As we examine the dynamics of TRIPS implementation at the national level, both in the introduction and application of new laws, it is worth highlighting how the new international agreement has changed the nature of domestic policy by giving new authority and importance to technology-intensive sectors. This happened in the same way that Baldwin (2016) argues that the principle of reciprocity in GATT helped shift political interests in order to create a moloch of tariff reduction between nations. Prior to TRIPS, national patent policy was largely marked by strong consumer groups and import-ridden industrial sectors. Innovators (real, young and emerging) have rarely had a strong and direct say in the development of national IP policies which, in many developing countries, were not so much aimed at promoting innovation as at ensuring that knowledge, information and technology-intensive goods were accessible to consumers and as a contribution to local industry. By imposing changes in national policies towards better intellectual property protection, TRIPS served as an exogenous shock that changed the distribution of income between innovative and non-innovative business groups14 from the introduction of greater intellectual property protection, innovative companies/sectors benefited from the new agreements, while companies based on previous agreements, margins have contracted and some have even left non-innovative activities. This shifted the balance of political power with both groups in a way that strengthened itself, given that, in subsequent political conflicts over intellectual property, more innovation-oriented actors in the economy (and also within the state) gained the upper hand. And the preferences of the actors have also changed. Faced with a new status quo, some actors who refused trips adapted to the new environment and began to see opportunities where they previously felt only threats. When they did, they reviewed their policies and likely sought alliances with actors who had supported the establishment of new agreements (Sinha, 2016; Shadlen, 2011).
The contributions in this special issue describe in one way or another the different strategies followed by policies in the national phase of implementation of the TRIPS Agreement. .