Abstract
This study attempts to expand the work on patenting activities of China. The characteristics of foreign multinationals and indigenous entities’ patenting activities in the US patent system are examined in our analysis. This study also attempts to model the diffusion trajectories of patenting activities that result from the functioning of two competing innovation system models adopted by China-FDI and indigenous—to compare the extent of divergence of technological innovations. The findings are useful for highlighting the path of technological innovations and understanding the dynamic potentials through analysis of the growth process. While the results suggest a dominance of foreign firms in patenting activities since the early 2000s, there is a sign of transition from industrial-based to knowledge-driven activities and the formation of evolving propagating behaviour in the production of indigenous technology.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Economic reforms have moved China towards a more open and market-oriented economy. A highly centralized and hierarchical model of technological systems was systematically dismantled and gradually replaced with a more flexible and bottom-up system (Naughton and Seagal 2003). Heilmann (2008) studied the political and administrative processes that facilitated the bottom-up initiatives for economic development. The Chinese policy experimentation approach has been proven to be highly innovative (even in the context of rigid authoritarian-bureaucratic environment) in exploring policies or institutions to manage the complex challenges of economic change without systemic breakdown.
The Chinese government has gradually reduced their funding of research institutions’ operational costs, pushing them to acquire resources from industries (Xue 1997).
The goal for this intervention was to promote the indigenous technological capabilities in manufacturing industries.
We follow the definition of Chang (2003, p. 113) where industrial policy is defined as “a policy that intended to affect particular industries to achieve outcomes that are perceived by the state to be efficient for the economy as a whole”. “The policy attempts to change the economic structure over and beyond what the market is able to do by inducing the private sector agents into new activities that they do not have interest in entering under free market situation” (Chang 2003, p. 313). State-owned enterprises or government linked companies in South Korea and Taiwan were established to facilitate their economic development in specific sectors (sectors which required huge capital investment and protection such as transportations, utilities and automobile industries).
In this paper, we use foreign multinationals and MNCs interchangeably.
The improvised strategy is viable due to the size and diversity of the country (see Naughton and Seagal 2003).
Evans (1995)’s notion on “embedded autonomy” is useful to understand state-society interaction. He argued that a government not only needs to have roots in the society (embeddedness) but also will and authority (autonomy) to implement development policies in order to be effective in its intervention. State intervention practice is essential to build technology capabilities and competencies, particularly during the infant stage of industrial development. Amsden (1989, 2001) observed that economies that managed to streamline their national institutions to subsidize learning rents to advance the locally-owned productive organizations would stand a higher chance to catch-up successfully with the world frontiers. Feng and Lu (2010) provided some empirical evidence to make a case that Amsden (1989, 2001)’s core idea of development continues to remain relevant.
R&D is a process of learning including collective learning (learning by others), multidisciplinary learning (techno-economic and managerial/organizational learning) and learning which is cumulative through time (see Teubal 1996).
Mature phase emerges when R&D activities are rooted and routinized in an economy.
Perez (2002) demonstrated five series of Kondratieff waves: the industrial revolution (1771), the age of steam and railways (1829), the age of steel, electricity and heavy engineering (1875), the age of oil, automobile and mass production (1908), and the age of information and telecommunications technology (1971).
A value that is selected through least square line and useful for calculating the coefficients of a and b.
Technological innovation denotes the increases in value of technological knowledge.
A utility patent protects the way an invention is used or works. It can be used as a proxy to indicate inventive and innovative activities that lead to new products or processes in the market. On the other hand, a design patent is a proxy to the visual characteristics or aspects displayed by an object thus does not truly represent technological innovations in our view.
References
Amsden, A. (1989). Asia’s next giant: South Korea and late industrialization. New York: Oxford University Press.
Amsden, A. (2001). The rise of the rest: Challenges to the west from late-industrializing economies. New York: Oxford University Press.
Amsden, A., Liu, D., & Zhang, X. (1996). China’s macro economy, environment, and alternative transition model. World Development, 24(2), 273–286.
Archibugi, D., & Pietrobelli, C. (2003). The globalisation of technology and its implications for developing countries, windows of opportunity or further burden? Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 70(9), 861–883.
Bengisu, M., & Nekhili, R. (2005). Forecasting emerging technologies with the aid of science and technology databases. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 73(7), 835–844.
Bhattacharya, S. (2004). Mapping inventive activity and technological change through patent analysis: A case study of India and China. Scientometrics, 61(3), 361–381.
Chang, H.-J. (2003). Globalisation, economic development and the role of the state. London: Zed.
Dachs, B., Mahlich, J. C., & Zahradnik, G. (2007). The technological competencies of Korea’s firms: A patent analysis. In J. Mahlich & W. Pascha (Eds.), Innovation and technology in Korea (pp. 127–146). New York: Physica-Verlag.
Devezas, T. C., Linstone, H. A., & Santos, H. J. S. (2005). The growth dynamics of the internet and the long wave theory. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 72(8), 913–935.
Edgerton, D. (2007). The contradictions of techno-nationalism and techno-globalism: A historical perspective. New Global Studies, 1(1), 1–32.
Evans, P. (1995). Embedded autonomy—states and industrial transformation. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Fai, F. M. (2005). Using intellectual property data to analyse China’s growing technology capabilities. World Patent Information, 27(1), 49–61.
Feng, K., & Lu, F. (2010). Cognition, learning and capability building: A trilogy of Chinese indigenous telecom-equipment industry. Kuala Lumpur: Presented at 8th globelics international conference, 1–3 Nov 2010.
Gallagher, K. P., & Shafaeddin, M. (2010). Policies for industrial learning in China and Mexico. Technology in Society, 32(2), 81–99.
Grubler, A., Nakicenovic, N., & Victor, D. G. (1999). Dynamics of energy technologies and global change. Energy Policy, 27(5), 247–280.
Grupp, H. (1994). The dynamics of science-based innovation reconsidered: Cognitive models and statistical findings. In O. Granstrand (Ed.), Economics of technology (pp. 223–251). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Grupp, H. (1996). Spillover effects and the science-based of innovations reconsidered: An empirical approach. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 6(2), 175–197.
Grupp, H. (1998). Foundations of economics of innovation: Theory, measurement and practice. Northampton: Edward Elgar.
Gu, S. (1999). China’s industrial technology: Market reform and organizational change. London: Routledge and the UNU Press.
Gu, S., & Lundvall, B.-A. (2006). Policy learning as a key process in the transformation of the Chinese innovation systems. In B.-A. Lundvall, P. Intarakumnerd, & J. Vang (Eds.), Asia’s innovation systems in transition (pp. 293–312). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Heilmann, S. (2008). Policy experimentation in China’s economic rise. Studies in Comparative International Development, 43(1), 1–26.
Hu, M.-C., & Mathews, J. A. (2008). China’s national innovative capacity. Research Policy, 37(9), 1465–1479.
Jian, S. (2008). Awakening: Evolution of China’s science and technology policy. Technology in Society, 30(3), 235–241.
Kondo, M. (1990). Japanese R&D in robotics and genetic engineering. In J. Sigurdson (Ed.), Measuring the dynamics of technological change (pp. 130–145). London: Pinter.
Kostoff, R., Briggs, M. B., Rushenberg, R. L., Bowles, C. A., Pecht, M., Johnson, D., et al. (2007). Comparisons of the structure and infrastructure of Chinese and Indian science and technology. Technology Forecasting and Social Change, 74(9), 1609–1630.
Kumaresan, N., & Miyazaki, K. (1999). An integrated network approach to systems of innovation: The case of robotics in Japan. Research Policy, 28(6), 563–585.
Mahmood, I. P., & Singh, J. (2003). Technological dynamism in Asia. Research Policy, 32(2003), 1031–1054.
Mathews, J. H. (1992). Bounded population growth: A curve fitting lesson. Mathematics and Computer Education, 26(2), 169–176.
Mathews, J., & Hu, M.-C. (2007). Universities and public research institutions as driver of economic development in Asia. In S. Yusuf & K. Nabeshima (Eds.), How universities promote economic growth (pp. 91–109). Washington, DC: The World Bank.
Motohashi, K., & Yun, X. (2007). China’s innovation system reform and growing industry and science linkages. Research Policy, 36(8), 1251–1260.
Narula, R., & Wakelin, K. (1998). Technological competitiveness, trade and foreign direct investment. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 9(3), 373–387.
Naughton, B., & Seagal, A. (2003). China in search of a workable model, technology development in the new millennium. In W. W. Keller & R. J. Samuels (Eds.), Crisis and innovation in Asian technology (pp. 160–186). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Patel, P., & Vega, M. (1999). Patterns of internationalisation of corporate technology: Location vs. home country advantages. Research Policy, 28(2/3), 145–155.
Pavitt, K. (1984). Sectoral patterns of technical change: Towards a taxonomy and a theory. Research Policy, 13(6), 343–373.
Pavitt, K. (1985). Patent statistics as indicators of innovative activities: Possibilities and problems. Scientometrics, 7(1–2), 77–99.
Perez, C. (2002). Technological revolutions and financial capital: The dynamics of bubbles and golden ages. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: The Free Press.
Schmoch, U. (1997). Indicators and the relations between science and technology. Scientometrics, 38(1), 103–116.
Sharif, N., & Huang, C. (2012). Innovation strategy, firm survival and relocation: The case of Hong Kong-owned manufacturing in Guangdong province, China. Research Policy, 41(2012), 69–78.
Stankiewics, R. (1992). Technology as an autonomous, socio-cognitive system. In H. Grupp (Ed.), Dynamics of science based innovation (pp. 19–44). Berlin: Springer.
Szporluk, R. (1988). Communism and nationalism: Karl Marx versus Friedrich List. New York: Oxford University Press.
Tang, M., & Hussler, C. (2011). Betting on indigenous innovation or relying on FDI: The Chinese strategy for catching-up. Technology in Society, 33(1–2), 23–35.
Teubal, M. (1996). R&D and technology policy in NICs as learning processes. World Development, 24(3), 449–460.
Wang, J.-H., & Tsai, C.-J. (2010). National model of technological catching up and innovation: Comparing patents of Taiwan and South Korea. Journal of Development Studies, 46(8), 1404–1423.
Wong, C.-Y., & Goh, K.-L. (2010). Modeling the behaviour of science and technology: Self-propagating growth in the diffusion process. Scientometrics, 84(3), 669–686.
Xue, L. (1997). A historical perspective of China’s innovation system reform: A case study. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 14(1), 67–81.
Xue, L., & Liang, Z. (2010). Relationships between IPR and technology catch-up: Some evidence from China. In H. Odagiri, A. Goto, A. Sunami, & R. R. Nelson (Eds.), Intellectual property rights, development, and catch-up (pp. 317–360). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Zhao, W., Watanabe, C., & Brown, C. G. (2009). Competitive advantage in an industry cluster: The case of Dalian software park in China. Technology in Society, 31(2), 139–149.
Zhou, P., & Leydesdorff, L. (2006). The emergence of China as a leading nation in science. Research Policy, 35(1), 83–104.
Zhou, E.-Y., & Stembridge, B. (2008). Patented in China: The present and future state of innovation in China. United States: Thomson Reuters.
Zhu, B., Asgari, B., & Watanabe, C. (2002). Comparative analysis of institutional elasticity on the effect of energy technology policy: Comparison of diffusion trajectory of PV technology in Japan, the USA and Europe. Taipei: Paper presented at the 5th annual conference on global economic analysis, 5–7 June 2002.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Wong, CY., Yap, XS. Mapping technological innovations through patent analysis: a case study of foreign multinationals and indigenous firms in China. Scientometrics 91, 773–787 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0595-3
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0595-3