IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/jtecht/v46y2021i5d10.1007_s10961-020-09821-6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Government royalties on sales of biomedical products developed with substantial public funding

Author

Listed:
  • Robert S. Danziger

    (University of Illinois at Chicago)

  • John T. Scott

    (Dartmouth College)

Abstract

This paper proposes a policy of royalties paid to the government on the sales of biomedical products developed with public funds. The proposed policy would increase the incentives to create and to transfer to the private sector useful biomedical inventions from the research done in federal laboratories and in universities. The royalties policy would also address the concern that taxpayers pay prices perceived to be unreasonable for biomedical products developed with substantial taxpayer funding.

Suggested Citation

  • Robert S. Danziger & John T. Scott, 2021. "Government royalties on sales of biomedical products developed with substantial public funding," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 46(5), pages 1321-1343, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:jtecht:v:46:y:2021:i:5:d:10.1007_s10961-020-09821-6
    DOI: 10.1007/s10961-020-09821-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10961-020-09821-6
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10961-020-09821-6?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Albert N. Link & John T. Scott, 2013. "Governments as entrepreneur: Evaluating the commercialization success of SBIR projects," Chapters, in: Public Support of Innovation in Entrepreneurial Firms, chapter 2, pages 25-38, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    2. Albert N. Link & John T. Scott, 2013. "The exploitation of publicly funded technology," Chapters, in: Public Support of Innovation in Entrepreneurial Firms, chapter 8, pages 127-135, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    3. John Scott, 2009. "Competition in Research and Development: A Theory for Contradictory Predictions," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 34(2), pages 153-171, March.
    4. Albert N. Link & John T. Scott, 2019. "The economic benefits of technology transfer from U.S. federal laboratories," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 44(5), pages 1416-1426, October.
    5. Scott,John T., 2005. "Purposive Diversification and Economic Performance," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521022583, January.
    6. F. M. Scherer, 1967. "Research and Development Resource Allocation Under Rivalry," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 81(3), pages 359-394.
    7. Tom Lee & Louis L. Wilde, 1980. "Market Structure and Innovation: A Reformulation," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 94(2), pages 429-436.
    8. Glenn C. Loury, 1979. "Market Structure and Innovation," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 93(3), pages 395-410.
    9. Troy J. Scott & John T. Scott, 2015. "Standards and innovation: US public/private partnerships to support technology-based economic growth," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(5), pages 457-489, July.
    10. Link, Albert N. & Siegel, Donald S. & Van Fleet, David D., 2011. "Public science and public innovation: Assessing the relationship between patenting at U.S. National Laboratories and the Bayh-Dole Act," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(8), pages 1094-1099, October.
    11. Jhon T. Scott & Troy J. Scott, 2014. "Innovation rivalry: theory and empirics," ECONOMIA E POLITICA INDUSTRIALE, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2014(1), pages 25-53.
    12. Albert N Link & John T Scott, 2018. "Toward an assessment of the US Small Business Innovation Research Program at the National Institutes of Health," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 45(1), pages 83-91.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Zhao, Junying & Kim, Myongjin & Westbrook, Gabrielle & Bratzler, Dale W, 2022. "A comparative study of COVID-19 emergency funds allocated to the health sector: US, UK, and Canada," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(6), pages 493-503.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. John T. Scott, 2016. "Creativity for invention insights: corporate strategies and opportunities for public entrepreneurship," Economia e Politica Industriale: Journal of Industrial and Business Economics, Springer;Associazione Amici di Economia e Politica Industriale, vol. 43(4), pages 409-448, December.
    2. Michael Peneder & Martin Woerter, 2014. "Competition, R&D and innovation: testing the inverted-U in a simultaneous system," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 24(3), pages 653-687, July.
    3. Flavio DelbonoBy & Luca Lambertini, 2022. "Innovation and product market concentration: Schumpeter, arrow, and the inverted U-shape curve [Lessons from schumpeterian growth theory]," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 74(1), pages 297-311.
    4. Andreas Fier & Dietmar Harhoff, 2002. "Die Evolution der bundesdeutschen Forschungs– und Technologiepolitik: Rückblick und Bestandsaufnahme," Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik, Verein für Socialpolitik, vol. 3(3), pages 279-301, August.
    5. Harabi, Najib, 1994. "Technischer Fortschritt in der Schweiz: Empirische Ergebnisse aus industrieökonomischer Sicht [Technischer Fortschritt in der Schweiz:Empirische Ergebnisse aus industrieökonomischer Sicht]," MPRA Paper 6725, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Cátia Felisberto, 2013. "Liberalisation, competition and innovation in the postal sector," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 44(3), pages 1407-1434, June.
    7. Gilbert Richard J, 2006. "Competition and Innovation," Journal of Industrial Organization Education, De Gruyter, vol. 1(1), pages 1-23, December.
    8. Cátia Felisberto, 2012. "The Relationship Between Competition and Incumbent’s Innovation," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 12(1), pages 21-46, March.
    9. Dennis Patrick Leyden, 2016. "Universities as partners in research joint ventures," Economia e Politica Industriale: Journal of Industrial and Business Economics, Springer;Associazione Amici di Economia e Politica Industriale, vol. 43(4), pages 449-462, December.
    10. Tang, Jianmin, 2006. "Competition and innovation behaviour," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 68-82, February.
    11. Kaplan, Todd R. & Luski, Israel & Wettstein, David, 2003. "Innovative activity and sunk cost," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 21(8), pages 1111-1133, October.
    12. Subhasish M. Chowdhury & Stephen Martin, 2011. "Innovation Races with the Possibility of Failure," Working Papers 1106, University of Otago, Department of Economics, revised Aug 2011.
    13. Raymond De Bondt & Jan Vandekerckhove, 2012. "Reflections on the Relation Between Competition and Innovation," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 12(1), pages 7-19, March.
    14. John Scott, 2009. "Competition in Research and Development: A Theory for Contradictory Predictions," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 34(2), pages 153-171, March.
    15. Yi, Sang-Seung, 1999. "Market structure and incentives to innovate: the case of Cournot oligopoly," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 65(3), pages 379-388, December.
    16. Jonas Send, 2021. "Contest Copycats: Adversarial Duplication of Effort in Contests," Working Papers tax-mpg-rps-2021-17, Max Planck Institute for Tax Law and Public Finance.
    17. David B. Audretsch & Albert N. Link, 2019. "The fountain of knowledge: an epistemological perspective on the growth of U.S. SBIR-funded firms," International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Springer, vol. 15(4), pages 1103-1113, December.
    18. Eric W. Zitzewitz, 2003. "Competition and Long–run Productivity Growth in the UK and US Tobacco Industries, 1879–1939," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(1), pages 1-33, March.
    19. Pelin G. Canbolat & Boaz Golany & Inbal Mund & Uriel G. Rothblum, 2012. "A Stochastic Competitive R&D Race Where “Winner Takes All”," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 60(3), pages 700-715, June.
    20. Atal, Vidya & Bar, Talia & Gordon, Sidartha, 2016. "Project selection: Commitment and competition," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 30-48.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Government royalties; Technology transfer; Federal laboratories; Pharmaceutical prices; Biomedical research; Government-funded R&D;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • O31 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives
    • O33 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Technological Change: Choices and Consequences; Diffusion Processes
    • O38 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Government Policy
    • H40 - Public Economics - - Publicly Provided Goods - - - General
    • H51 - Public Economics - - National Government Expenditures and Related Policies - - - Government Expenditures and Health
    • H81 - Public Economics - - Miscellaneous Issues - - - Governmental Loans; Loan Guarantees; Credits; Grants; Bailouts

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:jtecht:v:46:y:2021:i:5:d:10.1007_s10961-020-09821-6. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.