All Costs, No Benefits: How the US-Jordan Free Trade Agreement Affects Access to Medicines

Author(s):  
Rohit Malpani

The US-Jordan free trade agreement and Jordan's terms of World Trade Organization accession introduced Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS)-plus rules to the country's intellectual property (IP) law. This paper examines the benefits and consequences of TRIPS-plus rules and reports numerous negative consequences. In particular, data exclusivity, a TRIPS-plus rule, delayed generic competition for 79 per cent of medicines launched by multinational pharmaceutical companies between 2002 and mid-2006, which otherwise would have been available in an inexpensive, generic form. The public health system and individuals, owing to a lack of generic competition, had to pay higher prices for new medicines. There have been no benefits from introducing strict IP rules in Jordan. There has been nearly no foreign direct investment by drug companies into Jordan between 2002 and mid-2006 to develop medicines with local companies. TRIPS-plus rules have not encouraged Jordanian generic companies to engage in research and development for medicines. Finally, new product launches in Jordan are only a fraction of total product launches in the United States and the European Union and are unaffordable for ordinary people. TRIPS-plus rules contributed to a 20 per cent increase in medicine prices between 2002 and 2006. Higher medicine prices will strain Jordan's public health system and require significant out-of-pocket expenditure that will harm the poorest.

Prometheus ◽  
2004 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
pp. 243-257 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Drahos ◽  
Buddhima Lokuge ◽  
Tom Faunce ◽  
Martyn Goddard ◽  
David Henry

2005 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 219-223 ◽  
Author(s):  
JEAN F. CROMBOIS

2006 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-30 ◽  
Author(s):  
KERRY CHASE

The GATT treaty's loophole for free trade areas in Article XXIV has puzzled and deceived prominent scholars, who trace its postwar origins to US aspirations to promote European integration and efforts to persuade developing countries to endorse the Havana Charter. Drawing from archival records, this article shows that in fact US policymakers crafted the controversial provisions of Article XXIV to accommodate a trade treaty they had secretly reached with Canada. As a result, the free trade area exemption was embedded in the GATT–WTO regime, even though neither the Havana Charter nor the US–Canada free trade agreement was ever ratified. Theoretically, the case is an important example of how Cold War exigencies altered the policy ideas of US officials.


2008 ◽  
Vol 40 (2) ◽  
pp. 225-249 ◽  
Author(s):  
JESSICA LEIGHT

AbstractThe 2003 US-Chile free trade agreement, regarded by many as consistent with Chile's long-held trade liberalisation strategy, nonetheless engendered a surprisingly vigorous debate focused on the proposed elimination of the bandas de precio protecting traditional agricultural crops. Opposition to the agreement, mounted by the conservative Alianza por Chile, offers an intriguing political case study that suggests that populist posturing surrounding free trade agreements may persist long after a trade liberalisation strategy has become well-established. This article argues that agricultural liberalisation will be a significant challenge for Chile's governing coalition if it wishes to pursue trade negotiations while seeking to avoid costly political battles at home over the economic costs of abandoning price supports and the challenges of ‘reconverting’ to an export-oriented sector. Even given the strong elite consensus around trade liberalisation in Chile, the interconnections between sectoral interest groups, domestic politics and trade negotiations remain relevant, and deserving of analytical attention.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document