(18.204.2.190) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/04/22 08:54
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果

詳目顯示:::

我願授權國圖
: 
twitterline
研究生:朱真慧
研究生(外文):Chen-Hui Chu
論文名稱:海外專利活動與政治民主化:跨國資料之研究
論文名稱(外文):Patenting Abroad Activities and Democracy: Cross-Country Comparing Studing
指導教授:郭迺鋒郭迺鋒引用關係楊浩彥楊浩彥引用關係
指導教授(外文):Prof. Nai-Fong Kuo Ph.D.Prof. Hao-Yen Yang Ph.D.
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:世新大學
系所名稱:經濟學系
學門:社會及行為科學學門
學類:經濟學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2004
畢業學年度:92
語文別:中文
論文頁數:102
中文關鍵詞:專利民主化引力模型可數追蹤資料負二項模型
外文關鍵詞:PatentDemocracyGravity ModelCount panel dataNegative Binomial Regression Model
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:5
  • 點閱點閱:127
  • 評分評分:系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔
  • 下載下載:33
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:9
1996年經濟合作發展組織(OECD)的報告中強調,以知識為基礎的新經濟已經來臨,全球在後冷戰時期傳統政治與軍事的對抗已轉為包含政治力、國防力、外交力、資源力、文教力、經濟力、科技力等綜合國力的全面競爭。而隨著全球化進行,國際間經貿往來日趨頻繁且競爭,市場開放的需求不斷增強,開放程度的加深,使得世界各國對自由化之規範,也從貿易領域不斷延伸,舉凡與貿易有關之措施,如非關稅之貿易障礙、投資及智慧財產權等等,都成為各國希望能透過協商來達成進入全球市場的目的。早期在GATT架構之下推動全球貿易自由化(現改為WTO),而烏拉圭回合談判則歷經九年才完成(1986年∼1994年),在全球經濟已從工業經濟時代邁向知識經濟時代,其中最重要的共識在於智慧財產權保護的議題。
本研究對於代表著創新技術的產出指標之一的「專利」分成二大部份討論,首先透過世界智慧財產權組織(WIPO)總體統計資料分析發現,隨著全球貿易的深化,全球跨國專利申請活動有逐步攀升趨勢。再來就跨國專利活動的分析分成三部份討論,選定30個樣本國,資料期間為1994-1998年,分析結果:(1)在專利的通過佔申請比率上,跨國專利的通過佔申請比率有逐年下滑趨勢,探究原因在於各國的跨國海外專利件數上升但對於通過件數則無法同步上升,導致全球跨國海外專利的通過佔申請比率下滑。(2)在跨國海外專利申請及通過擴散依賴比率上,美、日、德、法在專利申請及通過上皆具有擴散效果,西班牙、葡萄牙、希臘、盧森堡、墨西哥、波蘭及土耳其則具有依賴效果。(3)最後相對於實體貿易商品而言的非實體商品─「專利」,在兩相對國家之間的專利與商品貿易交流有著相似性,故採用在進出口貿易研究中,衡量兩國貿易潛力大小的ESI指標,將跨國專利及出口貿易做比較。結果發現在歐盟國家的相似度最為顯著。
另外從POLITY Ⅳ資料庫分析,在蘇聯強權解體的後冷戰時期,民主體制亦逐步獲得多數國家認同。在2000年民主化程度的平均分數已超過3分以上。而結合上述兩個資料庫發現,在跨國海外專利之申請或通過全球分佈比重多集中於民主體制國家,約有45%的跨國專利申請比率集中在完全民主化(10分)的國家中;獨裁極權國家(0~-10分)則只佔18%。似乎來源國的跨國專利申請活動有趨向民主化國家的申請傾向。
在實證模型的研究,以1994-1998年全球30個國家矩陣的資料,來探討影響兩相對國間專利申請件數的因素。並依據Eaton and Kortum(1996)及Kortum and Lerner(1997)的延伸「引力模型」為基礎,估計方法採用可數追蹤資料(count panel data)的負二項(Negative Binomial)模型分析兩相對國的民主化程度對於兩相對國間專利申請件數的影響,其控制變數包括:經濟面因素(兩國市場大小、雙邊貿易流量、外資、研發支出)、制度面因素(人力資本、財產權保護程度)及兩相對國地理距離等因素。
實證結果發現:(1)兩國的民主化程度愈高則相對於兩相對國間專利申請件數愈高。(2)兩國間研發支出的強度對於兩相對國間專利申請件數有顯著正向影響。(3)就到達國的財產權保護程度而言,若保護程度愈強則對於來源國的專利申請件數愈多。
As the result of the rapid globalization、international trading has becoming more frequent and competitive, accompanied by the constant increase of market demands. This economical trend has spurred the worldwide liberalization in many aspects of the financial and trade field, such as the non-tariff-trade issues、investment opportunities and intellectual proprietary. In turn, these key issues become important doorways for countries to enter the global market. Even with the assistance of the GATT framework, it still took Uruguay Round Negotiation nine years to complete its initiatives in globalizing trade. Today''s global economy has transformed from its original industrial form to the new knowledge-driven entity and the most common understanding lies within the area of intellectual proprietary.
A research conducted based on the real example has probed into the influence factor of application for patent between two relative countries by using 30 pieces of national matrix in the world in 1994 — 1998. And according to the research model of and Kortum of Eaton( 1996) and Kortum and Lerner( 1997), it is estimated that the method is adopted and followed the trail of the materials of two defeats that are “count panel data” and “Negative Binomial Regression Model”. The model is analyzed how much degree the democratization of the countries to the influence of the number of packages of application for patent between two relative countries. Its control variables include:the economic factors (economic size、volume of trade、Foreign Direct Investment(FDI) and R&D expenditures) and the institution factors ( human capital and intelligently property protect degree) and the distance. The result of real example is as followed: (1) The higher degree the two countries democratize, the more packages of application for patent in two relative countries. (2) The intensive R&D expenditure in two countries has remarkably positive influence in numbers of application for patent. (3) Reaching countries who have stronger degree in intelligently property protect in will have more numbers of application for patent from source countries.
目 錄
第一章 緒論--------------------------------------------------1
第一節 研究動機-----------------------------------------1
第二節 研究目的-----------------------------------------6
第三節 研究架構-----------------------------------------8
第二章 文獻回顧---------------------------------------------10
第一節 專利活動----------------------------------------10
第二節 政治民主化------------------------------------------20
第三節 引力模型--------------------------------------------24
第三章 資料整理與分析---------------------------------------29
第一節 專利活動趨勢------------------------------------29
第二節 跨國海外專利活動------------------------------------33
第三節 政治民主化趨勢--------------------------------------55
第四節 小結------------------------------------------------62
第四章 實證模型---------------------------------------------64
第一節 可數追蹤資料模型--------------------------------65
第二節 研究假說、實證模型及變數定義--------------------69
第三節 資料來源及變數整理------------------------------76
第五章 實證結果及分析--------------------------------------82
第六章 結論------------------------------------------------89
第一節 結論--------------------------------------------89
第二節 研究限制與未來方向------------------------------90
參考文獻-----------------------------------------------------91
附錄---------------------------------------------------------95
參考文獻
林惠玲、李顯峰. 1996. “臺灣專利權數與R&D支出關係之研究─非負整計量模型之應用.” 經濟論文. 24:2. P.273-301.
楊志海、陳忠榮. 2001. “研究發展、技術引進與專利─一般動差法於可數追蹤資料的應用.” 經濟論文叢刊. 29:1. P.69-87.
楊志海、陳忠榮. 2002. “研究發展、專利與生產力─台灣製造業的實證研究.” 經濟論文叢刊. 30:1. P.27-48.
杜巧霞. 1993. “海外華人在臺灣經濟發展中的角色與前瞻.”華商經濟文獻. 93-13.
黃登興、徐茂炫. 1997. “殖民關係與貿易型態在台灣日據時期的驗證.”經濟論文叢刊. 25:3. P.369-399.
李紀珠、林 靖. 2001. “從歐盟整合經驗看歐盟及大中華經濟體雙邊貿易之特徵.”國政研究報告. 財金(研)090-068號.
郭錦婷. 1999.「引力模型」應用在雙邊貿易之分析─以亞太國家為例. 政治大學.
鄒燦凱. 2003. 專利制度變動與廠商專利行為─新竹科學園區廠商實證研究. 淡江大學.
李洋寧. 2003. 知識可及性對創新的影響─以台灣北部區域電子產業為例. 交通大學.
張淑卿. 2003. 國際知識擴散之分析:電子業專利引證資料之應用. 台灣大學.
李謙儀. 2002. 外來投資對台灣製造業波及效果之研究. 台灣大學.
薛勝斌. 2003. 基金持股影響因素之探討─可數追蹤資料模型之分析. 南華大學.
黎晉禎. 2002. 蒙古民主化進程之研究. 文化大學.
Archambault, E. 2001. “Methods of Using Patents in Cross-Country Comparisons.” Observatoire des sciences et des technologies. http://www.ost.qc.ca
Barro, R. J. 2002. “Quantity and Quality of Economic Growth.” Central Bank of Chile Working Paper. No.168.
Barro, R. J. 1994. “Democracy and Gorwth.” NBER Working Paper. No.4909.
Bernstein, J. and Mohnen, P. 1998. “International R&D spillover between U.S. and Japanese R&D intensive sectors.” Journal of International Economics. Vol.44. p.315-338.
Bluedorn, J. C. 2000. “Can Democracy Help? Growth and Ethnic Divisions.” Economics Letter. Vol.70. p.121-126.
Cerovic, B. and Nojkovic, A. 2002. “Patterns of Globalisation: EU and Transition Economies.” 7th EACES Conference: Globalisation and Economic Governance.
Coe, D. T. and Helpman, E. 1993. “International R&D Spillovers.” CEPR Discussion Papers. 840.
Dahl, M. S. 2001. “Geographic Clustering and The Innovative Activities of Firms: Patenting in Danish Firms and Regions.” Eindhoven Centre for Innovation Studies. The Future of Innovation Studies.
Dee, P. and Gali, J. 2003. “The Trade and Investment Effects of Preferential trading and Arrangements.” NBER Working Paper. No.10160.
Eaton, J. and Kortum, S. 1994. “International Patenting and Technology Diffusion.” NBER Working Paper. No.4931.
Frankel, J. Stein, E. and Wei, S. J. 1995. “Trading Blocs and the Americas: The Natural, the unnatural, and the Super-Natural.” Journal of Development Economics. Vol. 47. P.61-95.
Gleditsch, K. S. and Ward, M. D. 2003. “Diffusion and The International Context of Democratization.” http://weber.ucsd.edu/~kgledits/projects.html.
Gleditsch, K. S. and Cederman L. E. 2002. “Conquest and Regime Change An Evolutionary Model of the Spread of Democracy and Peace.” United Nations Studies of Yale.
http://www.yale.edu/unsy/Curiel_Conference_Papers.htm.
Gleditsch, K. S. 1999. “International Dimensions of Democratization.” The Annual Meeting of the Peace Science Society.
http://weber.ucsd.edu/~kgledits/projects.html.
Gounder, R. 1999. “How Important is Democracy and Economic Freedom for Growth?: Empirical Results form Fiji.” Department of Applied & International Economics Publications. 99.15. Massey University.
Guellec, D. and Potterie, B. van Pottelsberghe de la. 2001. “The Internationalisation of Technology Analysis with Patent Data.” Research Policy. 30: 1253-1266.
Hall, H. B. and Ziedonis, H. R. 2001. “The Patent Paradox Revisitec: and Empirical Study of Patenting in the U.S. Semiconductor Industry, 1979-1995.”RAND Journal of Economics. Vol. 32. No.1. P.101-128.
Helliwell, J. F. 1992. “Empirical Linkages between Democracy and Economic Growth.” NBER Working Paper. No.4066.
Hu, A. G. Z. and Jaffe, A. B. 2001. “Patent Citations and International Knowledge Flow: The Cases of Korea and Taiwan.” NBER Working Paper. No.8528.
Kelly, M. 1999. “Marshallian Externalities in Innovation.” Journal of Economic Growth. 4:39-54.
Kelly, W. 1997. “Trade and the Transmission of Technology.” NBER Working Paper. No.6113.
Kim, J. and Marschke, G. 2002. “Accounting for The Recent Surge in U.S. Patenting: Changes in R&D Expenditures, Patent Yields, and The High tech sector.” RePEc:wop:snyaec:02-10.
Kortum, S. and Lerner, J.1997. “Stronger Protection or Technological Revolution: What is Behind the Recent Surge in Patenting.” NBER Working Paper. No.6204.
Love, J. H. 2000. “Technology Sourcing versus Technology Exploitation: an Analysis of US Foreign Direct Investment Flows.” Aston Business School Research Papers. RP0028.
Lundström, S. 2002. “Decomposed Effects of Democracy on Economic Freedom.” Working Paper in Economics. No.74.
Marshall, M.G.. and Gurr, T. R..2003. “Peace and Conflict 2003.” INSCR. http://www.cidcm.umd.edu/inscr/pc03print.pdf.
Mulligan, C. B. and Gil, R. et al. 2003. “Do Democracies have Different Public Policies than Nondemocracies.” NBER Working Paper. No.1004.
Mátyás, L. 1997. “Proper Econometric Specification of the Gravity Model.” The World Economy. Vol.20. p.397-401.
Plasmans, J. and Lukach, R. 2000. “Measuring Knowledge Spillover Using Belgian EPO and USPTO Patent Data.” 7th International Conference: Intellectual Property Econometrice.
Quinn, D. P. and Woolley, J. T. 1996. “Democracy and National Economic Performance: The Search for Stability.” Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association Convention. San Francisco.
www.isr.umich.edu/cps/pewpa/archive/archive_98/19980012.pdf
Rafiquzzaman, M. and Whewell, L. 1998. “Recent Jumps in Patenting Activities: Comparative Innovative Performance of Major Industrial Country, Patterns and Explanations.” Industry Canada Research Publications Program 27.
Rahman, M. M. 2003. “A Panel Data Analysis of Bangladesh's Trade: The Gravity Model Approach.”.
Rauch, J.E. and Trindade, V. 2003. “Ethnic Chinese Networks in International Trade.” The Review of Economics and Statistics. 84(1):116-130.
Rodrik, D. 1997. “Democracy and Economic Performance.”
http://ksghome.harvard.edu/~.drodrik.academic.ksg/demoecon.PDF
Varsakelis, N.C. 2001. “The Impact of Patent Protection, Economy Openness and National Culture on R&D Investment: A Cross-Country Empirical Investigation.” Research Policy. 30. 1059-1068.
Verspagen, B. and Schoenmakers, W. 2000. “The Spatial Dimension of Knowledge Spillover in Europe: Edivence from Firm Patenting Data.” The AEA Conference on Intellectual Property Econometrice. 19-20.
OECD Science, Technology and Industry Scoreboard 2003.
The Polity Ⅳ Country Report 2000 Series.
WIPO. 2001. World Intellectual Property Organization.
http://www.wipo.org.
Polity IV Project. 2000. Political Regime Characteristics and Transition, 1800-2000.Electronic data file(version p4v2000). College Park, MD: CIDCM, University of Maryland, 2000.
http://www.bsos.umd.edu/cidcm/inscr/polity.
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
系統版面圖檔 系統版面圖檔