David Ricardo's Theory Of Comparative Advantage (CA)

classical model of David Ricardo’s theory of comparative advantage (CA). This argues that all countries have the ability to thrive by taking advantage of their assets and determining what they are best at producing and then trading their best products for other products that are more efficiently produced by other nations (Ruffin, 2002, p. 729). Those who are for CA point out that there are multiple benefits to this concept that can lead to development growth. Their faith aligns with liberal methods and policies, as liberalizing trade offers a winning scenario to all those involved by creating a more economically efficient system, producing more with less input thus saving time (Higgott & Weber, 2011, p. 435). The increase in transactions between

The most illustrative example as to why this agreement is so controversial is the attempt to patent products developed from the neem tree. The neem tree is commonly known in India as an amazing resource that has multiple applications. Its seeds provide a powerful insecticide, its bark can be used to clean teeth, its juice can be used to prevent skin diseases such as psoriasis as well as parasitic infections, its extract is used as an antidote to malaria, and its oil is being tested as a female contraceptive (Marden, 1999, p. 283). The tree is also tightly interwoven in Indian culture and has both a religious and cultural significance throughout India (Marden, 1999, p. 293). Despite already being known and used by many Indian farmers, American researches found a way to alter the neem tree seeds to create a storage-stable version of a new type of insecticide. By June 1992, a United States agricultural chemical company named W.R. Grace & C. (Grace) secured a patent on the neem extract (Marden, 1999, p. 284). Grace patented its unoriginal neem extract as Neemix based on US patent law and was able to do so under the requirements that “it has practical usefulness, is novel in relation to prior art, and is not obvious from the prior art to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made” (Marden, 1999, p. 284). A potential implication of this patent was that local Indian producers of neem products would have had to pay royalties to the US patent-holders, making this an exclusionary right held by a US company (Shiva, 1998, p. 67). Local manufacturers would have had to pay royalties despite it being an Indian product and the knowledge being well known to India farmers for centuries. As the law stands the only way for foreign knowledge to disprove a US patent’s