Skip to main content
×
Home
    • Aa
    • Aa

History and the Debate Over Intellectual Property

  • Mike W. Peng (a1), David Ahlstrom (a2), Shawn M. Carraher (a1) and Weilei (Stone) Shi (a3)
Abstract
ABSTRACT

This article responds to recent calls for organizational research to address larger, more globally relevant questions and to pay attention to history, by analyzing the crucial debate over intellectual property rights (IPR) between the United States and China. Despite the recent US position, the United States has not always been a leading IPR advocate. Rather, it was a leading IPR violator during the nineteenth century. An institution-based view of IPR history suggests that both the US refusal to protect foreign IPR in the nineteenth century and the current Chinese lack of enthusiasm to meet US IPR demands represent rational choices. However, as cost-benefit considerations change institutional transitions are possible. We predict that to the same extent the United States voluntarily agreed to strengthen IPR protection when its economy became sufficiently innovation-driven, China will similarly improve its IPR protection.

摘要:

本文通过分析美国和中国之间关于知识产权 (IPR) 至关重要的辩论, 回应最近对组织研究以解决更大的在全球范围更相关的问题的和注重历史的呼吁。尽管近期的美国立场, 美国并不一直是领先的知识产权倡导者。相反, 在十九世纪它是一个领先的知识产权违规者。知识产权历史的制度基础观认为, 美国在十九世纪对保护外国IPR的拒绝和当前中国缺乏满足美国对IPR要求的热情体现了理性选择。然而, 由于成本效益分析的演化, 制度交易是可能的。我们预测, 与美国在其经济充分成为创新驱动时自愿同意加强IPR保护的程度一样, 中国将类似地改进其IPR保护。

यह शोध पत्र अंतर्राष्ट्रीय स्तर पर प्रासंगिक प्रश्नों के संगठनीय शोध में ध्यान देने व ऐतिहासिक परिप्रेक्ष्य लेने के अभिनव आह्वान के तहत चीन व अमरीका (यू. एस. ए.) के बीच महत्वपूर्ण बौद्धिक सम्पदा संरक्षण सम्बन्धी विवादों का विश्लेषण करता है. अपने वर्तमान दृष्टिकोण के बावजूद अमरीका सदैव बौद्धिक सम्पदा संरक्षण पर अग्रणी व्याख्याता नहीं था. इसके विपरीत 19 वीं शताब्दी में अमरीका बौद्धिक सम्पदा अधिकारों का उल्लंघन करने में अग्रणी था. संस्थागत परिप्रेक्ष्य में 19 वीं शताब्दी में बौद्धिक सम्पदा अधिकार बचने से इनकार और सम्प्रति चीन की अमरीकी बौद्धिक सम्पदा अधिकार बचानी में उत्साह की कमी-दोनों हे अपने सन्दर्भ में तर्कसंगत हैं. फिर भी जैसे-जैसे लागत-लाभ विश्लेषण विकसित होता है, संस्थागत परिवर्तन संभव है. हमारा अनुमान है की जिस स्तर तक अर्थव्यवस्था के नवरचनापरक होने पर जिस प्रकार अमरीका स्वेच्छा से बौद्धिक सम्पदा अधिकार लागू करने को राज़ी हुआ, उसी तरह चीन भी अपना बौद्धिक सम्पदा संरक्षण अधिकार मजबूत करेगा.

Sumário:

Este artigo responde aos recentes apelos à investigação organizacional para abordar questões mais amplas e globalmente relevantes e prestar atenção à história, analisando o debate crucial sobre os direitos de propriedade intelectual (IPR) entre os Estados Unidos e a China. Apesar da posição recente dos Estados Unidos, os Estados Unidos nem sempre foram um dos principais defensores dos IPR. Em vez disso, foram um dos principais violadores de IPR durante o século XIX. Uma visão baseada em instituições da história dos IPR sugere que tanto a recusa dos EUA em proteger os direitos de propriedade intelectual estrangeiros no século XIX como a atual falta de entusiasmo dos chineses para atender às demandas de IPR dos EUA representam escolhas racionais. No entanto, à medida que a análise custo-benefício evolui, transições institucionais são possíveis. Predizemos que, na mesma medida em que os Estados Unidos voluntariamente concordaram em reforçar a proteção dos IPR quando sua economia se tornou suficientemente inovadora, a China também melhorará sua proteção aos IPR.

АННОТАЦИЯ:

Данная статья отвечает на недавние отклики в научной литературе, которые призывают к решению более крупных и глобально значимых вопросов, а именно обратиться к истории и проанализировать важные дебаты по поводу прав интеллектуальной собственности (ПИС) между Соединенными Штатами и Китаем. Несмотря на современную позицию США, Соединенные Штаты не всегда были главным поборником прав интеллектуальной собственности. Напротив, они были главным нарушителем прав интеллектуальной собственности в девятнадцатом веке. С точки зрения институциональной теории, история прав интеллектуальной собственности предполагает, что отказ США от защиты иностранных прав интеллектуальной собственности в девятнадцатом веке и отсутствие энтузиазма у современного Китая удовлетворить требования США в отношении ПИС представляют теорию рационального выбора. Однако, согласно анализу эффективности затрат, институциональные переходы возможны. Мы прогнозируем, что в той же степени, как и Соединенные Штаты добровольно согласились укрепить защиту прав интеллектуальной собственности, когда их экономика стала достаточно инновационной, также и Китай будет стремиться к защите прав интеллектуальной собственности.

RESUMEN:

Este artículo responde a los recientes llamados por investigación organizacional para abordar cuestiones más amplias y relevantes a nivel mundial y prestar atención a la historia, analizando el debate fundamental sobre los derechos de propiedad intelectual (DPI) entre los Estados Unidos y China. Pese a la reciente posición estadounidense, Estados Unidos no siempre ha sido un defensor líder de los DPI. En cambio, ha sido un líder violando los DPI durante el siglo XIX. Una perspectiva basada en instituciones de la historia de los DPI sugiere que tanto la negativa de los Estados Unidos para proteger las demandas de los DPI extranjeros en el siglo XIX como la falta actual de entusiasmo de China para acatar las demandas de DPI de los Estados Unidos representa opciones racionales. Sin embargo, a medida que el análisis de costo-beneficio evoluciona, las transiciones institucionales son posible. Predecimos que en la misma medida en que los Estados Unidos acordaron voluntariamente fortalecer la protección de los DPI cuando su economía se volviera suficientemente impulsada por la innovación, China similarmente va a mejorar su protección de los DPI.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      History and the Debate Over Intellectual Property
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      History and the Debate Over Intellectual Property
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      History and the Debate Over Intellectual Property
      Available formats
      ×
Copyright
Linked references
Hide All

This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.

D. Ahlstrom , G. D. Bruton , & K. S. Yeh 2007. Venture capital in China: Past, present, and future. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 24 (3): 247268.

D. Ahlstrom , D. Lamond , & Z. Ding 2009. Reexamining some management lessons from military history. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 26 (4): 617642.

D. Ahlstrom , & L. C. Wang 2009. Groupthink and France's defeat in the 1940 campaign. Journal of Management History, 15(2): 159--177.

G. Ahuja , & S. Yayavaram 2011. Explaining influence rents: The case for an institution-based view of strategy. Organization Science, 22 (6): 1631–1652.

S. R. Barley 2016. Ruminations on how we became a mystery house and how we might get out. Administrative Science Quarterly, 61: 18.

P. Boeing , E. Mueller , & P. Sander 2016. China's R&D explosion: Analyzing productivity effects across ownership types and over time. Research Policy, 45 (1): 159176.

G. D. Bruton , & D. Ahlstrom 2003. An institutional view of China's venture capital industry: Explaining the differences between China and the West. Journal of Business Venturing, 18 (2): 233259.

C. Cao , N. Li , X. Li , & L. Liu 2013. Reforming China's S&T system. Science, 341 (August 2): 460462.

P. E. Chaudhry , & A. Zimmerman 2009. The economics of counterfeit trade. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.

M. L. Cheng , & C. Huang 2016. Transforming China's IP system to stimulate innovation. In A. Y. Lewin , M. Kenney & J. P. Murmann (Eds.), China's innovation challenge: Overcoming the middle-income trap: 152188. New York: Cambridge University Press.

G. F. Davis 2015. What is organizational research for? Administrative Science Quarterly, 60 (2): 179188.

P. J. DiMaggio , & W. W. Powell 1983. The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48 (2): 147160.

W. A. Friedman , & G. Jones 2011. Business history: Time for debate. Business History Review, 85 (1): 18.

J. S. Gordon 2005. Empire of wealth: The epic history of American economic power. New York: Harper Perennial.

A. Greif , & D. Laitin 2004. A theory of endogenous institutional change. American Political Science Review, 98 (4): 633652.

P. A. Hall , & R. Taylor 1996. Political science and the three new institutionalisms. Political Studies, 44: 936957.

C. W. L. Hill 2007. Digital piracy: Causes, consequences, and strategic responses. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 24 (1): 925.

G. Hofstede 2007. Asian management in the 21st century. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 24 (4): 411420.

A. Howell 2015. Indigenous innovation with heterogeneous risk and new firm survival in a transitioning Chinese economy. Research Policy, 44 (10): 18661876.

M.-C. Hu , & J. A. Mathews 2008. China's national innovation capacity. Research Policy, 37 (9): 14651479.

P. Ingram , & B. Silverman 2002. Introduction. In P. Ingram & B. Silverman (Eds.), The new institutionalism in strategic management: 130. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

S. Jandhyala 2015. International and domestic dynamics of intellectual property protection. Journal of World Business, 50 (2): 284293.

A. Johns 2009. Piracy: The intellectual property wars from Gutenberg to Gates. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

G. Jones , & T. Khanna 2006. Bringing history (back) into international business. Journal of International Business Studies, 37 (4): 453468.

B. Z. Khan 2005. The democratization of invention: Patents and copyrights in American economic development, 1790-1920. New York: Cambridge University Press.

B. Z. Khan 2013. Selling ideas: An international perspective on patenting and markets for technological innovations, 1790–1930. Business History Review, 87 (1): 3968.

B. Z. Khan , & K. L. Sokoloff 2001. The early development of intellectual property institutions in the United States. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 15 (3): 233246.

B. Z. Khan , & K. L. Sokoloff 2004. Institutions and democratic invention in nineteenth-century America. American Economic Review, 94 (2): 395401.

T. Khoury , & M. W. Peng 2011. Does institutional reform of intellectual property rights lead to more inbound FDI? Evidence from Latin America and the Caribbean. Journal of World Business, 46 (3): 337345.

A. Kieser 1994. Why organization theory needs historical analyses – and how this should be performed. Organization Science, 5 (4): 608620.

E. A. Klochikhin 2012. Russia's innovation policy: Stubborn path-dependencies and new approaches. Research Policy, 41 (9): 16201630.

A. Y. Lewin 2015. Letter from the editor. Management and Organization Review, 11 (1): 13.

A. Y. Lewin , M. Kenney , & J. P. Murmann (Eds.). 2016. China's innovation challenge: Overcoming the middle-income trap. New York: Cambridge University Press.

S. Li 2004. Why is property right protection lacking in China? An institutional explanation. California Management Review, 46 (3): 100115.

X. Li 2012. Behind the recent surge of Chinese patenting: An institutional view. Research Policy, 41 (1): 236249.

Z. Liang , & L. Xue 2010. The evolution of China's IPR system and its impact on the patenting behaviors and strategies of multinationals in China. International Journal of Technology Management, 51 (5): 469496.

F. Liu , D. F. Simon , Y. Sun , & C. Cao 2011. China's innovation policies: Evolution, institutional structure, and trajectory. Research Policy, 40 (7): 917937.

T. D. S. Lopes , & M. Casson 2012. Brand protection and the globalization of British business. Business History Review, 86 (2): 287310.

C. Marquis , & M. Raynard 2015. Institutional strategies in emerging markets. Academy of Management Annals, 9 (1): 291335.

R. Mazzoleni , & R. R. Nelson 1998. The benefits and costs of strong patent protection: A contribution to the current debate. Research Policy, 27 (3): 273284.

J. W. Meyer , J. Boli , G. M. Thomas , & F. O. Ramirez 1997. World society and the nation-state. American Journal of Sociology, 103 (1): 144181.

K. E. Meyer , & M. W. Peng 2016. Theoretical foundations of emerging economy business research. Journal of International Business Studies, 47 (1): 322.

P. Moser 2013. Patents and innovation: Evidence from economic history. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 27 (1): 2344.

P. Moser , & A. Voena 2012. Compulsory licensing: Evidence from the Trading with the Enemy Act. American Economic Review, 102 (2): 396427.

A. Naghavi 2007. Strategic intellectual property rights policy and North-South technology transfer. Review of World Economics, 143 (1): 5578.

D. C. North 1990. Institutions, institutional change, and economic performance. New York: Norton.

M. W. Peng 2003. Institutional transitions and strategic choices. Academy of Management Review, 28 (2): 275296.

M. W. Peng 2013. An institution-based view of IPR protection. Business Horizons, 56 (2): 135139.

M. W. Peng , S. L. Sun , B. Pinkham , & H. Chen 2009. The institution-based view as a third leg for a strategy tripod. Academy of Management Perspectives, 23 (4): 6381.

M. W. Peng , D. Y. L. Wang , & Y. Jiang 2008. An institution-based view of international business strategy: A focus on emerging economies. Journal of International Business Studies, 39 (5): 920936.

S. Poncet 2005. A fragmented China: Measure and determinants of Chinese domestic market disintegration. Review of International Economics, 13 (3): 409430.

V. Pouillard 2011. Design piracy in the fashion industries of Paris and New York in the interwar years. Business History Review, 85 (2): 319344.

K. Raustiala , & C. Sprigman 2012. The knockoff economy: How imitation sparks innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.

W. Shi , S. L. Sun , B. C. Pinkham , & M. W. Peng 2014. Domestic alliance network to attract foreign partners: Evidence from international joint ventures in China. Journal of International Business Studies, 45 (3): 338362.

K. Singh 2007. The limited relevance of culture to strategy. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 24 (4): 421428.

K. L. Sokoloff , & B. Z. Khan 1990. The democratization of invention during early industrialization: Evidence from the United States, 1790–1846. Journal of Economic History, 50 (2): 363378.

S. Steinmo , K. Thelen , & F. Longstreth (Eds.) 1992. Structuring politics: Historical institutionalism in comparative analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

D. Wren 1987. Management history: Issues and ideas of teaching and research. Journal of Management, 13 (2): 339350.

A. Zimmerman 2013. Contending with Chinese counterfeits: Culture, growth, and management responses. Business Horizons, 56 (2): 141148.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Management and Organization Review
  • ISSN: 1740-8776
  • EISSN: 1740-8784
  • URL: /core/journals/management-and-organization-review
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords:

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 95
Total number of PDF views: 316 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 637 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 13th March 2017 - 19th August 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.