000041882 000__ 02977cam\a22002535i\4500
000041882 001__ 41882
000041882 003__ SzGeWIPO
000041882 005__ 20240708145802.0
000041882 008__ 200618s2016\\\\sz\\\\\\r\\\\\000\0\eng\d
000041882 022__ $$a1747-1796
000041882 040__ $$aSzGeWIPO$$beng$$erda
000041882 041__ $$aeng
000041882 1001_ $$aBeer, Jeremy de
000041882 24503 $$aEvidence‐Based Intellectual Property Policymaking :$$bAn Integrated Review of Methods and Conclusions
000041882 264_1 $$a[Hoboken, New Jersey] :$$bJohn Wiley & Sons,$$c2016.
000041882 300__ $$a28 pages
000041882 336__ $$atext$$btxt$$2rdacontent
000041882 337__ $$aunmediated$$bn$$2rdamedia
000041882 338__ $$avolume$$bnc$$2rdacarrier
000041882 520__ $$aGovernments have long been interested in making intellectual property (IP) policy based on sound evidence. There is a large body of literature addressing the economic impacts of IP, but little of it is accessible to policy makers. This article aims to improve understanding of how IP contributes to the economic performance of a country's innovative sectors. A detailed literature review and meta‐analysis identifies existing methodologies and analytical frameworks. The article organizes the literature and conclusions into four major archetypes, and explains the advantages/disadvantages of each approach. First, data for advocacy is used primarily by special‐interest lobby groups. This literature is accessible to policy makers, but rarely transparent, verified or peer reviewed. Second, valuations of aggregate economic contributions of IP‐related industries are influential worldwide. This literature usefully allows us to compare data internationally, but makes unfounded or misleading assumptions about the importance of IP to a particular industry. Third, innovation indices and rankings are increasingly used to assess comparative progress over time. This literature reports on a broad‐base of IP and innovative activity, but risks turning into a statistical horse race. Fourth, the literature on scholarly theoretical and empirical research and modelling is extensive. This literature often relies on sound evidence, but tends to use the available information—patent data—without explaining the context in which firms may or may not choose to use formal IPRs. It is also rarely accessible to policy makers in the format or timelines required. None of these frameworks alone are fully capable of providing complete, reliable information about the economic importance of intellectual property in any one particular country. An approach that positions and integrates various frameworks, methods and data sources is, therefore, appropriate. The key challenge for the future is to connect empirical data and micro‐economic analyses about firms’ strategic responses to IP policy changes with statistics and macro‐economic insights on overall economic performance or social welfare.
000041882 525__ $$aPublished in : The Journal of World Intellectual Property, vol. 19, no. 5-6 (2016), pp. 150-177.
000041882 542__ $$aCC BY-NC 4.0
000041882 650_0 $$aEvidence-based policy
000041882 650_0 $$aIntellectual property
000041882 650_0 $$aCopyright
000041882 650_0 $$aPatent
000041882 650_0 $$aTrademark
000041882 650_0 $$aInnovation
000041882 85641 $$uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jwip.12069$$yView this resource
000041882 904__ $$aJournal article
000041882 980__ $$aBIB