the lives of others. But the porosity ofplace
has varied, and may be transformed forcibly
(bywar), peacefully (through agreement or
negotiation), or through a mix of the two.
Historically, colonialism andimperialism
have been powerful vehicles of integration,
although the processes were highly asymmet-
ric and shot through with differentials of
powerand profit. Today, economic integra-
tion usually depends on market mechanisms,
through the circulation of capital, labour and
knowledge, through the global integration of
consumer practices and consumer culture,
and through political interventions in inter-
national political economy (policies on trade,
investment, immigration etc.), but these pro-
cesses may also have violent correlates that
Harvey (2003b) connects to a continuing global
regime ofaccumulationby dispossession.
Integration does not automatically imply
the erasure of difference. Economically, it
may impose or allow greater degrees of spe-
cialization and promote areal differenti-
ation(seeglobalization); politically, it may
raise questions about autonomy,identityand
independence within national or transnational
formations; culturally, it may allow the dis-
semination of new hybrid cultural forms (see
hybridity; transculturation). All three
issues have surfaced in successive enlarge-
ments of the European Union and the project
of a unitedeurope(see Bialasiewicz, Elden
and Painter, 2005). More generally and over
the longer term, Braudel (1985, p. 45) empha-
sizes that the integrative world economy is
simply ‘an order among other orders’, and
that the struggle between integration and dif-
ferentiation/distinction has always been and
remains a powerful determinant of economic,
political and cultural relations. rl
Suggested reading
Bialasiewicz, Elden and Painter (2005); Lee
(1990).
Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) The col-
lective term used to refer to the protection
offered by a variety of legal instruments –
most notably copyright, patents and trade-
marks – with respect to the use of certain
intangible goods including ideas and informa-
tion. Typically, the holder of such rights is
entitled to a temporally or spatially limited
degree of exclusivity in the use of the matter
in question, an exclusivity that is designed to
stimulate and reward the inventiveness in-
volved in making it useful. Like all property
rights, IPRs are very much social rights,
embodying how societies choose to recognize
the claims of certain individuals and groups
but not others to certain particularly signifi-
cant and/or potentially limited things. As such,
they have varied over time and between places
on the one hand, and been the object of
much debate on the other. A series of related
developments over the past half-century or so
has seen an intensification of the implications
of these differences and contestations, bring-
ing intellectual property rights to the very
forefront of contemporary intellectual and
political discussion.
First, a technologically enhanced ability on
the part of scientists and others to translate,
manipulate and circulate biological materials
has multiplied the kinds of things which might
potentially be covered by IPRs. Second, the
advent of what has been called a ‘knowledge
economy’ has seen a scramble by relevant
parties of all sorts to protect as much and as
many of the intangible aspects of their prod-
ucts and services as possible (and thereby their
profits and position). Finally, moves by global
bodies ranging from the United Nations to the
World Trade Organization (WTO) to har-
monize and regulate how intellectual property
rights are defined and practiced worldwide has
publicly exposed the extent and magnitude of
the issues at stake, as well as the profound
disagreements that need to be overcome.
At this point, it is probably fair to say that
the aspect of intellectual property rights that
has most exercised geographers’ interest has
been the questions that they raise about the
ownership of biological materials. In the 1994
Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intel-
lectual Property Rights (TRIPS) (which is
administered by the WTO and is undergoing
almost continuous renegotiation), provision
was made for certain kinds of materials to be
patentable. This reflected a trend since the
1970s of business interests (and especially
the life science firms involved in producing
medicines), to successfully argue that patents
are essential for their ability to make a return
on their investment in research and develop-
ment required to discover, produce and get
regulatory approval for new products. The
idea that biological materials (if not animal,
plants or processes themselves) should be
privately owned – even in the temporary
form offered by patents – has been hugely
controversial. Some object that it is morally
inappropriate that the legal-commercial logic
of property should be extended to living
things in any form. For others, what is
inappropriate is the imposition of a WesternGregory / The Dictionary of Human Geography 9781405132879_4_I Final Proof page 388 31.3.2009 7:05pmINTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS (IPR)