发展中国家知识产权保护与创新研究进展

发展中国家知识产权保护强度的增加对其创新能力的影响效应，引起了广泛的研究兴趣与争议。本文从发展中国家知识产权保护与创新关系研究、发展中国家知识产权保护对创新作用机制研究、知识产权创新激励效应的产业差异研究、发展中国家知识产权保护测度研究等方面对近期国内外相关文献进行了评述，并提出未来可能的研究选题方向。

A research on the progress of intellectual property rights protection and innovation in developing countries#br#

 In the past decades, widespread interest and disputes have centered around the effects of enhanced intellectual property rights (IPRs) protection on innovative capacity in developing countries. This paper begins with three theories addressing the relationship between IPRs protection and innovation in developing countries. The negative relationship theory concludes that tighter IPRs only strengthen the monopoly power of large corporations in developed countries, to the detriment of the growth of developing countries. The theory, based on endogenous growth models, assumes that innovation takes place in the North from which the South imitates. It reasons that tighter IPRs move the term of trade against the South, and that the consequent rate of innovation from the South, if responsive to this policy, would rise initially followed by decline that eventually overrides the initial rise. In Contrary, the positive relationship theory states that tighter IPRs encourage innovation from which all regions benefit. It presumes that the South can innovate based on its own technological needs and technology spillovers. As a result, lax IPRs protection reduces innovative efforts in developed countries, and subsequently hurts all countries participating in the global trade system. In this regard, tighter intellectual property rights protection would benefit the South. Lastly, the inverted–U relationship theory suggests that the relationship between intellectual property protection and innovation is inverted-U-shaped. Such relationship emerges from an interaction between learning-driven and R&D-driven technological advances, which assumes that innovation requires the input of knowledge (i.e. the accumulation of prior innovations), and that the protection of IPRs has two effects on innovation: (1) promoting innovation by inhibiting imitation and increasing profits available to innovators; (2) hampering innovation by making the process of knowledge accumulation more difficult. These two opposite effects result in a nonlinear relationship between IPRs protection and technological innovation.Based on the recent studies home and abroad concerning the relationship between IPRs protection and innovation in developing countries, this paper extracts three prevalent issues to address: measurement of IPRs protection, mechanism of the impact of IPRs protection on innovation efficiency in developing countries, and industrial differentiation of IPRs protection effects. The conclusions are summarized as follows: (1) The three theories lay the theoretical groundwork for the relationship between IPRs protection and innovation in developing countries, which provide a helpful understanding of the impact of IPRs protection on innovation in developing countries and its internal evolution based on different assumptions and models. The theoretical model with more factors considered better approximates the real world scenario. However, most theoretical assumptions are flawed. (2) The measurement of the level of IPRs protection is the basis for empirical study in this domain. At present, G & P index, IPRI index, GIPC index, WEF index, IMD index are available for such measurement. However, these indexes do not distinguish developed countries from developing countries; moreover, most domestic research on the revised G & P index only targets patent indicators, excluding trademarks, copyrights, trade secrets and other intellectual property rights. (3) The mechanism of IPRs protection on innovation in developing countries has been studied from different perspectives. From a macro perspective, research efforts are devoted to cross-country comparison and regional analysis of the incentive effect of IPRs protection on innovation; from a meso perspective, much work explores the industrial differentiation of the IPRs incentive effect; from a micro perspective, painstaking investigation is directed toward the corporate behavior of IPRs-motivated innovation. Currently, the domestic research focuses on regional analysis at the macro level, while meso level industry analysis and the micro level enterprise research are relatively inadequate.This paper finally discusses the following areas for future research: (1)The impact of IPRs protection on independent innovative capacity of developing countries. Prior studies focus on the impact of IPRs protection in developing countries on the North-to-South technology transfer channels. In the hypotheses regarding innovation-generating countries, it is generally assumed that southern countries do not innovate but imitate or that the nature of innovation is cumulative. As stated above, both assumptions are flawed. Nowadays, with the country vigorously advocating independent and disruptive innovation, it is imperative to conduct research on the impact of IPRs protection on the independent innovative capacity of developing countries.(2)The IPRs protection measurement tailor-made for developing countries. The G & P index is commonly used worldwide to measure the level of IPRs protection in various countries, but it is not suitable for countries with transitional judicial systems. At present, there is no authoritative IPRs protection index system for developing countries, and most of the current IPRs protection measurements only consider patent protection, and rarely involve trademarks and copyrights. The importance of trademarks and copyrights in economic development cannot be ignored, and more attention is urgently needed for this area. (3)The mechanism of the impact of IPRs protection on firms′ innovation efficiency in developing countries. The domestic literature mainly deals with IPRs protection and innovation in developing countries from macro-national and meso-industrial levels but lacks a micro-enterprise level analysis. Theoretical research is built on western analytical frameworks, and most empirical research employs panel data, which provides relatively simple and crude explanation. It is essential to construct theoretical research framework that embraces the characteristics of developing countries and the Southern innovation, and focus on the IPRs practices of enterprises in developing countries to conduct large-scale, in-depth and detailed enterprise-level research. (4)The industrial differentiation of IPRs incentive effects in developing countries. Different industries in developing countries have different sensitivity to IPRs incentive effects, and different levels of IPRs protection should be imposed according to different industrial traits. Currently, in terms of the mechanism of IPRs incentive effects on innovation, different channels such as domestic R&D, import and FDI have been considered, but most of them are cross-border analysis, and the industry-differentiated research is insufficient. There is also inadequacy in unified and thorough analytical framework for analyzing industrial differentiation of IPRs incentive effects. The industrial characteristic factors that restrict IPRs innovation incentive effects and their downstream mechanisms need to be further explored. (5)The subject-oriented IPRs policy research for developing countries. Nowadays, developing countries are confronted with increasing pressure from developed countries to strengthen IPRs protection. Issues of how IPRs policies respond to those challenges and what innovative efficiency shifts will result from policy adjustments are of great concern to policy makers. Enterprises, universities, and research institutions are the subjects of IPRs policy, and research on IPRs policy cannot be isolated from those subjects. Therefore,it is of great theoretical and practical value to clarify the relationship between IPRs protection and innovation in developing countries, and track the evolution of incentive effects brought by IPRs policy reforms from perspectives of different innovation subjects, thereby providing scientific reference for IPRs policy-making.