IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/sek/ibmpro/2303747.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Institutional Void And The Evolution Of Appropriability Regime - The Case Of The Transition Of Intellectual Property Rights Policy In Taiwan

Author

Listed:
  • Chihcheng Lo

    (Department of Industrial Technology and Education, National Changhua University of Education)

Abstract

This paper examines the evolution and stages of Intellectual property rights (hereafter as IPRs) regimes since 1980s by investigating historical and quantitative data of IPRs. We explore how policy network of IPRs responds the development of industries, the evolution of innovation systems, and international IPRs harmonization and in turn affect the profile of IPRs policy. Theoretically, we will identify the determination of institutional voids and ask how Taiwanese industries face the issues related to appropriability regimes and in turn affect the development of innovation system and IPRs policy. The perspective of policy network is used to explore the whole structure of IPRs policy making and justify the role of state and industries in the relative evolution process. We used different types of IPRs data and historical archives to examine how the evolution of IPRs are established to build market, seek innovation chance, to network resources, and finally legitimately ensure approrpriability amongst industries from closed to open innovation regime reach out beyond institutional voids. To sum up, this study regards IPRs regime as a striking case study to demonstrate the effect of institutional voids on the governance choice of policy network. Empirical results will demonstrate that the innovation activity processed by industries is increased only when the appropriability strategies are resumed to catch up with new market created by institutional voids. This would allow us to better assess the global optimality of the array of international IPRs harmonisation currently in use around the world and their interplay. Finally this outcome of this paper have implications of IPRs policy for policy makers in the developing countries.

Suggested Citation

  • Chihcheng Lo, 2015. "Institutional Void And The Evolution Of Appropriability Regime - The Case Of The Transition Of Intellectual Property Rights Policy In Taiwan," Proceedings of Business and Management Conferences 2303747, International Institute of Social and Economic Sciences.
    • Handle: RePEc:sek:ibmpro:2303747
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://iises.net/proceedings/business-management-conference-vienna/table-of-content/detail?cid=23&iid=012&rid=3747
    File Function: First version, 2015
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hu, Albert G. Z. & Jaffe, Adam B., 2003. "Patent citations and international knowledge flow: the cases of Korea and Taiwan," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 21(6), pages 849-880, June.
    2. Mutti, John & Yeung, Bernard, 1996. "Section 337 and the Protection of Intellectual Property in the United States: The Complainants and the Impact," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 78(3), pages 510-520, August.
    3. Ove Granstrand, 1999. "The Economics and Management of Intellectual Property," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 1651.
    4. David Marsh & Martin Smith, 2000. "Understanding Policy Networks: towards a Dialectical Approach," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 48(1), pages 4-21, March.
    5. Keith E. Maskus, 2000. "Intellectual Property Rights in the Global Economy," Peterson Institute Press: All Books, Peterson Institute for International Economics, number 99, January.
    6. Nancy T. Gallini, 2002. "The Economics of Patents: Lessons from Recent U.S. Patent Reform," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 16(2), pages 131-154, Spring.
    7. Richard C. Levin & Alvin K. Klevorick & Richard R. Nelson & Sidney G. Winter, 1987. "Appropriating the Returns from Industrial Research and Development," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, vol. 18(3, Specia), pages 783-832.
    8. Catherine Y. Co, 2004. "How Valuable are the Patents Behind Section 337 Cases?," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(4), pages 525-539, April.
    9. Ruby Gonsen, 1998. "Technological Capabilities in Developing Countries," Palgrave Macmillan Books, Palgrave Macmillan, number 978-1-349-26369-1, December.
    10. Edwin Mansfield, 1986. "Patents and Innovation: An Empirical Study," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(2), pages 173-181, February.
    11. Jorge Niosi, 2011. "Building innovation systems: an introduction to the special section," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 20(6), pages 1637-1643, December.
    12. Lee, Jeong-Yeon & Mansfield, Edwin, 1996. "Intellectual Property Protection and U.S. Foreign Direct Investment," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 78(2), pages 181-186, May.
    13. Keupp, Marcus Matthias & Friesike, Sascha & von Zedtwitz, Maximilian, 2012. "How do foreign firms patent in emerging economies with weak appropriability regimes? Archetypes and motives," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(8), pages 1422-1439.
    14. Shirley W. Y. Kuo & Christina Y. Liu, 1999. "The Development of the Economy of Taiwan," Asian-Pacific Economic Literature, The Crawford School, The Australian National University, vol. 13(1), pages 36-49, May.
    15. Aoki, Reiko & Prusa, Thomas J., 1993. "International standards for intellectual property protection and R & D incentives," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(3-4), pages 251-273, November.
    16. R. A. W. Rhodes, 1990. "Policy Networks," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 2(3), pages 293-317, July.
    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. Anja, Breitwieser & Neil, Foster, 2012. "Intellectual property rights, innovation and technology transfer: a survey," MPRA Paper 36094, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Prud'homme, Dan & von Zedtwitz, Max, 2019. "Managing “forced” technology transfer in emerging markets: The case of China," Journal of International Management, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 1-1.
    3. Fontana, Roberto & Nuvolari, Alessandro & Shimizu, Hiroshi & Vezzulli, Andrea, 2013. "Reassessing patent propensity: Evidence from a dataset of R&D awards, 1977–2004," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(10), pages 1780-1792.
    4. Sternitzke, Christian, 2013. "An exploratory analysis of patent fencing in pharmaceuticals: The case of PDE5 inhibitors," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(2), pages 542-551.
    5. Ming Liu & Sumner LaCroix, 2011. "The Impact of Stronger Property Rights in Pharmaceuticals on Innovation in Developed and Developing Countries," Working Papers 201116, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Department of Economics.
    6. Smith, Pamela J., 1999. "Are weak patent rights a barrier to U.S. exports?," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 151-177, June.
    7. 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.
    8. Mounir Amdaoud & Christian Le Bas, 2020. "Firm Patenting and Types of innovation in Least Developed Countries. An Empirical Investigation on Patenting Determinants," Working Papers hal-03059466, HAL.
    9. Kanwar, Sunil, 2007. "Intellectual Property Protection and Technology Transfer: Evidence From US Multinationals," University of California at San Diego, Economics Working Paper Series qt606508js, Department of Economics, UC San Diego.
    10. Catherine Y. Co, 2004. "How Valuable are the Patents Behind Section 337 Cases?," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(4), pages 525-539, April.
    11. Junghee Han & Almas Heshmati, 2021. "Innovation and SMEs patent propensity in Korea," International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 42(1/2), pages 51-68.
    12. Burcu Fazlıoğlu & Başak Dalgıç & Ahmet Burçin Yereli, 2019. "The effect of innovation on productivity: evidence from Turkish manufacturing firms," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(4), pages 439-460, April.
    13. Aoki, Reiko & 青木, 玲子 & Kao, Tina, 2012. "Protection of basic research and R&D incentives in an international setting," CIS Discussion paper series 563, Center for Intergenerational Studies, Institute of Economic Research, Hitotsubashi University.
    14. Bannò, Mariasole, 2016. "Propensity to patent by family firms," Journal of Family Business Strategy, Elsevier, vol. 7(4), pages 238-248.
    15. Barros, Henrique M., 2021. "Neither at the cutting edge nor in a patent-friendly environment: Appropriating the returns from innovation in a less developed economy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(1).
    16. Phillip McCalman, 2005. "Who enjoys `TRIPs' abroad? An empirical analysis of intellectual property rights in the Uruguay Round," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 38(2), pages 574-603, May.
    17. Brander, James A. & Spencer, Barbara J., 2023. "Intellectual property infringement by foreign firms: Import protection through the ITC or court," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 140(C).
    18. Gao, Wenlian & Chou, Julia, 2015. "Innovation efficiency, global diversification, and firm value," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 30(C), pages 278-298.
    19. Olena Ivus & Walter Park & Kamal Saggi, 2016. "Intellectual Property Protection And The Industrial Composition Of Multinational Activity," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 54(2), pages 1068-1085, April.
    20. Emmanuel Dechenaux & Brent Goldfarb & Scott Shane & Marie Thursby, 2008. "Appropriability and Commercialization: Evidence from MIT Inventions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(5), pages 893-906, May.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Appropriability regime; policy network; institutional voids; Intellectual property right harmonization;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • F42 - International Economics - - Macroeconomic Aspects of International Trade and Finance - - - International Policy Coordination and Transmission
    • F63 - International Economics - - Economic Impacts of Globalization - - - Economic Development
    • H11 - Public Economics - - Structure and Scope of Government - - - Structure and Scope of Government

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:sek:ibmpro:2303747. 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: Klara Cermakova (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://iises.net/ .

    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.