World Trade Organization
The compulsory licensing anomaly
IPN Opinion article
If compulsory licensing is retained as a response to perceptions about market failure, it is necessary also to recognise the costs of state failure. As of now, the Uruguay Round agreement permits too much discretion to governments on compulsory licensing, with 'public interest' a deliciously vague expression. As a second-best solution, this needs to be disciplined. The powers granted for public non-commercial use are too broad and there are no guidelines on compensation and royalty payments. While the TRIPS agreement lays down a framework, it is unrealistic to expect that everything should be laid down in such an agreement. However, too much discretion is also undesirable as it leads to arbitrariness. If there is one lesson that emerges from the development experience of developing countries, it is that the costs of arbitrary government decision-making can be devastating. The market is inherently superior. While this is a message that extends to all sectors, it is particularly true of the pharmaceutical sector. Hence a review of TRIPS is in order.
TRIPS and Healthcare: Rethinking the Debate
IPN Opinion article
In this paper, a group of experts from around the world contradict the claim that compulsory licensing of 'essential' medicines will benefit the world's poor. They point out that patents and other forms of intellectual property are an essential component in economic development. Interfering with intellectual property by compulsory licensing or price controls will undermine investments and cause more harm than good. They call instead for stronger protection of intellectual property globally.
Anti-trade Riots are Result of Coalition between Protectionists and Power-mongers
IPN Opinion article
Environmental and consumer activists claim that trade harms the environment and reduces consumer choice. Huh? Where have these people been for the past fifty years? The idea that trade reduces consumer choice is simply daft, ranking alongside the communist dictum \'freedom through planning\' as one of the twentieth century\'s greatest fallacies. As we know from Friedrich Hayek and from the bitter experience of billions, central planning is the road to serfdom, not freedom. Likewise, a restriction on free and voluntary trade between individuals is by definition a restriction on choice. As regards the claim that trade damages the environment, evidence from across the world shows precisely the opposite. Trade results in improved allocation of resources, thereby benefiting the environment.
Anti-trade Riots are Result of Coalition between Protectionists and Power-mongers
IPN Opinion article
Environmental and consumer activists claim that trade harms the environment and reduces consumer choice. Huh? Where have these people been for the past fifty years? The idea that trade reduces consumer choice is simply daft, ranking alongside the communist dictum 'freedom through planning' as one of the twentieth century's greatest fallacies. As we know from Friedrich Hayek and from the bitter experience of billions, central planning is the road to serfdom, not freedom. Likewise, a restriction on free and voluntary trade between individuals is by definition a restriction on choice. As regards the claim that trade damages the environment, evidence from across the world shows precisely the opposite. Trade results in improved allocation of resources, thereby benefiting the environment.
