Weitere Kapitel dieses Buchs durch Wischen aufrufen
In the following chapter Hu, Zhang and Zhao examine the relationship of patents to technology innovation. The development of patents is conventionally regarded widely as a significant part of the innovation process in many modes of innovation. Patents are often used as an indicator of technology innovation, and China’s patenting surge raises the question whether China has become as innovative as her patent numbers suggest? If patents measure innovation output, a measure of inputs to the innovation process is R&D expenditures. China’s R&D spending has more than kept pace with the rapid growth of GDP in China. R&D as a share of GDP increased from 1.4 in 2007 to 1.8% in 2011, which was not far from the OECD average. However, patent numbers have been growing even faster than the increase in R&D expenditure. The number of invention patents granted to resident, non-individual applicants per 10 million dollars of R&D expenditure (in 2011 purchasing power parity prices) was 3 for China and 2 for the U.S. in 2007. In four years, the ratio for China rose to 6.3, and that for the U.S. increased more modestly to 2.4. While not impossible, it would seem unlikely that this large and widening disparity in patents to R&D ratio can be explained by the difference in the productivity of R&D of the two countries. The objective of this chapter is to explore both innovation and non-innovation-related explanations of China’s patenting surge and to discuss their policy implications. “The conventional role of patents lies in preventing copying and pre-empting unauthorized entry, the need for which rises when new technologies are created, thus implying a tight connection between technology innovation and patenting.” Recent experience in developed countries, particularly the U.S., indicates that applying for patents has also been driven by firms’ concerns that an unfavorable court ruling over the ownership of intellectual property could inflict significant financial damages on them. This has led firms to build up a war chest of patents that might increase their bargaining power in anticipation of such intellectual property disputes. The propensity to apply for patents can increase, when the underlying rate of technology innovation has not significantly, but when developments in legal institutions and public policy change the firms’ perception of the need for such strategic maneuvers.
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten
Sie möchten Zugang zu diesem Inhalt erhalten? Dann informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:
Branstetter, L., Li, G., & Veloso, F. (2015). The rise of international convention. In A.B. Jaffe & B. Jones (Eds.), The changing frontier: Rethinking science and innovation policy (pp. 135–168). University of Chicago Press.
Cohen, W. M., Nelson, R. R., & Walsh, J. P. (2000). Protecting their intellectual assets: Appropriability conditions and why US manufacturing firms patent (or not). NBER Working Paper No. 7552.
Hall, B. H. (2004). Exploring the patent explosion. NBER Working Paper No. 10605.
He, Z.-L., Tong, T. W., He, W., Zhang, Y., & Lu, J. (2013). Chinese patent database user documentation: Matching SIPO Patents to Chinese publicly-listed companies and subsidiaries.
Holmes, T. J., McGrattan, E. R., & Prescott, E. C. (2015). Quid pro quo: Technology capital transfers for market access in China. Review of Economic Studies (forthcoming).
Hu, A. G. (2010). Propensity to patent, competition and China’s foreign patenting surge. Research Policy,39(7), 985–993. CrossRef
Hu, A. G., & Jefferson, G. H. (2009, September). A great wall of patents: What is behind China’s recent patent explosion? Journal of Development Economics, 90(1), 57–68.
Hu, A. G., Zhang, P., & Zhao, L. (2017). China as number one? Evidence from China’s most recent patenting surge. Journal of Development Economics, 124, 109–119.
Jaffe, A. B., & Lerner, J. (2004). Innovation and its discontents: How our broken patent system is endangering innovation and progress, and what to do about it. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Kim, L. (1997). Imitation to innovation: The dynamics of Korea’s technological learning. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Kortum, S., & Lerner, J. (1999). What is behind the recent surge in patenting? Research Policy,28(1), 1–22. CrossRef
Levin, R. C., Klevorick, A. K., Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (1987). Appropriating the returns from industrial research and development. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 1987, 783–820.
Li, X. (2012). Behind the recent surge of Chinese patenting: An institutional view. Research Policy,41(1), 236–249. CrossRef
Nagaoda, S. (2009). Reform of patent system in Japan and challenges. In National Research Council (Ed.), 21st Century Innovation Systems for Japan and the United States: Lessons from a Decade of Change: Report of a Symposium. The National Academies Press.
Sakakibara, M., & Branstetter, L. (2001, Spring). Do stronger patents induce more innovation? Evidence from the 1988 Japanese patent law reforms. Rand Journal of Economics, 32(1), 77–100.
Wooldridge, J. M. (2002). Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Xie, Z., & Zhang, X. (2015). The patterns of patents in China. China Economic Journal,8(2), 122–142. CrossRef
Xu, C. (2011). The fundamental institutions of China’s reforms and development. Journal of Economic Literature,49(4), 1076–1151. CrossRef
- Patents and Innovation in China
Albert G. Hu
- Springer Singapore
- Chapter 8
Neuer Inhalt/© Stellmach, Neuer Inhalt/© BBL, Neuer Inhalt/© Maturus, Pluta Logo/© Pluta, Neuer Inhalt/© hww, Wissenstransfer im Outsourcing/© WrightStudio | stock.adobe.com