progress by affording certain mechanisms to deal with infringement, piracy, and the unauthorized use of intellectual property; in addition, they provide information to society, since all forms of intellectual property, except trade secrets, are made public. Nevertheless, it is emphasized that both the creation of innovation and economic and social development can take place without the protection of intellectual property rights (e.g., Cozzi, 2009; Stiglitz, 2008). In this respect, Stiglitz stresses the importance of basic research, of academia and public R&D-funding institutions, as well as the role of the open source movement, in particular with regard to software (Stiglitz, 2008).
Knowledge may be one of the most illustrative examples of a public good (Arrow, 1962; International Task Force on Global Public Goods, 2006; Stiglitz, 2008). Once produced, it can be shared and used by many people at the same time, and its creators are limited in their attempts to maintain exclusive ownership over it. For example, while knowledge about the production of rayon (a type of artificial fiber) was protected by a patent, other inventors used it to develop alternative synthetic fibers (Stiglitz, 1999). The production of knowledge, just as the production of other public goods, involves great costs, borne mainly by governments; however, knowledge can be disseminated at very low marginal costs, and in certain cases even at zero marginal cost (Stiglitz, 2008). In addition, knowledge, just as other public goods, generates a number of significant externalities; these are social and public benefits (Ndofirepi & Cross, 2017), including, inter alia, effects in the area of education or technological progress that contribute to the general development of civilization. Knowledge, therefore, inspires and stimulates the material, social, and cultural progress of humanity.
Knowledge is not only a national, but also a global public good. With accelerating globalization processes, the dynamic development of information and communication technology (ICT), the increasing mobility of people, as well as unprecedented changes to the work environment, e.g., triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic (e.g., remote and hybrid work, cooperation of global virtual teams), knowledge and information now flow between people, companies, countries, and continents with almost no impediments. Undoubtedly, certain types of knowledge are deeply rooted in a specific place or cultural context (e.g., traditional knowledge), but scientific and technological knowledge functions irrespectively of national boundaries or geographic conditions. It can also be easily disseminated on a global scale. This process is supported by the global scientific community, which, through the use of electronic communication channels, integrates dispersed groups, helps to establish bonds, and creates communities around various concepts and issues.
Knowledge as a global public good has yet another important feature: to effectively use knowledge, potential users must first invest their time and financial resources in assimilating and adapting it. Consequently, there is less freedom in the process of acquiring and using knowledge than in the case of other public goods (Przybylska, 2019). It also has important implications for policies implemented at the national or global level. Catching up on development requires the implementation of active learning policies, as well as building knowledge absorption and innovation capacities within society.
4 Knowledge and Intellectual Property Management by Selected International Organizations (WTO, WIPO, EU, and OECD) and Sustainable Development
The role of international organizations in the management of intellectual property and knowledge is multidimensional. The most important organizations in the global intellectual property system are the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO); the European Union (EU) and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) also play an important role in the process.
4.1 World Trade Organization (WTO)
The World Trade Organization (WTO) administers and implements trade agreements that incorporate intellectual property rights into the global trading system. The 1995 Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) is the most comprehensive multilateral agreement on intellectual property rights to date. TRIPS is the first WTO agreement that requires members of this organization to implement a set of legal norms and procedures into national law in order to enforce them more effectively and ensure that the minimum standards of intellectual property protection, guaranteed by the Agreement, are respected. As indicated in Chapter 6, the shape of the WTO regulations has a profound impact on sustainable development of the world.
TRIPS has introduced many changes to the global system of IPR s, including the principle of minimum protection, which means that any agreement negotiated subsequently may only introduce a higher standard of intellectual
[T]he WTO is central to achieving the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and its Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which set targets to be achieved by 2030 in areas such as poverty reduction, health, education and the environment. The SDGs put significant emphasis on the role of trade in promoting sustainable development, and recognize the contribution that the WTO can make to the 2030 Agenda. (WTO, 2018)
The implementation of the concept of sustainable development in the WTO system takes place on three levels: first, the principles and rules of the WTO; second, special programs and initiatives; third, multilateral negotiations for trade liberalization, known as negotiation rounds (Zajaczkowski, 2016).
4.1.1 Principles and Rules
The general objectives and principles of TRIPS are reflected in the preamble to the Agreement, which states that by establishing them, member states strive to minimize distortions and impediments to international trade, to promote effective and adequate protection of intellectual property rights, and to ensure that such measures and procedures to enforce intellectual property rights do not become barriers to legitimate trade (WTO, 2005, Preamble). The preamble completes the provisions of Article 7 of the Agreement, stating that its purpose is “the protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights,” except in a manner that does not restrict trade, but contributes to the promotion of technical innovation and to “the transfer and dissemination of technology, to the mutual advantage of producers and users of technical knowledge, and in a manner conducive to social and economic welfare and to a balance of rights and obligations” (WTO, 2005, Article 7). No direct reference is made to the concept of sustainable development in the Agreement, while the absence of trade restrictions, the development and promotion of technology, and their transfer being conducive to social and economic welfare seem to tally primarily with the assumptions of two of the three dimensions of sustainability, namely economic and social order.
4.1.2 Special Programs
Within the WTO system, sustainable development appears most often in the context of developing and least developed countries (LDC s). The best way to
However, the TRIPS Agreement was received with widespread criticism due to its potentially negative impact on development (Chang, 2001; Kumar, 2003; McCalman, 2005). Among many reasons is the fact that the rules introduced by TRIPS hinder access to drugs necessary to curb the spread of AIDS and other epidemics in developing countries, and also increase their cost. Furthermore, the Agreement does not protect traditional knowledge, which is a fundamental resource of many developing countries and plays an important role in the global economy (Dutfield, 2001). The TRIPS Agreement was only amended in 2017; this change was significant, first of all, from the point of view of health protection. The protocol adopted then by two-thirds of the WTO members introduced additional possibilities of granting compulsory licenses to produce medicine intended for export; as a result, non-patent-holding companies could manufacture and sell equivalents of patent-protected medicine in the event of a public health emergency in the importing country.
Additional initiatives taken by the WTO in an attempt to improve intellectual property standards involve, for example, the protection of traditional knowledge, which is often applied in various sectors of the economy, such as the pharmaceutical industry, cosmetology, or agriculture, as well as forestry or biodiversity management.
In 2017, relationships between intellectual property and the public interest were first taken into account by the WTO TRIPS Council. This largely contributed to the general understanding of knowledge and intellectual property as a global public good. Members of the TRIPS Council discussed, inter alia, such new matters as micro, small, and medium-sized enterprises, technology partnerships between universities and industries, regional models of innovation, including those supporting the fight against certain communicable diseases, as well as the practical protection of public interest under competition policies. In 2022 the TRIPS Council adopted a stance to intellectual property in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, outlining practical ways to clarify, streamline, and simplify procedures so that governments can, under certain conditions, waive patent rights to diversify the production of COVID-19 vaccines (WTO, 2022).
The implementation of the concept of sustainable development by the WTO is also reflected in negotiation rounds conducted by the organization. In 2001 a round of multilateral trade negotiations was launched in Doha; this “development round” was aimed at further liberalizing world trade, with particular emphasis on the interests of developing countries. Its goal was to adopt rules that would advance the interests of developing countries and allow them to join the multilateral trading system under the auspices of the WTO to a greater extent than any existing agreements had ever done. The negotiating round has remained in a deadlock since 2008. To overcome the impasse, a new approach is being called for, taking into account both major changes in the level of development of individual countries, and the new complexity and divergence of interests within the three pillars of the WTO, with some developing countries becoming the main trade partners and competitors of developed countries.
4.1.4 Assessment
Intellectual property, as a key resource, should be instrumental in the attainment of the SDG s. Although indirectly and through numerous references to common values and fundamental human rights, this concept formed part of the TRIPS Agreement from the very beginning. However, facing dynamic changes and the need not only to redirect the trajectory of economic and social development onto a path of sustainability, but also create a systemic capacity for transformation that will allow for a dynamic response to unprecedented global and national phenomena, it is necessary to closely link the goals and tasks of the WTO regarding intellectual property rights with the SDG s and ensure that the system meets sustainable development priorities, while strengthening the position of developing countries within the system. Measures taken by the WTO over the past few years denote that the organization is becoming increasingly aware of the complex relationship between intellectual property law and sustainable development, but also that it is more capable than ever of working out specific solutions.
4.2 World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)
WIPO is a specialized agency of the United Nations (UN) established in 1974 and endowed with a mandate to act in accordance with the objectives of many other UN bodies and agencies dealing with innovation, intellectual property, and development. Under the Agreement concluded between the United Nations and WIPO, the latter has been empowered to act, inter alia, by concluding treaties and agreements aimed at the protection of intellectual
4.2.1 Content and Development
The pillars of WIPO’s activities include, in particular, actions aimed at consolidating rules and principles within a sustainable intellectual property system, as well as those designed to promote innovation and creativity, and to bolster infrastructure in order to provide highest quality services and facilitate access to patent information from databases throughout the world; equally important is capacity building through training targeted at all users of the intellectual property system (e.g., decision-makers, lecturers, creators, or inventors). The scope of WIPO’s activity is, therefore, broad and comprehensive, and it includes the creation and administration of intellectual property treaties (at present, there are 26 international treaties), stimulating the development of intellectual property protection through creating partnerships and cooperating with developed and developing countries in the management of IP systems, or providing infrastructure for IP protection, as well as reliable knowledge and information to the users of the IP system.
Of all the SDG s, Goal 9 is most closely aligned with WIPO’s mission, which is to lead the development of a balanced and effective international intellectual property (IP) system that enables innovation and creativity for the benefit of all. Innovation is also essential in achieving SDG 2 (zero hunger), SDG 3 (good health and well-being), SDG 6 (clean water and sanitation), SDG 7 (affordable and clean energy), SDG 8 (decent work and economic growth), SDG 11 (sustainable cities and communities), and SDG 13 (climate change). In a wider policy setting, innovation can also assist in achieving SDG 1 (no poverty), SDG 8 (decent work and economic growth), SDG 14 (life below water), and SDG 15 (life on land). Other SDG s are also achievable within an innovation policy framework, notably SDG 5 (gender equality), SDG 8 (decent work and economic growth), SDG 10 (reduced inequalities), and SDG 12 (responsible consumption and production). (WIPO, 2019, p. 2)
The adoption of the Development Agenda in 2007, including 45 recommendations grouped into six thematic clusters, and the establishment of the Committee
Copyright, which is within the area of WIPO’s competence, is fundamentally related to education and R&D, as well as to incentives to create and disseminate educational materials and intellectual works (Chon, 2006). Copyright law may prevent access to educational material, especially in developing countries (Chon, 2006). As a solution to this problem, free and open access to copyrighted works has been proposed, as well as compulsory licensing (Chan et al., 2011; Willinsky, 2006). The WIPO Copyright Treaty (2002), concluded under the auspices of this organization, applies to copyright in the digital environment.
Two new WIPO treaties entered into force in 2020: the Beijing Treaty on Audiovisual Performances and the Geneva Act of the Lisbon Agreement on Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications. The latter is of particular importance, as greater protection of geographical indications contributes to the advancement of developing countries (Chabrol et al., 2017). In addition, they also have numerous traits, typical of public goods, that affect local sustainable development in the economic, social, and environmental dimension (Belletti et al., 2017).
Since 2013 WIPO has been implementing the WIPO Green program in order to promote and disseminate green technology through connecting entities interested in new technology and suppliers thereof. As part of this initiative, an electronic platform was launched to integrate patent data and green technology offered by businesses, including small and medium-sized enterprises. WIPO sees its role as much broader. The overriding goal of the organization is to contribute to the implementation of the SDG s by supporting innovation, disseminating green technology and ensuring that intellectual property contributes to a greater extent to solving the most urgent global challenges, such as climate change, health, and food security.
In 2021 WIPO adopted a new strategy, i.e., the Medium-Term Strategic Plan for 2022–2026, based on four pillars closely related to the SDG s. Following the
4.2.2 Assessment
Despite close links between intellectual property and the SDG s within the WIPO system (Rimmer, 2018), the organization perceives its role in attaining them rather narrowly, i.e., primarily in terms of its contribution to the achievement of SDG 9: “Industry, innovation and infrastructure,” and, in particular, with a focus on supporting innovation. WIPO sees itself as an organization that promotes innovation. On the other hand, WIPO documents do not refer to intellectual property as a potential source of inequality and a factor that slows down the process of attaining the SDG s.
4.3 The European Union (EU)
The concept of sustainable development is an overriding political priority of the European Commission led by Commissioner Von der Leyen. Its political guidelines for 2021–2024 set out its six overriding targets for Europe, closely related to the UN’s SDG s (Von der Leyen, 2019). The key elements of the new, comprehensive approach of the European Commission to the implementation of the 2030 Agenda include the adoption of policies that have a great transformative potential, such as the “European Green Deal,” aimed at transforming the EU into a modern, resource-efficient, and competitive economy, or the EU’s digital transformation strategy adopted in 2020 in the document entitled Shaping Europe’s Digital Future.
4.3.1 Content and Development
These programs set ambitious goals for the EU and its member states. They also define the directions and the pace of action in the years to come. However, their attainment depends on innovations – mainly industrial, but also digital. Their importance is emphasized in the “New Industrial Strategy for Europe” updated in 2021. In the latter document, which is a response to the challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic, the European Commission emphasizes the importance of a double transformation – ecological and digital – for sustainable competitiveness. In the new multiannual financial framework for 2021–2027, the EU is to allocate over €150 billion to research and innovation, digital transformation, strategic infrastructure, and the single market (Gabriel, 2021). The latest budget of the Horizon Europe program, the most important research and innovation funding program in the EU, was increased by as much as 30 percent compared to the previous budget, now standing at over €95 billion (Gabriel, 2021).
The intellectual property system in the EU is governed by international and national law, but also by European legal acts. Since 2009, i.e., since the entry into force of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), the EU has been endowed with certain powers in the field of intellectual property rights (Article 118). Article 118 of the TFEU states that in the context of the establishment and functioning of the internal market, the European Parliament and the Council shall establish measures for the creation of European intellectual property rights to provide uniform protection of intellectual property rights throughout the Union, as well as for the setting up of centralized Union-wide authorization, coordination, and supervision arrangements. Legislative measures taken by the European Union mainly consist of harmonizing certain aspects of intellectual property rights within its own system, for instance, in relation to the EU trademark or design, and in the future also in relation to patents. As early as in 1975 the EU Council stated: “[T]he creation of such a Community patent system is […] inseparable from the attainment of the [internal market] objectives of the Treaty” (De Lange, 2021, p. 1079). Over the past 50 years, significant progress has been made in terms of EU trade harmonization within the internal market. However, one of the main constraints for further integration and attaining by the EU the position of the world’s most competitive economy is precisely the lack of progress in the integration of the European patent system, compared to the overall harmonization of the internal market (De Lange, 2021).
4.3.2 Assessment
The European Union, which has placed both sustainable development and intellectual property (and, more broadly, innovation and technology) at the heart of its policy and activity, has been focusing mainly on strengthening its internal market and building technological sovereignty and an innovation-based competitive advantage. Despite, for instance, being the world’s largest
4.4 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)
The OECD is an intergovernmental organization and an association of the world’s 30 most developed countries. Its primary goal is to promote policy focused on achieving highest levels of sustainable economic growth and employment, as well as rising standards of living in member countries, while maintaining financial stability, and thus to contribute to “sound economic expansion” in member as well as non-member countries in the process of economic development. Achieving these goals is based on working together for balanced economic development, as well as to contribute to the expansion of world trade on a multilateral and non-discriminatory basis in accordance with international obligations.
4.4.1 Content and Development
In 2021 the OECD set a policy stance based on a new narrative on economic growth that is to improve the well-being of societies, in line with the 2030 Agenda and its 17 Goals. The new policy is based on three overreaching priorities:
- –Combining growth and economic efficiency with inclusiveness, resilience and sustainability goals in the OECD’s advisory activity aimed at a strong and rapid recovery
- –Helping governments build a strong social contract with current and future generations aimed at reducing inequalities in education, health care, infrastructure, and exposure to environmental threats
- –Adopting a long-term approach to challenges related to climate change, biodiversity loss and environmental degradation, including, inter alia, transforming production and consumption patterns in order to avoid the worst consequences of impending environmental crises (OECD, 2021)
The OECD does not have many instruments of so-called hard power, such as economic sanctions, financial penalties, financial aid programs (such as those implemented by the EU), development aid programs (such as those of the World Bank), or structural adjustment programs (such as those of the IMF). The organization does, however, have soft power, creating the most important ideas and concepts used in numerous public policies, in particular in areas related to economic and social policy. In addition, the OECD shapes political discourse by shaping the views of the most important political leaders, economic decision-makers, and public opinion (Martens & Jakobi, 2010). The
The OECD is a pioneer in the field of innovation research. In 1992 it published the Oslo Manual, which is a standard international textbook of methodology for statistical research on innovative activities. Every 2 years it also publishes a report entitled The OECD Science, Technology and Innovation Outlook, which includes guidance for policymakers and analysts on the most important trends in science. Such sources of knowledge as databases, reports, and substantive support provided by the OECD can be perceived as important tools of international management (Erkkilä & Piironen, 2014).
Education is seen as a driver of growth and the OECD is committed to improving the quality, equality, efficiency, and effectiveness of education systems in its member states. The emphasis on generating human capital has become a cornerstone of the OECD’s educational framework. Education is a key factor in creating human capital, which in turn has a positive effect on economic growth, employment prospects, health, and community involvement.
4.4.2 Assessment
Sustainable development and intellectual property are at the heart of the OECD’s strategy and activities. This organization plays an important role in the coordination of international policy, which, in the face of global challenges, has significantly increased the demand for internationally oriented knowledge. The OECD has also assumed a key role in managing IP-based policies, in particular the innovation and education policy.
5 Conclusions
The international intellectual property system is complex and dichotomous in nature and creates tensions that can be eliminated through appropriate management. This involves, on the one hand, the need to constantly stimulate technological progress by maintaining an adequate level of IP protection and, on the other, the need to create appropriate conditions for the diffusion of innovation and technology transfer. Knowledge and technology transfer is of particular importance for developing economies. It requires the involvement
Knowledge as a global public good plays an increasingly important role in the implementation of the concept of sustainable development. It generates externalities that extend beyond national borders, involving numerous social groups among both present and future generations. The use of new knowledge often requires taking additional action related to the strategy of active learning, or increasing the absorption capacity of enterprises, which in turn involves a greater number of beneficiary stakeholders and causes permanent changes in the global innovation system. Intellectual property may amplify these positive development effects, but on the condition that the negative effects of intellectual property agreements, for example, those that favor entities from highly developed countries or create privileged conditions for the development of selected sectors of the economy, are eliminated.
Here, we ought to mention the role of international organizations that create global programs and strategies of action, set new directions for governments and other international entities, establish common rules and principles of conduct, and disseminate innovative ideas and knowledge. Organizations such as the WTO, WIPO, EU, and OECD provide the architectural framework for the international intellectual property system. This analysis suggests a gradual shift of priorities towards the SDG s, which finds confirmation in the strategic documents of all of the above organizations. The intellectual property system is related to a wide range of sustainable development matters, including health, climate, and education. International organizations incorporate them in their activities to varying degrees. For example, the WTO (trade, health) and OECD (education) tend to specialize in selected areas, while the approach of WIPO is rather comprehensive. Furthermore, these organizations also exert diverse degrees of power through different instruments; for example, the WTO may impose sanctions for failure to comply with agreement terms, while the OECD only has soft power. There are also differences in the scope of impact. While the EU treats intellectual property rules as an instrument for deepening integration and building the EU’s competitive advantage internationally, WIPO and the OECD focus on promoting the idea of intellectual property on a global scale.
As international organizations are established by states to solve their shared problems, they also strive to build knowledge that can be used for general
The general image of sustainable development and intellectual property conveyed in the discourse of the above international organizations is positive. It is important that international intellectual property system organizations analyze the SDG s as a whole, taking into account both the benefits and costs of intellectual property and its system for economies and societies. Only then will the strategies and activities of these organizations respond more dynamically to the actual needs of all entities within the system.
References
Archibugi, D., & Filippetti, D. A. (2015). Knowledge as global public good. In D. Archibugi & D. A. Filippetti (Eds.), The handbook of global science, technology, and innovation (pp. 425–446). John Wiley & Sons. doi:
Arora A., Ceccagnoli M., & Cohen, W. M. (2008). R&D and the patent premium. International Journal of Industrial Organisation, 26(5), 1153–1179.
Arrow, K. (1962). Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for invention. In K. J. Arrow (Ed.), The rate and direction of inventive activity: Economic and social factors (pp. 609–626). Princeton University Press.
Belletti, G., Marescotti, A., & Touzard, J.-M. (2017). Geographical indications, public goods, and sustainable development: The roles of actors’ strategies and public policies. World Development, 98, 45–57. doi:
Bielig, A. (2015). Intellectual property and economic development in Germany: Empirical evidence for 1999–2009. European Journal of Law and Economics, 39(3), 607–622.
Breitwieser, A., & Foster, N. (2012, June). Intellectual property rights, innovation and technology transfer: A survey. Working Paper 88. The Vienna Institute for International Economic Studies.
Chan, L., Kirsop, B., & Arunachalam, S. (2011). towards open and equitable access to research and knowledge for development. PLoS Medicine, 8(3), e1001016. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001016
Chang, H.-J. (2001). Intellectual property rights and economic development: Historical lessons and emerging issues. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, 2(2), 287–309.
Chabrol D., Mariani, M., & Sautier, D. (2017). Establishing geographical indications without state involvement? Learning from case studies in Central and West Africa. World Development, 98, 68–81. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2015.11.023
Chon, M. (2006). Intellectual property and the development divide. Cardozo Law Review, 27, 2821–2912. https://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/faculty/558.
Chu, A. C., Cozzi, G., & Galli, S. (2014). Stage-dependent intellectual property rights. Journal of Development Economics, 106, 239–249.
Cornell University, INSEAD, & WIPO. (2015). The Global Innovation Index 2015: Effective innovation policies for development.
Cozzi G. (2009). Intellectual property, innovation, and growth: Introduction to the special issue. Scottish Journal of Political Economy, 56(4), 383–389. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9485.2009.00490.x
Cross, M., & Ndofirepi, A. (2017). Knowledge as a public good. In M. Cross & A. Ndofirepi (Eds.), Knowledge and change in African universities, vol. 1: Current debates (pp. 41–57). BrillSense.
De Lange, D. (2021). EU patent harmonization policy: Reconsidering the consequences of the UPCA, Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 16(10), 1078–1090. https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpab096
Dutfield, G. (2001). TRIPS-related aspects of traditional knowledge. Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, 33(2). https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/jil/vol33/iss2/4
Eaton, J., & Kortum, S. (1999). International technology diffusion, theory and measurement. International Economic Review, 40, 537–570.
Erkkilä, T., & Piironen, O. (2014). (De)politicizing good governance: The World Bank Institute, the OECD and the politics of governance indicators. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 27(4), 344–360. https://doi.org/10.1080/13511610.2013.850020
EUIPO. (2019). IPR-intensive industries and economic performance in the European Union: Industry-level analysis report. European Union Intellectual Property Office.
Forero-Pineda, C. (2006). The impact of stronger intellectual property rights on science and technology in developing countries. Research Policy, 35, 808–824.
Gabriel, M. (2021). Budget: Horizon Europe – The most ambitious EU research & innovation programme ever. European Union.
Grossman, G. M., & Helpman, E. (1991). Trade, knowledge spillovers, and growth. European Economic Review, 35, 517–526.
Hall, B. H., & Harhoff, D. (2012). Recent research on the economics of patents. Annual Review of Economics, 4(1), 541–565. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-economics-080511-111008.
Hanel, P. (2006). Intellectual property rights business management practices: A survey of the literature. Technovation, 26, 895–931.
International Task Force on Global Public Goods. (2006). Meeting global challenges: International cooperation in the national interest. Final Report.
Kumar, N. (2003, January 18). Intellectual property rights, technology and economic development: Experiences of Asian countries. Economic and Political Weekly, 209–225.
Landes, W. M., & Posner, R. A. (2003). The economic structure of intellectual property law. Harvard University Press.
Lerner, J. (2008). Intellectual property and development at WHO and WIPO. American Journal of Law & Medicine, 34(2008), 257–277.
Machlup, F. (1961). Patents and inventive efforts. Science, 133(3463), 1463–1466.
Martens, K., & Jakobi, A. P. (2010). Introduction: The OECD as an actor in international politics. In K. Martens, & A. P. Jakobi (Eds.), Mechanisms of OECD governance: International incentives for national policy-making? (pp. 1–25). Oxford University Press.
Maskus, K. E. (2000). Intellectual property rights and economic development. Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, 32(3), 471–506.
McCalman, P. (2005). Who enjoys “TRIP s” abroad? An empirical analysis of intellectual property rights in the Uruguay Round. Canadian Journal of Economics, 38(2), 574–603.
Mehlig Sweet, C., & Eterovic Maggio, D. S. (2015). Do stronger intellectual property rights increase innovation? World Development, 66(C), 665–677. doi:
OECD. (2021). Trust in global cooperation – the vision for the OECD for the next decade. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
Paasi, J., Luoma, T., Valkokari, K., & Lee, N. (2010). Knowledge and intellectual property management in customer – supplier relationships. International Journal of Innovation Management, 14(04), 629–654. doi:
Przybylska, K. (2019). Globalne dobra publiczne. In K. Przybylska (Ed.), Zawodność rynku w teorii i praktyce (pp. 83–102). Warszawa: PWN.
Rimmer, M. (2018). A submission on intellectual property and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence, and Trade, Australia. https://eprints.qut.edu.au/215474/
Stiglitz, J. E. (1999). Knowledge as a global public good. In I. Kaul, I. Grunberg, & M. A. Stern (Eds.), Global public goods: International cooperation in the 21st century (pp. 308–325). Oxford University Press.
Stiglitz, J. E. (2008). Economic foundations of intellectual property rights. Duke Law Journal, 57(6), 1695–1724.
Unger, R. M. (2019). The knowledge economy. Verso.
Von der Leyen, U. (2019). Political Guidelines for the Next European Commission 2019–2024. https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/political-guidelines-next-commission_en_0.pdf
Willinsky, J. (2006). The access principle: The case for open access to research and scholarship. MIT Press.
WIPO. (2004). The concept of intellectual property. In WIPO Intellectual Property Handbook (Chapter 1). World Intellectual Property Organization. WIPO Publication no. 483 (E).
WIPO. (2019). Report on WIPO’s contribution to the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals and its associated targets. CDIP/23/10. World Intellectual Property Organization.
WIPO. (2021). Global Innovation Index 2021: Tracking Innovation through the COVID-19 Crisis. World Intellectual Property Organization.
WTO. (2005). Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights as Amended by the 2005 Protocol Amending the TRIPS Agreement. World Trade Organization. Retrieved June 20, 2022. https://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/trips_e.htm
WTO. (2018). Mainstreaming trade to attain the Sustainable Development Goals. World Trade Organization.
WTO. (2022). TRIPS – Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights. World Trade Organization. Retrieved June 13, 2022. https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/trips_e.htm
Zajaczkowski, M. (2016). Concept of sustainable development and global public goods in the World Trade Organization. In E. Latoszek, M. Proczek, & M. Krukowska (Eds.), Sustainable development and global public goods in the theory and practice of international organizations (pp. 131–145). ELIPSA.