Innovation, Intellectual Property and Development Narratives in Africa

Jeremy de Beer, Chidi Oguamanam and Tobias Schonwetter

1. Context

Human development, including not just economic growth but also the capability for longer, healthier and more fulfilling lives, depends on innovation and creativity. While various economic, technological, social and other factors influence innovative and creative activity, intellectual property (IP) rights – copyrights, patents, trademarks, trade secrets and other appropriation mechanisms – play an increasingly important role. How IP rights help or hinder innovation and creativity in different contexts in Africa is the subject of this book.

The chapters that follow canvass aspects of the current reality of IP in nine different countries from the four main regions of the African continent. The chapters contain contextual analyses as well as on-the-ground case studies based on empirical, qualitative and quantitative research – and cut across diverse socio-economic contexts and legal systems, and a spectrum of formal, informal and traditional sectors. Examined as a whole, the evidence in this book helps build understanding of the ways in which the dual goals of protecting IP and preserving access to knowledge can be balanced. The book also provides indications of the roles that are being, and can be, played by collaborative and openness-oriented dynamics in relation to innovation, creativity and IP. A better understanding of the nuances and dynamics of IP is essential to creating policy frameworks and management practices that balance IP protection and access in such a way that African regions, nations and communities can harness IP as a tool to facilitate collaborative networking within diverse systems of innovation and creativity.

The proliferation and polarisation of opinion

Influential actors – multinational companies, developed-country governments, international organisations, academics, civil society groups – promote opposing views on how IP protection interacts with innovation and creativity. One view is that IP protection is inevitably and necessarily an incentive for innovation and creativity. The opposing view is that IP protection is not required to facilitate innovation and creativity and, rather, is an impediment to the free and open exchanges of technology, culture and knowledge that form the core of innovative and creative modalities. These polarised views persist because, in fact, little is really known about how IP environments do or could influence innovation and creativity as a means to development. A recent, wide-ranging review (Hassan et al., 2010) of the growing but still "surprisingly scarce" literature on IP and developing countries uncovered little consensus and even less clear evidence on the key questions facing IP policy-makers (2010, p. xiv). It follows that policy-makers who seek to encourage creators and innovators tend to struggle to develop appropriate IP systems. Bottlenecks and systemic inefficiencies occur as law-makers and policy-makers make hazy efforts, based on insufficient information, to calibrate national IP environments in support of innovation and creativity.

Overzealous IP protection regimes may indeed raise the costs of future innovations and may, therefore, discourage potential innovators and creators who cannot afford high up-front investments. Also, over-protection of IP may result in innovators and creators being unable to organise collaborative relationships in strategically optimal ways. On the other hand, under-protection of outputs may indeed be an investment disincentive for a significant proportion of potential innovators and creators, and may therefore be a threat to development.

Despite the lack of consensus about the influence of IP on innovation and creativity for development, some new narratives seem to be emerging. For most of the 20th century, the orthodox assumption was that IP protection is good for development. The wisdom was that if some protection is good, more is even better. The origins and spread of such narratives are explained especially clearly in the literature on the history of the World Trade Organisation's (WTO's) Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) and in the leading work on the international political economy of IP more generally (e.g. Drahos and Braithwaite, 2002; May, 2010; May and Sell, 2005; Sell, 2003).

From the 1994 passage of TRIPS onwards, political and economic pressures to increase IP protection succeeded in raising both IP protection standards and awareness of IP in developing countries. But the protectionist pressures led to backlashes against IP systems that were seen as insensitive to local contexts. This was especially true where IP protection impacted other public policy priorities, especially on matters of health, education and cultural participation. The work of scholars such as Barbosa et al. (2007), Boyle (1997,...