全球治理中的知识竞争:医药专利案例

IF 2.2 3区 社会学 Q1 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS Global Policy Pub Date : 2024-03-13 DOI:10.1111/1758-5899.13342
Cynthia Couette
{"title":"全球治理中的知识竞争:医药专利案例","authors":"Cynthia Couette","doi":"10.1111/1758-5899.13342","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Expert consensus helps policymakers solve complex problems by identifying and legitimizing policy solutions. Yet, persistent hesitation remains among policymakers regarding the technically adequate policy solution despite the existence and mobilization of epistemic communities. This paper contends that more attention should be given to studying the epistemic competition that may arise when multiple epistemic communities grapple with the same problem but have divergent understandings of its technical nature and its adequate policy solutions. Building on Science and Technology Studies and on the literature on polarization, this paper suggests that two social dynamics, namely the mobilization of resources and increased polarization, may complexify the technical disagreement among experts. In turn, these dynamics may lead to a deadlock in the debates, negatively impacting the institutional context where they take place. To illustrate this, this paper analyzes the case of the pharmaceutical innovation system, which has been prone to tensions between experts arguing for strong patent protection and experts arguing for greater flexibility to meet public health needs. This paper builds on a mixed method combining a social network analysis of experts invited to provide their expertise in the WHO-WTO-WIPO Trilateral Cooperation events and on semi-structured interviews with 24 of these experts.</p>","PeriodicalId":51510,"journal":{"name":"Global Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1758-5899.13342","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Epistemic competition in global governance: The case of pharmaceutical patents\",\"authors\":\"Cynthia Couette\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/1758-5899.13342\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Expert consensus helps policymakers solve complex problems by identifying and legitimizing policy solutions. Yet, persistent hesitation remains among policymakers regarding the technically adequate policy solution despite the existence and mobilization of epistemic communities. This paper contends that more attention should be given to studying the epistemic competition that may arise when multiple epistemic communities grapple with the same problem but have divergent understandings of its technical nature and its adequate policy solutions. Building on Science and Technology Studies and on the literature on polarization, this paper suggests that two social dynamics, namely the mobilization of resources and increased polarization, may complexify the technical disagreement among experts. In turn, these dynamics may lead to a deadlock in the debates, negatively impacting the institutional context where they take place. To illustrate this, this paper analyzes the case of the pharmaceutical innovation system, which has been prone to tensions between experts arguing for strong patent protection and experts arguing for greater flexibility to meet public health needs. This paper builds on a mixed method combining a social network analysis of experts invited to provide their expertise in the WHO-WTO-WIPO Trilateral Cooperation events and on semi-structured interviews with 24 of these experts.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51510,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Global Policy\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1758-5899.13342\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Global Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1758-5899.13342\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global Policy","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1758-5899.13342","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

专家共识通过确定政策解决方案并使之合法化,帮助决策者解决复杂的问题。然而,尽管存在并动员了认识论群体,政策制定者对于技术上适当的政策解决方案仍然犹豫不决。本文认为,应更多地关注对认识论竞争的研究,当多个认识论群体都在努力解决同一个问题,但对其技术性质和适当的政策解决方案却有着不同的理解时,可能会出现这种竞争。本文以《科学与技术研究》和有关两极分化的文献为基础,提出资源调动和两极分化加剧这两种社会动态可能会使专家之间的技术分歧复杂化。反过来,这些动力又可能导致辩论陷入僵局,对辩论发生的制度环境产生负面影响。为了说明这一点,本文分析了医药创新体系的案例,该体系很容易在主张大力保护专利的专家和主张提高灵活性以满足公共卫生需求的专家之间产生矛盾。本文采用了一种混合方法,对受邀在世界卫生组织-世界贸易组织-世界知识产权组织三边合作活动中提供专业知识的专家进行了社会网络分析,并对其中的 24 名专家进行了半结构化访谈。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Epistemic competition in global governance: The case of pharmaceutical patents

Expert consensus helps policymakers solve complex problems by identifying and legitimizing policy solutions. Yet, persistent hesitation remains among policymakers regarding the technically adequate policy solution despite the existence and mobilization of epistemic communities. This paper contends that more attention should be given to studying the epistemic competition that may arise when multiple epistemic communities grapple with the same problem but have divergent understandings of its technical nature and its adequate policy solutions. Building on Science and Technology Studies and on the literature on polarization, this paper suggests that two social dynamics, namely the mobilization of resources and increased polarization, may complexify the technical disagreement among experts. In turn, these dynamics may lead to a deadlock in the debates, negatively impacting the institutional context where they take place. To illustrate this, this paper analyzes the case of the pharmaceutical innovation system, which has been prone to tensions between experts arguing for strong patent protection and experts arguing for greater flexibility to meet public health needs. This paper builds on a mixed method combining a social network analysis of experts invited to provide their expertise in the WHO-WTO-WIPO Trilateral Cooperation events and on semi-structured interviews with 24 of these experts.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Global Policy
Global Policy Multiple-
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
10.50%
发文量
125
期刊最新文献
Issue Information The Belt and Road Initiative, outward foreign direct investment and total factor productivity—Evidence from China Cutting-edge public space and community-building experiences from a user experience (UX) perspective – A multinational comparison Policy coordination and development in a VUCA world Collective leadership for VUCA: From theoretical exploratory study to knowledge creation
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1