IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v90y2012i1d10.1007_s11192-011-0510-y.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The inventive activities and collaboration pattern of university–industry–government in China based on patent analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Xiao-Ping Lei

    (Institute of Scientific and Technical Information of China)

  • Zhi-Yun Zhao

    (Institute of Scientific and Technical Information of China)

  • Xu Zhang

    (Institute of Scientific and Technical Information of China)

  • Dar-Zen Chen

    (National Taiwan University)

  • Mu-Hsuan Huang

    (National Taiwan University)

  • Yun-Hua Zhao

    (Institute of Scientific and Technical Information of China)

Abstract

China’s economy and technology have experienced spectacular growth since the Opening-up Policy adopted in 1978. In order to explore the innovation process and development of China, this study examines the inventive activities and the collaboration pattern of university, industry and government (UIG) in China. This study analyzes the Chinese patent data retrieved from the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Three models of UIG relations which represent different triple helix configurations are introduced. According to the property of patent assignee, patent ownership can be divided into three types: individuals, enterprises, and universities and research institutes. Furthermore, enterprises can be classified into state-owned enterprise (SOE), private-owned enterprise (POE) and foreign enterprise (FE). The corresponding relationship of patent ownership with UIG is set up. Through analyzing the issued year, it is found that the inventive activities of China have experienced three developmental phases and have been promoted quickly in recent years. The achievement of innovation activities in China primarily falls on the enterprise, especially FEs and POEs. The innovation strengths of the three development phases have shifted from government to university and research institute and then industry. According to co-patent analysis, it is found that the collaboration between university and industry is the strongest and has been intensified in recent years, but other forms of collaboration among UIG have been weak. In addition, an innovation relation model of China was set up. The evolution process of innovation systems was explored, from etatistic model, followed by improved “laissez-faire” model, and then shifting toward triple helix model.

Suggested Citation

  • Xiao-Ping Lei & Zhi-Yun Zhao & Xu Zhang & Dar-Zen Chen & Mu-Hsuan Huang & Yun-Hua Zhao, 2012. "The inventive activities and collaboration pattern of university–industry–government in China based on patent analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 90(1), pages 231-251, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:90:y:2012:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-011-0510-y
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-011-0510-y
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-011-0510-y
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-011-0510-y?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Etzkowitz, Henry & Leydesdorff, Loet, 2000. "The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and "Mode 2" to a Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 109-123, February.
    2. José Luis Ortega, 2011. "Collaboration patterns in patent networks and their relationship with the transfer of technology: the case study of the CSIC patents," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 87(3), pages 657-666, June.
    3. Liney Manjarrés-Henríquez & Antonio Gutiérrez-Gracia & Jaider Vega-Jurado, 2008. "Coexistence of university-industry relations and academic research: Barrier to or incentive for scientific productivity," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 76(3), pages 561-576, September.
    4. Zoltan J. Acs & David B. Audretsch, 1989. "Patents' Innovative Activity," Eastern Economic Journal, Eastern Economic Association, vol. 15(4), pages 373-376, Oct-Dec.
    5. Martin Meyer & Tatiana Siniläinen & Jan Timm Utecht, 2003. "Towards hybrid Triple Helix indicators: A study of university-related patents and a survey of academic inventors," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 58(2), pages 321-350, October.
    6. Loet Leydesdorff & Martin Meyer, 2003. "The Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 58(2), pages 191-203, October.
    7. Zifeng Chen & Jiancheng Guan, 2011. "Mapping of biotechnology patents of China from 1995–2008," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 88(1), pages 73-89, July.
    8. Dar-Zen Chen & Han-Wen Chang & Mu-Hsuan Huang & Feng-Cheng Fu, 2005. "Core technologies and key industries in Taiwan from 1978 to 2002: A perspective from patent analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 64(1), pages 31-53, July.
    9. Tong, Xuesong & Frame, J. Davidson, 1994. "Measuring national technological performance with patent claims data," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 23(2), pages 133-141, March.
    10. Xia Gao & Jiancheng Guan & Ronald Rousseau, 2011. "Mapping collaborative knowledge production in China using patent co-inventorships," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 88(2), pages 343-362, August.
    11. Lee, Yong S., 1996. "'Technology transfer' and the research university: a search for the boundaries of university-industry collaboration," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(6), pages 843-863, September.
    12. Anders Granberg, 1996. "On the pursuit of systemic technology policies in an unstable environment: reflections on a Swedish case," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 6(2), pages 143-157, August.
    13. Tödtling, Franz & Lehner, Patrick & Kaufmann, Alexander, 2008. "Do different types of innovation rely on specific kinds of knowledge interactions?," SRE-Discussion Papers 2008/01, WU Vienna University of Economics and Business.
    14. Zoltan J. Acs & David B. Audretsch, 1989. "Patents as a Measure of Innovative Activity," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 42(2), pages 171-180, August.
    15. Pilkington, Alan & Dyerson, Romano & Tissier, Omid, 2002. "The electric vehicle:: Patent data as indicators of technological development," World Patent Information, Elsevier, vol. 24(1), pages 5-12, March.
    16. Katz, J. Sylvan & Martin, Ben R., 1997. "What is research collaboration?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 1-18, March.
    17. Antje Klitkou & Stian Nygaard & Martin Meyer, 2007. "Tracking techno-science networks: A case study of fuel cells and related hydrogen technology R&D in Norway," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 70(2), pages 491-518, February.
    18. Belderbos, Rene, 2001. "Overseas innovations by Japanese firms: an analysis of patent and subsidiary data," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 313-332, February.
    19. Acs, Zoltan J & Audretsch, David B, 1989. "Patents as a Measure of Innovative Activity," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 42(2), pages 171-180.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Swapan Kumar Patra & Mammo Muchie, 2018. "Research and innovation in South African universities: from the triple helix’s perspective," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(1), pages 51-76, July.
    2. Dziallas, Marisa & Blind, Knut, 2019. "Innovation indicators throughout the innovation process: An extensive literature analysis," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 80, pages 3-29.
    3. Quatraro, Francesco & Scandura, Alessandra, 2020. "Regional patterns of unrelated technological diversification: the role of academic inventors," Department of Economics and Statistics Cognetti de Martiis LEI & BRICK - Laboratory of Economics of Innovation "Franco Momigliano", Bureau of Research in Innovation, Complexity and Knowledge, Collegio 202001, University of Turin.
    4. Barirani, Ahmad & Beaudry, Catherine & Agard, Bruno, 2017. "Can universities profit from general purpose inventions? The case of Canadian nanotechnology patents," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 271-283.
    5. Ahmad Barirani & Bruno Agard & Catherine Beaudry, 2013. "Discovering and assessing fields of expertise in nanomedicine: a patent co-citation network perspective," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 94(3), pages 1111-1136, March.
    6. Jungwon Yoon, 2015. "The evolution of South Korea’s innovation system: moving towards the triple helix model?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 104(1), pages 265-293, July.
    7. Mingook Lee & Sungjoo Lee, 2016. "Evaluating Internal Technological Capabilities in Energy Companies," Energies, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-23, March.
    8. Burhan, Muqbil & Singh, Anil K. & Jain, Sudhir K., 2017. "Patents as proxy for measuring innovations: A case of changing patent filing behavior in Indian public funded research organizations," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 181-190.
    9. Motoyama, Yasuyuki & Cao, Cong & Appelbaum, Richard, 2014. "Observing regional divergence of Chinese nanotechnology centers," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 11-21.
    10. Maria Cipollina & Giorgia Giovannetti & Filomena Pietrovito & Alberto F. Pozzolo, 2012. "FDI and Growth: What Cross-country Industry Data Say," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(11), pages 1599-1629, November.
    11. Mutinelli, Marco & Piscitello, Lucia, 1998. "The entry mode choice of MNEs: an evolutionary approach," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(5), pages 491-506, September.
    12. Jörn Block & Christian Fisch & Kenta Ikeuchi & Masatoshi Kato, 2022. "Trademarks as an indicator of regional innovation: evidence from Japanese prefectures," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 56(2), pages 190-209, February.
    13. Khoury, Theodore A. & Peng, Mike W., 2011. "Does institutional reform of intellectual property rights lead to more inbound FDI? Evidence from Latin America and the Caribbean," Journal of World Business, Elsevier, vol. 46(3), pages 337-345, July.
    14. Lobo, José & Strumsky, Deborah, 2008. "Metropolitan patenting, inventor agglomeration and social networks: A tale of two effects," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(3), pages 871-884, May.
    15. Janne, Odile E. M., 2002. "The emergence of corporate integrated innovation systems across regions: The case of the chemical and pharmaceutical industry in Germany, the UK and Belgium," Journal of International Management, Elsevier, vol. 8(1), pages 97-119.
    16. Wenqing Zhao & Bing Lu & Jianyu Zhang, 2019. "Housing Prices and Corporate Innovation in China," Journal of Applied Finance & Banking, SCIENPRESS Ltd, vol. 9(3), pages 1-2.
    17. Duysters, G. & Hagedoorn, J., 2000. "The effect of mergers and acquisitions on the technological performance of companies in a high-tech environment," Working Papers 00.04, Eindhoven Center for Innovation Studies.
    18. Landon Kleis & Paul Chwelos & Ronald V. Ramirez & Iain Cockburn, 2012. "Information Technology and Intangible Output: The Impact of IT Investment on Innovation Productivity," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 23(1), pages 42-59, March.
    19. Bettencourt, Luis M.A. & Lobo, Jose & Strumsky, Deborah, 2007. "Invention in the city: Increasing returns to patenting as a scaling function of metropolitan size," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 107-120, February.
    20. Jaimin Goh & Jaehong Lee & Wonchang Hur & Yunchang Ju, 2019. "Do Analysts Fully Reflect Information in Patents about Future Earnings?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-17, May.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:90:y:2012:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-011-0510-y. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.