Since China acceded to World Trade Organization (WTO) on December 11, 2001, China’s domestic intellectual property rights institutions have been in compliance with the WTO Agreement on Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (‘the TRIPS Agreement’). In development studies literature, a persistent debate has been whether transnational conventions such as the TRIPS Agreement foster or inhibit development of developing nations. Two prominent theories that have arisen from such debates were modernization theory and dependency theory. Against this background, a core enquiry of this thesis is: how did implementation of the TRIPS Agreement affect the domestic innovation development in China?...[ Read more ]

Since China acceded to World Trade Organization (WTO) on December 11, 2001, China’s domestic intellectual property rights institutions have been in compliance with the WTO Agreement on Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (‘the TRIPS Agreement’). In development studies literature, a persistent debate has been whether transnational conventions such as the TRIPS Agreement foster or inhibit development of developing nations. Two prominent theories that have arisen from such debates were modernization theory and dependency theory. Against this background, a core enquiry of this thesis is: how did implementation of the TRIPS Agreement affect the domestic innovation development in China?

From economic history perspective, it is appropriate to perceive China’s adoption of the TRIPS Agreement as one of the stages in the continuous institutional changes in the realm of intellectual property rights in China since its accession to World Intellectual Property Office (WIPO) in 1980. Such institutional changes continue to evolve after China’s adoption of the TRIPS Agreement alongside with contextual factors such as domestic innovation capability in China.

Empirical evidence indicates that China has made considerable progress in its indigenous innovation capability subsequent to its adoption of the TRIPS Agreement in 2001, and this does not support the notion that China had subordinated itself into the dependent position in innovation development by virtue of its adoption of the TRIPS Agreement. On the other hand, given the presence of numerous alternative explanations for China’s rapid innovation advancement in the post-TRIPS period, it is extremely difficult to validate any causality between adoption of the TRIPS Agreement and innovative performance of domestic Chinese firms. Thus it appears that several factors can be identified as valid explanations to China’s rapid innovation advancement in the post-TRIPS period, such that a model of co-evolution of institutional change and innovation performance is the most appropriate theoretical framework.