IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ura/ecregj/v1y2019i1p242-255.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Implementing the Potential of Intellectual Products’ Commercialisation in the International Trading System

Author

Listed:
  • Tatyana Volkova

    (Institute of Economics)

Abstract

The contradiction between relatively high level of domestic inventive activity and low effectiveness of the country’s participation in international trade is a relevant problem. That contradiction poses a hypothesis: the effectiveness of intellectual products’ commercialisation is determined not only by well-known institutional factors, but also by specific multi-faceted endogenous potential of these products. The implementation of this potential in practice, including international trade, depends on the level of professionalism, intellectual competenceand creativity of the relevant specialists. The purpose of the study is to identify and justify the leadingfactors that allow the fullest realization of intellectual products’ potential and their successful commercialization for ensuring country’s scientific and technological security. Factual and statistical materials were an empirical basis of this research. I applied a variety of methods: analytical and epistemological, economic and legal, structural and logical methods, statistical groupings, comparative assessments. For a focused quantitative assessment, I have selected a system of indicators: net value of the subject of technology agreements; balance of payments for technology; balance of license royalties for the use of objects of intellectual property (IP). The calculations revealed a comparative assessment of the products’ level of commercialisation in the leading countries (both recipients and payers of royalties and license fees). I have determined the main units of the productive institutional mechanisms of intellectual product’s commercialization in these countries that opens possibilities for creating a corresponding mechanism in Russia. A reproductive model for commercialization of intellectual products justifies the need of highly skilled, creative specialists in order to overcome the intellectual- and competence-based «failure» («trap»). Based on the system of the selected indicators, the study allows to objectively assess the implementation of intellectual products’ commercial potential. The results of the research can be used in development and application of relevant laws and regulations, as well as in training of specialists and experts.

Suggested Citation

  • Tatyana Volkova, 2019. "Implementing the Potential of Intellectual Products’ Commercialisation in the International Trading System," Economy of region, Centre for Economic Security, Institute of Economics of Ural Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences, vol. 1(1), pages 242-255.
  • Handle: RePEc:ura:ecregj:v:1:y:2019:i:1:p:242-255
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://economyofregion.ru/Data/Issues/ER2019/March_2019/ERMarch2019_242_255.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Chen, Yongmin & Puttitanun, Thitima, 2005. "Intellectual property rights and innovation in developing countries," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(2), pages 474-493, December.
    2. De Alessi, Louis & Staaf, Robert J, 1994. "What Does Reputation Really Assure? The Relationship of Trademarks to Expectations and Legal Remedies," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 32(3), pages 477-485, July.
    3. Rod Falvey & Neil Foster & David Greenaway, 2006. "Intellectual Property Rights and Economic Growth," Review of Development Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 10(4), pages 700-719, November.
    4. Tatyana Volkova & Ivan Usoltsev, 2017. "Inventive Activity of Researchers: Cross-Country Rating Assessments," Economy of region, Centre for Economic Security, Institute of Economics of Ural Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences, vol. 1(1), pages 290-307.
    5. V. G. Zinov & N. G. Kurakova & O. V. Cherchenko, 2017. "The Problem of selection of indicators, reflecting the proportion of high-tech products in the global market," Economics of Science, Delo Publishing house, vol. 2(4).
    6. Richard Gilbert, 2011. "A World without Intellectual Property? A Review of Michele Boldrin and David Levine's Against Intellectual Monopoly," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 49(2), pages 421-432, June.
    7. Kenneth Arrow, 1962. "Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention," NBER Chapters, in: The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors, pages 609-626, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. V. G. Zinov & N G. Kurakova & O. V. Cherchenko, 2017. "The Problem Of Selection Of Indicators, Reflecting The Proportion Of High-Tech Products In The Global Market," Economics of Science, Delo Publishing house, vol. 3(2).
    9. Sergey Kortov & Dmitry Shulgin & Dmitrii Tolmachev & Anastassiya Yegarmina, 2017. "Technology Trends Analysis Using Patent Landscaping," Economy of region, Centre for Economic Security, Institute of Economics of Ural Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences, vol. 1(3), pages 935-947.
    10. Franklin Allen, 1984. "Reputation and Product Quality," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 15(3), pages 311-327, Autumn.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Neves, Pedro Cunha & Afonso, Oscar & Silva, Diana & Sochirca, Elena, 2021. "The link between intellectual property rights, innovation, and growth: A meta-analysis," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 196-209.
    2. Anja, Breitwieser & Neil, Foster, 2012. "Intellectual property rights, innovation and technology transfer: a survey," MPRA Paper 36094, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Ganguly, Madhuparna, 2021. "Stronger Patent Regime, Innovation and Scientist Mobility," MPRA Paper 107635, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Samira Guennif, 2007. "Global harmonisation of intellectual property rights and local impact. Patent and access to medicines in developing countries under TRIPS and TRIPS plus provisions [Harmonisation globale des systèm," Post-Print hal-01345869, HAL.
    5. Hudson, John & Minea, Alexandru, 2013. "Innovation, Intellectual Property Rights, and Economic Development: A Unified Empirical Investigation," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 66-78.
    6. Swati Saini & Meeta Mehra, 2018. "Impact of strengthening Intellectual Property Rights Regime on income inequality: An Econometric Analysis," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 38(4), pages 1703-1719.
    7. Pamela J. Smith & Sebastian J. Anti, 2022. "How does TRIPs compliance affect the economic growth of developing countries? Application of the Synthetic Control method," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 45(12), pages 3873-3906, December.
    8. Chu, Angus C., 2009. "Macroeconomic Effects of Intellectual Property Rights: A Survey," MPRA Paper 17342, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. Krammer, Sorin M.S., 2015. "Do good institutions enhance the effect of technological spillovers on productivity? Comparative evidence from developed and transition economies," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 133-154.
    10. Ndubuisi, Gideon & Foster-McGregor, Neil, 2018. "Domestic intellectual property rights protection and the margins of bilateral exports," MERIT Working Papers 2018-035, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    11. Sunil Kanwar & Stefan Sperlich, 2020. "Innovation, productivity and intellectual property reform in an emerging market economy: evidence from India," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 59(2), pages 933-950, August.
    12. Eric Schmidbauer, 2016. "New and Improved?," Working Papers 2016-02, University of Central Florida, Department of Economics.
    13. Gamba, Simona, 2017. "The Effect of Intellectual Property Rights on Domestic Innovation in the Pharmaceutical Sector," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 15-27.
    14. Angus C. Chu, 2022. "Patent policy and economic growth: A survey," Manchester School, University of Manchester, vol. 90(2), pages 237-254, March.
    15. Wesley David Sine & Scott Shane & Dante Di Gregorio, 2003. "The Halo Effect and Technology Licensing: The Influence of Institutional Prestige on the Licensing of University Inventions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 49(4), pages 478-496, April.
    16. Erkan Gürpinar, 2013. "Organizational Forms in the Knowledge Economy: A Comparative Institutional Analysis," Department of Economics University of Siena 679, Department of Economics, University of Siena.
    17. Ganguly, Madhuparna, 2021. "Competition and Innovation: the effects of scientist mobility and stronger patent rights," MPRA Paper 107831, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    18. William, Mbanyele & Fengrong, Wang, 2022. "Economic policy uncertainty and industry innovation: Cross country evidence," The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 208-228.
    19. Thakur–Wernz, Pooja & Wernz, Christian, 2022. "Impact of stronger intellectual property rights regime on innovation: Evidence from de alio versus de novo Indian bio-pharmaceutical firms," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 457-473.
    20. Sefa Awaworyi Churchill & Hoang M. Luong & Mehmet Ugur, 2022. "Does intellectual property protection deliver economic benefits? A multi‐outcome meta‐regression analysis of the evidence," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(5), pages 1477-1509, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    intellectual products; objects of intellectual property; scientific and technological security; reproductive methodology; endogenous potential of commercialisation; competence-based «failure» («trap»); international trade; system of indicators; analytical and epistemological method; economic-legal method;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • O32 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Management of Technological Innovation and R&D

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ura:ecregj:v:1:y:2019:i:1:p:242-255. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Alexey Naydenov (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.economyofregion.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.