CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 106Intellectual Property LawIntellectual Property and PatentsInternational Business and FDI

Foreign actors and intellectual property protection regulations in developing countries

Open access
Brandl, Kristin, Darendeli, Izzet, Mudambi, Ram·2019·Journal of International Business Studies
DOI 10.1057/s41267-018-0172-6
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

International agreements and institutions affect innovation in developing countries. We analyze the impact of advanced country multinational enterprises (AMNEs) and supranational organizations on the regulatory adoption of global intellectual property protection standards. In particular, we investigate 60 developing countries that signed the Trade-relate Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement of the World Trade Organization in 1994. Our empirical findings show that a greater involvement of AMNEs in the domestic innovation systems of developing countries results in more stringent TRIPS adoption and convergence to advanced country IP protection standards. This relationship is positively moderated by country dependency on supranational organizations such as the International Monetary Fund. This analysis contributes to the literature on institutional change and institutional voids. It provides insights into the influence of external actors on the underlying change processes.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1057/s41267-018-0172-6

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 117 · Cited by 106

Research works printed but not linked: 83

  1. Abramovitz, M. 1986. Catching up, forging ahead, and falling behind. Journal of Economic History, 46(2): 385-406.
  2. Acemoglu, D., & Robinson, J. 2000. Political losers as a barrier to economic development. American Economic Review, 90(2): 126-130.
  3. Acs, Z., Anselin, L., & Varga, A. 2002. Patents and innovation counts as measures of regional production of new knowledge. Research Policy, 31(7): 1069-1085.
  4. Awate, S., Larsen, M. M., & Mudambi, R. 2012. EMNE catch up strategies in the wind turbine industry: Is there a trade-off between output and innovation capabilities? Global Strategy Journal, 2(3): 205-223.
  5. Baron, D. 1995. Integrated strategy: Market and non-market components. California Management Review, 37(2): 47-65.
  6. Biermann, F. 2002. Institutions for scientific advice: Global environmental assessments and their influence in developing countries. Global Governance, 8(2): 195-219.
  7. Blomstro ¨m, M., & Kokko, A. 1998. Multinational corporations and spillovers. Journal of Economic Surveys, 12(3): 247-277.
  8. Bonardi, J. P., Hillman, A. J., & Keim, G. D. 2005. The attractiveness of political markets: Implications for firm strat- egy. Academy of Management Review, 30(2): 397-413.
  9. Botoy, I. 2004. From the Paris convention to the TRIPS agreement. Journal of World Intellectual Property, 7(1): 115-130.
  10. Bown, C. P., & Tovar, P. 2011. Trade liberalization, antidump- ing, and safeguards: Evidence from India's tariff reform. Journal of Development Economics, 96(1): 115-125.
  11. Brander, J., Cui, V., & Vertinsky, I. 2017. China and intellectual property rights: A challenge to the rule of law. Journal of International Business Studies, 48(7): 908-921.
  12. Brandl, K., Darendeli, I., Hamilton, R. D., & Mudambi, R. 2016. The impact of actors and the aspect of time in institutional change processes in a developing country context. Chapter 4. In H. Tuselmann, S. Buzdugan, Q. Cao, D. Freund, & S. Golesorkhi (Eds.), Impact of international business: Challenges and solutions for policy and practice (pp. 62-78). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
  13. Brandl, K., & Mudambi, R. 2014. EMNEs and catch-up processes: The case of four Indian industries. Chapter 7. In A. Cuervo-Cazurra & R. Ramamurti (Eds.), Emerging market multinationals: Looking back, looking ahead (pp. 129-152). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  14. Branstetter, L. G. 2001. Are knowledge spillovers international or intranational in scope? Microeconometric evidence from the US and Japan. Journal of International Economics, 53(1): 53-79.
  15. Branstetter, L., Fisman, R., & Foley, C. F. 2006. Do stronger intellectual property rights increase international technology transfer? Empirical evidence from US firm-level panel data. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 121(1): 321-349.
  16. Cantwell, J., Dunning, J. H., & Lundan, S. M. 2010. An evolution- ary approach to understanding international business activity: The co-evolution of MNEs and the institutional environment. Journal of International Business Studies, 41(4): 567-586.
  17. Cantwell, J. A., & Mudambi, R. 2011. Physical attraction and the geography of knowledge sourcing in multinational enter- prises. Global Strategy Journal, 1(3-4): 206-232.
  18. Choudhury, P., & Khanna, T. 2014. Toward resource indepen- dence: Why state-owned entities become multinationals: An empirical study of India's public R&D laboratories. Journal of International Business Studies, 45(8): 943-960. Foreign actors and IPR in developing countries
  19. Coriat, B., & Weinstein, O. 2002. Organizations, firms and institutions in the generation of innovation. Research Policy, 31(2): 273-290.
  20. Cuervo-Cazurra, A. 2006. Who cares about corruption? Journal of International Business Studies, 37(6): 807-822.
  21. Cuervo-Cazurra, A., & Dau, L. A. 2009. Promarket reforms and firm profitability in developing countries. Academy of Man- agement Journal, 52(6): 1348-1368.
  22. Darendeli, I. S., & Hill, T. L. 2016. Uncovering the complex relationships between political risk and MNE firm legitimacy: Insights from Libya. Journal of International Business Studies, 47(1): 68-92.
  23. Deere, C. 2008. The implementation game: The TRIPS agreement and the global politics of intellectual property reform in develop- ing countries. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  24. Delgado, M., Kyle, M., & McGahan, A. M. 2013. Intellectual property protection and the geography of trade. Journal of Industrial Economics, 61(3): 733-762.
  25. Fiori, S. 2002. Alternative visions of change in Douglass North's new institutionalism. Journal of Economic Issues, 36(4): 1025-1043.
  26. Geels, F. W. 2014. Re-conceptualising the co-evolution of firms- in-industries and their environments: Developing an inter- disciplinary Triple Embeddedness Framework. Research Policy, 43(2): 261-277.
  27. Hennart, J. F. 2009. Down with MNE-centric theories! Market entry and expansion as the bundling of MNE and local assets. Journal of International Business Studies, 40(9): 1432-1454.
  28. Hillman, A. J., & Hitt, M. A. 1999. Corporate political strategy formulation: A model of approach, participation, and strategy decisions. Academy of Management Review, 24(4): 825-842.
  29. Hillman, A. J., Keim, G. D., & Schuler, D. 2004. Corporate political activity: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 30(6): 837-857.
  30. Jaffe, A. B., Trajtenberg, M., & Henderson, R. 1993. Geographic localization of knowledge spillovers as evidenced by patent citations. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 108(3): 577-598.
  31. Jandhyala, S. 2014. International and domestic dynamics of intellectual property protection. Journal of World Business, 50(2): 284-293.
  32. Johanson, J., & Vahlne, J.-E. 2009. The Uppsala process model revisited: From liability of foreignness to liability of outsidership. Journal of International Business Studies, 40(9): 1411-1431.
  33. Kano, L., & Verbeke, A. 2015. The three faces of bounded reliability. California Management Review, 58(1): 97-122.
  34. Khanna, T., & Palepu, K. 1997. Why focused strategies may be wrong for emerging markets. Harvard Business Review, 75(4): 41-48.
  35. Koning, M., Mertens, G., & Roosenboom, P. 2018. Drivers of institutional change around the world: The case of IFRS. Journal of International Business Studies, 49(3): 249-271.
  36. Kostova, T., Roth, K., & Dacin, M. T. 2008. Institutional theory in the study of multinational corporations: A critique and new directions. Academy of Management Review, 33(4): 994-1006.
  37. Krug, B., & Hendrischke, H. J. (Eds.). 2007. The Chinese economy in the 21st century: Enterprise and business behavior. Chel- tenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
  38. Kumaraswamy, A., Mudambi, R., Saranga, H., & Tripathy, A. 2012. Catch-up strategies in the Indian auto components industry: Domestic firms' responses to market liberalization. Journal of International Business Studies, 43(4): 368-395.
  39. Lemola, T. 2002. Convergence of national science and technology policies: The case of Finland. Research Policy, 31(8): 1481-1490.
  40. Li, X. 2008. The impact of higher standards in patent protection for pharmaceutical industries under the TRIPS Agreement: A comparative study of China and India. World Economy, 31(10): 1367-1382.
  41. Li, Q., & Resnick, A. 2003. Reversal of fortunes: Democratic institutions and foreign direct investment inflows to develop- ing countries. International Organization, 57(1): 175-211.
  42. Li, G.-C., Lai, R., D'Amour, A., Doolin, D., Sun, Y., Torvik, V., Yu, A., & Fleming, L. 2014. Disambiguation and co-authorship networks of the US patent inventor database (1975-2010). Research Policy, 43(6): 941-955.
  43. Liesch, P. W., Welch, L. S., & Buckley, P. J. 2011. Risk and uncertainty in internationalisation and international entrepreneurship studies. Management International Review, 51(6): 851-873.
  44. Liu, M., & La Croix, S. 2015. A cross-country index of intellectual property rights in pharmaceutical inventions. Research Policy, 44(1): 206-216.
  45. Long, J. S., & Freese, J. 2006. Regression models for categorical dependent variables using stata. College Station, Texas: Stata Press Publications.
  46. Lybbert, T. J. 2002. On assessing the cost of TRIPS implemen- tation. World Trade Review, 1(3): 309-321.
  47. Marron, D. B., & Steel, D. G. 2000. Which countries protect intellectual property? The case of software piracy. Economic Inquiry, 38(2): 159-174.
  48. McCalman, P. 2001. Reaping what you sow: An empirical analysis of international patent harmonization. Journal of International Economics, 55: 161-186.
  49. McGaughey, S. L., Kumaraswamy, A., & Liesch, P. W. 2016. Institutions, entrepreneurship and co-evolution in interna- tional business. Journal of World Business, 51(6): 871-881.
  50. McGaughey, S. L., Liesch, P. W., & Poulson, D. 2000. An unconventional approach to intellectual property protection: The case of an Australian firm transferring shipbuilding technologies to China. Journal of World Business, 35(1): 1-20.
  51. Motohashi, K. 2005. University-industry collaborations in Japan: The role of new technology-based firms in transforming the National Innovation System. Research Policy, 34(5): 583-594.
  52. Mudambi, R. 1991. Government policy toward MNEs in the presence of foreign exchange scarcity. Eastern Economic Journal, 19(1): 99-108.
  53. Mudambi, R. 1998. International financial management -a review. Journal of Finance, 53(3): 1194-1197.
  54. Mudambi, R. 2008. Location, control and innovation in knowl- edge intensive industries. Journal of Economic Geography, 8(5): 699-725.
  55. Narula, R. 2003. Globalization and technology: Interdependence, innovation systems and industrial policy. New York: Wiley.
  56. Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. 1982. An evolutionary theory of economic change. Boston: Belknap Press of the Harvard University Press.
  57. North, D. C. 1990. Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  58. North, D. C. 2005. Understanding the process of economic change. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  59. Onis, Z., & Senses, F. 2005. Rethinking the emerging post- Washington Consensus. Development and Change, 36(2): 263-290. Foreign actors and IPR in developing countries
  60. Paraskevopoulou, E. 2012. Non-technological regulatory effects: Implications for innovation and innovation policy. Research Policy, 41(6): 1058-1071.
  61. Park, W. G. 2008. International patent protection: 1960-2005. Research Policy, 7(4): 761-766.
  62. Patriotta, G., Gond, J. P., & Schultz, F. 2011. Maintaining legitimacy: Controversies, orders of worth, and public justifi- cations. Journal of Management Studies, 48(8): 1804-1836.
  63. Peng, M. W., Ahlstrom, D., Carraher, S., & Shi, W. 2017. An institution-based view of global IPR history. Journal of Interna- tional Business Studies, 48(7): 893-907.
  64. Qian, Y. 2007. Do national patent laws stimulate domestic innovation in a global patenting environment? A cross-country analysis of pharmaceutical patent protection, 1978-2002. Review of Economics and Statistics, 89(3): 436-453.
  65. Ramamurti, R. 2005. Global regulatory convergence: The case of intellectual property rights. In R. Grosse (Ed.), International business and government relations in the 21st century (pp. 341-360). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  66. Rodrik, D. 2000. Institutions for high-quality growth: What they are and how to acquire them. Studies in Comparative Interna- tional Development, 35(3): 3-31.
  67. Roodman, D. 2011. Estimating fully observed recursive mixed- process models with cmp. Stata Journal, 11(2): 159-206.
  68. Rugman, A., & D'Cruz, J. 1997. The theory of the flagship firm. European Management Journal, 15(4): 403-412.
  69. Rugman, A. M., & Verbeke, A. 2000. Multinational enterprises and public policy. In International business (pp. 21-43). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
  70. Samuelson, P., & Scotchmer, S. 2002. The law and economics of reverse engineering. The Yale Law Journal, 111(7): 1575-1663.
  71. Scholte, J. 2005. Globalization: A critical introduction (2nd ed.). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
  72. Scott, W. R. 2013. Institutions and organizations (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  73. Stigler, G. 1971. The theory of economic regulation. Bell Journal of Economics, 2(1): 3-21.
  74. Suchman, M. C. 1995. Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3): 571-610.
  75. Taubman, A., Wager, H., & Watal, J. (Eds.). 2012. A handbook on the WTO TRIPS agreement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  76. Verbeke, A. 2003. The evolutionary view of the MNE and the future of internalization theory. Journal of International Business Studies, 34(6): 498-504.
  77. Verbeke, A., & Greidanus, N. J. 2009. The end of the oppor- tunism vs trust debate: Bounded reliability as a new envelope concept in research on MNE governance. Journal of Interna- tional Business Studies, 40(9): 1417-1495.
  78. Verbeke, A., & Kano, L. 2016. An internalization theory perspective on the global and regional strategies of multina- tional enterprises. Journal of World Business, 51(1): 83-92.
  79. Williamson, O. E. 1979. Transaction-cost economics: The gov- ernance of contractual relations. Journal of Law and Economics, 22(2): 233-261.
  80. Williamson, P. J. 2010. Cost innovation: Preparing for a 'value- for-money' revolution. Long Range Planning, 43(2): 343-353.
  81. Yang, D., & Sonmez, M. 2013. Integration and divergence of patent systems across national and international institutions. Journal of World Business, 48(4): 527-538.
  82. Zaheer, S. 1995. Overcoming the liability of foreignness. Academy of Management Journal, 38(2): 341-363.
  83. Zeschky, M., Widenmayer, B., & Gassmann, O. 2011. Frugal innovation in emerging markets. Research-Technology Man- agement, 54(4): 38-45.

Authors
Brandl, K., Darendeli, I., & Mudambi, R.
Affiliations
  • University of Victoria (CA)
  • California State University, East Bay (US)
  • Temple University (US)
Corresponding author
Mudambi, Ram
ORCID
Venue
Journal of International Business Studies
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2018-08-14
Volume
50
Issue
5
Pages
826-846
ISSN
  • 0047-2506 (ISSN-L)
  • 1478-6990
DOI
10.1057/s41267-018-0172-6
OpenAlex
W2886119491
Cited by
106
References
117
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 2
FWCI
92.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Journal of International Business Studies (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • UVic’s Research and Learning Repository (University of Victoria) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Law › Intellectual Property Law
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management of Technology and Innovation › Intellectual Property and Patents
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › International Business and FDI
Keywords
intellectual property protection, TRIPS Agreement, developing countries, multinational corporations, foreign influence, institutional change, institutional voids, supranational institutions, International Monetary Fund, innovation systems, regulatory convergence, external actors

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review