|
|
|
| Specialization of Intellectual Property Adjudication and Enterprises Innovation：Based on the Theory of Institution Qualitative Change |
| Li Li1,Su Ziqi1,Lyu Chen2 |
| （1.School of Business, Nankai University, Tianjin 300071, China；2.School of Economics and Management, Tianjin Chengjian University, Tianjin 300384, China） |
|
|
|
|
Abstract It is believed that enterprise innovation is inseparable from institution support. However, the existing research on institution and enterprise innovation is mainly based on the organizational legitimacy theory, by which enterprises cannot figure out the influence mechanism of the institution on enterprise innovation in the dynamic institution change environment. We attempt to introduce North's theory of institutional change, through finding the matching point between institutional demand and institutional supply to analyze the motivation and mechanism that institutional change affects enterprise innovation. In the national institutional supply, the intellectual property right protection institution is the most closely related to enterprise innovation. We find it necessary to further explore the institutional change motivation behind the reform of the intellectual property right protection institution after analyzing how intellectual property right protection affects enterprise innovation, and choose the intellectual property court as the focal point of the change of the intellectual property right protection institution. North's theory of institutional change describes that the institutional qualitative change is a sudden form of institutional change, and it is the key leap from quantitative change to qualitative change. It is difficult for institutional qualitative change to occur autonomously, and requires the combined action of greater internal and external pressures. An effective institutional qualitative change can not only effectively deal with the impact of external pressures, it should also meet the demands of internal institutional change. Intellectual property courts are fully in line with these two requirements. The specialization of intellectual property adjudication focuses on addressing institutional problems such as inconsistent standards for intellectual property adjudication and complex litigation procedures that restrict enterprise innovation. Therefore, the establishment of the intellectual property court conforms to the internationally accepted experience standards. The precise matching to the institutional needs of China’s legal system is an efficient institutional qualitative change in the process from China’s legal system to the construction of the rule of law. #br#In order to explore the impact of the establishment of intellectual property courts on the innovation performance of enterprises, we take the establishment of three major intellectual property courts in Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzhou as examples to construct a DID model. The data are mainly from the CSMAR, CCER and CNRDS. All A-share listed companies from 2011 to 2017 are selected as research samples. We exclude all sample data in the financial industry and ST and *ST categories with 12 406 observation samples. We firstly take the establishment of the intellectual property court in 2014 as an event impact, and discuss the impact of the specialization of intellectual property adjudication represented by the establishment of the intellectual property court on the innovation performance of enterprises. Then, the methods of replacing the proxy variable of dependent variable, proxy variable of independent variable and empirical regression model are adopted to verify the robustness of the regression results. Subsequently, the parallel trend test, placebo test and dynamic effect test are successively verified. Then the whole sample is divided into state-owned enterprises and private-owned enterprises, high-tech enterprises and non-high-tech enterprises, and the heterogeneity test is carried out, and we also have tested the different influence of the establishment of the three major intellectual property courts in Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzhou on enterprise innovation performance. Finally we further explore the process mechanism of how the intellectual property court establishment affects the enterprise innovation performance.#br#It is found that the establishment of intellectual property courts is a typical institutional qualitative change in institutional change, which has a significant effect on improving the innovation performance of enterprises, especially the quality of enterprises innovation, and it encourages enterprises to engage in more substantive innovation activities. The conclusion still holds robust after a series of robust tests. In the heterogeneity test, it is found that the establishment of the intellectual property court can significantly increase the substantial innovation achievements of private enterprises and high-tech enterprises; in addition, empirical results show that the establishment of the Beijing intellectual property court has a stronger effect on the improvement of enterprise innovation performance. In the mechanism test, it is verified that the financing constraints and enterprises innovation willingness both play the mediating roles in the the relationship between the establishment of the intellectual property court and the enterprises innovation performance. The establishment of intellectual property courts can alleviate enterprise financing constraints, enhance enterprise innovation willingness, and then improve enterprise innovation performance.#br#
|
|
Received: 21 April 2021
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [1] 涂智苹, 宋铁波. 制度理论在经济组织管理研究中的应用综述——基于Web of Science(1996—2015)的文献计量[J]. 经济管理, 2016, 38(10): 184-199.[2] RAWHOUSER H,VILLANUEVA J,NEWBERT S L.Strategies and tools for entrepreneurial resource access: a cross-disciplinary review and typology[J]. International Journal of Management Review, 2017, 19(4): 473-491.[3] MAGUIRE S, HARDY C, LAWRENCE T B. Institutional entrepreneurship in emerging fields: HIV/AIDS treatment advocacy in Canada[J]. Academy of Management Journal, 2004, 47(5): 657-679.[4] SCOTT W R. Institutions and organizations[M]. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1995.[5] 尹志锋, 叶静怡, 黄阳华, 等. 知识产权保护与企业创新: 传导机制及其检验[J]. 世界经济, 2013, 36(12): 111-129.[6] 申长雨. 全面加强我国知识产权保护工作[J]. 知识产权, 2020，14(12): 3-5.[7] 李明德. 关于我国知识产权法院体系建设的几个问题[J]. 知识产权, 2018,14(3): 14-26.[8] NORTH D C. Institutions, transaction costs and economic growth[J]. Economic Inquiry, 1987, 25(7): 1-10.[9] 诺思. 制度、制度变迁与经济绩效[M]. 杭行, 译. 上海: 上海格致出版社, 2014.[10] 庄佳强, 王浩, 张文涛. 强化知识产权司法保护有助于企业创新吗——来自知识产权法院设立的证据[J]. 当代财经, 2020,21(9): 16-27.[11] 杨菲, 史贝贝. 法治建设、知识产权保护与企业创新——基于知识产权法院的效果评估[J]. 东南学术, 2020, 13(6): 140-149.[12] SALA-I-MARTIN, XAVIER X, BARRO R J. Technological diffusion, convergence, and growth[J]. Journal of Economic Growth, 1997, 2(1): 1-26.[13] 郑书前. 知识产权行政和司法保护冲突解决机制研究——以知识产权上诉法院为视角[J]. 电子知识产权, 2007,17(7): 41-43，52.[14] 张德荣. “中等收入陷阱”发生机理与中国经济增长的阶段性动力[J]. 经济研究, 2013, 48(9): 17-29.[15] 龙小宁, 王俊. 中国专利激增的动因及其质量效应[J]. 世界经济, 2015, 38(6): 115-142.[16] 张杰, 高德步, 夏胤磊. 专利能否促进中国经济增长——基于中国专利资助政策视角的一个解释[J]. 中国工业经济, 2016,34(1): 83-98.[17] 毛昊, 尹志锋, 张锦. 策略性专利诉讼模式: 基于非专利实施体多次诉讼的研究[J]. 中国工业经济, 2017,35(2): 136-153.[18] XU C. The fundamental institutions of China's reforms and development[J]. Journal of Economic Literature, 2011, 49(4): 1076-1151.[19] ZHANG Y. A view from behavioral political economy on China's institutional change[J]. China Economic Review, 2012, 23(4): 991-1002.[20] 易继明.我国知识产权司法保护的现状和方向[J].西北大学学报(哲学社会科学版), 2018, 48(5): 50-63.[21] SQUICCIARINI M. Entrepreneurship, innovation and enterprise dynamics[J]. Small Business Economics, 2016, 48(2):1-6.[22] 文家春, 乔永忠, 朱雪忠. 专利侵权诉讼攻防策略研究[J]. 科学学与科学技术管理, 2008, 29(7): 54-58.[23] WANG L. Intellectual property protection in China[J]. The International Information & Library Review, 2004, 36(3): 253-261.[24] BAKER D. Intellectual property in the case-law of the European court[J]. Romanian Journal of Intellectual Property Law, 2011(2): 9-31.[25] OLIVER P, STOTHERS C. Intellectual property under the charter: are the court's scales properly calibrated[J]. Social Science Electronic Publishing, 2017, 54(2):517-565.[26] 裴政, 罗守贵. 人力资本要素与企业创新绩效——基于上海科技企业的实证研究[J]. 研究与发展管理, 2020, 32(4): 136-148.[27] 潘越, 潘健平, 戴亦一. 专利侵权诉讼与企业创新[J]. 金融研究, 2016,59(8): 191-206.[28] 王海成, 吕铁. 知识产权司法保护与企业创新——基于广东省知识产权案件“三审合一”的准自然试验[J]. 管理世界, 2016, 32(10): 118-133.[29] 姚利民, 饶艳. 中国知识产权保护的水平测量和地区差异[J]. 国际贸易问题, 2009,35(1): 114-120.[30] 姜付秀, 石贝贝, 马云飙. 信息发布者的财务经历与企业融资约束[J]. 经济研究, 2016,51(6): 83-97.[31] 马红, 侯贵生. 雾霾污染、地方政府行为与企业创新意愿——基于制造业上市公司的经验数据[J]. 软科学, 2020, 34(2): 27-32. |
|
|
|
