Water property rights and the State: the United States experience

Includes bibliography

Property rights and the rural land market in Latin America

Includes bibliography

The abuse of intellectual property rights and regulations in China: a law and economic analysis

From the institutional point of view, the legal system of IPR (intellectual property right, hereafter, IPR) is one of incentive institutions of innovation and it plays very important role in the development of economy. According to the law, the owner of the IPR enjoy a kind of exclusive right to use his IP(intellectual property, hereafter, IP), in other words, he enjoys a kind of legal monopoly position in the market. How to well protect the IPR and at the same time to regulate the abuse of IPR is very interested topic in this knowledge-orientated market and it is the basic research question in this dissertation. In this paper, by way of comparing study and by way of law and economic analyses, and based on the Austrian Economics School’s theories, the writer claims that there is no any contradiction between the IPR and competition law. However, in this new economy (high-technology industries), there is really probability of the owner of IPR to abuse his dominant position. And with the characteristics of the new economy, such as, the high rates of innovation, “instant scalability”, network externality and lock-in effects, the IPR “will vest the dominant undertakings with the power not just to monopolize the market but to shift such power from one market to another, to create strong barriers to enter and, in so doing, granting the perpetuation of such dominance for quite a long time.”1 Therefore, in order to keep the order of market, to vitalize the competition and innovation, and to benefit the customer, in EU and US, it is common ways to apply the competition law to regulate the IPR abuse. In Austrian Economic School perspective, especially the Schumpeterian theories, the innovation/competition/monopoly and entrepreneurship are inter-correlated, therefore, we should apply the dynamic antitrust model based on the AES theories to analysis the relationship between the IPR and competition law. China is still a developing country with relative not so high ability of innovation. Therefore, at present, to protect the IPR and to make good use of the incentive mechanism of IPR legal system is the first important task for Chinese government to do. However, according to the investigation reports,2 based on their IPR advantage and capital advantage, some multinational companies really obtained the dominant or monopoly market position in some aspects of some industries, and there are some IPR abuses conducted by such multinational companies. And then, the Chinese government should be paying close attention to regulate any IPR abuse. However, how to effectively regulate the IPR abuse by way of competition law in Chinese situation, from the law and economic theories’ perspective, from the legislation perspective, and from the judicial practice perspective, there is a long way for China to go!

Time-Limited Property Rights and Investment Incentives

Although it is axiomatic that property rights of infinite duration are necessary for owners to make efficient long term investments in their property, time limits on property rights are pervasive in the law. This paper provides an economic justification for such limits by arguing that they actually enhance property values in the presence of various sorts of market failure. The analysis offers a coherent approach for understanding what otherwise appear to be unrelated doctrines in the law.

A Question of Title: Property Rights and Asset Values

This paper examines the impact of land title systems on property values. The predominant system in the U.S., the recording system, awards title to claimants over current possessors, whereas the Torrens registration system awards title to the current owner. In theory, the registration system maximizes property value, all else equal, but in practice, the systems differ depending on the risk of a claim and administrative costs. A natural experiment in Cook County, Illinois, where both systems have existed since 1897, allows a test of the theory. The results, based on commercial and industrial properties, reveal that parcels tend to self-select into the two systems based on the predictions of the theory.

FDI inflows and outflows, intellectual property rights, and productivity growth

Using panel data of 57 countries during the period of 1995-2012, this study investigates the impact of intellectual property rights (IPR) processes on productivity growth. The IPR processes are decomposed into three stages, innovation process, commercialization process, and IPR protection process. Our results suggest that better IPR protection is directly associated with productivity improvement only in developed economies. In addition, the contribution of IPR processes on growth through foreign direct investment (FDI) appears to be very limited. Only FDI inflows in developed countries which help to create a better innovative capability lead to a higher growth. And in connection with FDI outflows, only IPR protection and commercialization processes are proven to improve productivity in the case of developing countries, particularly when the country acts as the investing country.

Better means more:property rights and high-growth aspiration entrepreneurship

This paper contrasts the determinants of entrepreneurial entry and high-growth aspiration entrepreneurship. Using the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) surveys for 42 countries over the period 1998-2005, we analyse how institutional environment and entrepreneurial characteristics affect individual decisions to become entrepreneurs and aspirations to set up high-growth ventures. We find that institutions exert different effects on entrepreneurial entry and on the individual choice to launch high-growth aspiration projects. In particular, a strong property rights system is important for high-growth aspiration entrepreneurship, but has less pronounced effects for entrepreneurial entry. The availability of finance and the fiscal burden matter for both.

Property, planning and purpose : legal concerns facing broadband rollout in Australia

The Australian government, and opposition, are committed to facilitating high-speed broadband provision. In April 2009 the (then) Labor government announced a proposal to facilitate provision by mandating “…the use of fibre optic infrastructure … in greenfield estates ….” Separately, the installation of (usually overhead) cables commenced in select brownfield areas throughout Australia. In the lead up to the 2010 federal election, the broadband policy focus of the (then) federal opposition was to enabling private investment rather than direct investment by government itself. High-speed broadband is essential for Australia’s economic future. Whether implementation is undertaken by government, government owned corporations or private investors, will impact on the processes to be followed. Who does what, also will determine the rights available to land owners. The next stage, of necessity, will involve the establishment of procedures to require the retrofitting of existing urban environments. This clearly will have major property, property rights and valuation impacts. As Horan (2000) observed “…preserving... unique characteristics … of…regions requires a compromise between economic ambitions and social, cultural, and environmental values”. The uncertainty following the federal election, and the influence of independants with individual agendas; presents unique challenges for broadband implementation. This paper seeks to identify the processes to be followed by various potential broadband investors as they work to establish a ubiquitous network. It overviews current legislative regimes and examines concerns raised by stakeholders in various government reviews. It concludes by plotting a clear way forward to the future, with particular regard to property rights and usage.

Intellectual property, TRIPS and development

Intellectual property is crucial to the promotion of innovation. It provides an incentive to innovate as well as security for investment in innovation. The industries of the 21st century-information technology, biotechnology, pharmaceuticals, communications, education and entertainment – are all knowledge-based. The WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (the TRIPS Agreement), adopted in 1994 at the conclusion of the Uruguay Round of trade negotiations, requires all WTO member countries to provide for the protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights. Having forged a link for the first time between intellectual property rights and the international trading system, the adoption of TRIPS means that any country that aims to participate fully in the global economy needs to understand the role of intellectual property and align its intellectual property laws and practices with the international minimum standards prescribed by TRIPS. However, for developing and least-developed countries, the implementation of intellectual property systems and enforcement mechanisms raises questions and challenges. Does recognition and enforcement of intellectual property serve their development needs and objectives? Does TRIPS encourage or hinder the transfer of technologies to developing and least-developed countries, particularly those that meet urgent needs in areas such as public health, food security, water and energy? What is the effect of TRIPS on developing countries’ access to knowledge and information? Is there scope for flexibility in implementation of TRIPS in pursuit of development strategies?