司法保护、法律服务与科技创新
|
摘要
司法保护和法律服务是促进科技创新的重要工具,本文采用1998-2013年我国30个省市的面板数据,利用以Driscoll-Kraay方法估计标准误差的固定效应模型对司法保护、法律服务与科技创新的关系进行分析。研究发现:司法保护和法律服务对我国的科技创新有显著的正向作用,法律服务能够使私力救济成为公力救济的有力补充,司法质量对科技创新的促进作用比司法效率更大,司法效率对发明创新有显著的正向影响,而对实用新型和外观设计的影响不显著,实用新型和外观设计则对司法质量更为敏感,法律服务对发明创新的促进作用更大。另外,司法效率只是对东部地区的科技创新有明显促进作用,司法质量的改进对中部和西部地区科技创新的促进作用更显著,而法律服务对西部地区科技创新的促进作用最为明显。
Technological innovation is the fundamental driving force for economic growth,and judicial protection and legal services are important tools for promoting technological innovation. However,the researches on the impact of judicial protection and legal services on technological innovations have to be deepened,and their conclusions are inconsistent. The reasons are:( 1)The evaluation on degree of judicial protection is not comprehensive enough. For example,the practice of using a single indicator( such as the proportion of lawyers in the total population or the number of courts in the first instance of patent disputes as a substitute variable) is simple and easy,but the problem of partiality is more obvious. The method of measuring from the perspective of intellectual property legislation ignores distinctions between legislation and law enforcement,while overestimating the actual level of protection in developing countries. China is still perfecting the rule of law,and the degree of law enforcement still lags far behind legislative practice.( 2) The research scope is too narrow,and it should not be limited to the disputes on intellectual property rights,infringement,etc.,and should focus on comprehensive judicial protection covering intellectual property output and application. Moreover,research on the relationship between judicial protection and different levels of technological innovation and regional differences remains pending.( 3) Ignore the role of legal services.Based on panel data from 30 provinces and municipalities in China between 1998 and 2013,this paper integrates technological innovation,judicial efficiency,judicial quality,and legal services into a unified endogenous framework,which evaluates the judicial efficiency by the settlement rate. This work uses the ratio of the number of civil administrative protests closely related to the judicial protection of scientific and technological innovation to the number of civil administrative cases as an indicator for the quality of justice. We use the number of lawyers per 10,000 people as an indicator of the legal service status. Because judicial protection and legal services have a certain lag on the impact of technological innovation,and in order to overcome potential endogenous problems,the lag phase of all explanatory variables is substituted into the regression equation. This paper empirically analyzed the relationship between judicial protection,legal services and technology innovation by means of the regression with FE model and Driscoll-Kraay standard errors method. The estimation method is suitable for short-panel data,and can better control heteroscedasticity between groups,autocorrelation within groups,and contemporaneous correlation problems between groups.Progresses achieved in this work include: Firstly,the law enforcement link of judicial protection is taken as the main entry point,and judicial protection is subdivided into judicial efficiency and judicial quality,and comprehensively examines the impact of judicial protection and legal services on China's scientific and technological innovation. Secondly,the scientific and technological innovations are divided into two levels to analyze the contribution of judicial protection and legal services to different levels of scientific and technological innovation. Finally,the regional differences in judicial protection and the impact of legal services on technological innovation are explored.The analyses revealed that: judicial protection and legal services have a significant positive effect on China's scientific and technological innovation. Meanwhile,the legal services make the private relief a powerful complement to the public relief. Judicial quality,rather than the judicial efficiency,has a greater overall effect on technological innovation. For different levels of technological innovation,judicial efficiency has a significant positive impact on the invention,but its effects on utility model and design are insignificant. While utility models and designs are more sensitive to the judicial quality,legal services have a greater role in promoting innovation.In addition,there is an obvious regional variation in the importance of judicial efficiency,judicial quality and legal services on the technological innovations. The positive effect of judicial efficiency on technological innovation is more notable in the eastern region; the improvement of judicial quality has a more significant promoting effect on technological innovation in the central and western regions. Finally,improvement in legal services plays the most important role for promoting technological innovation in the western region.Apart of strengthening the judicial protection of scientific and technological innovation,on the one hand,we must adhere to the principle of"both hands and hard work"in judicial efficiency and judicial quality. Meanwhile,in the specific implementation,we should target different levels of innovation and the development stages according to different regions. Focus on it. Under the premise of observing the law of judicial work and ensuring the quality of justice and for the purpose of encouraging high-level innovation,we should focus on exploring new measures to improve judicial efficiency in judicial reform,but in the central and western regions where judicial quality is not fully guaranteed,we must not be blind in the pursuit of judicial efficiency. The promotion of judicial quality should be a priority.In addition,strengthening the judicial protection of scientific and technological innovation requires not only scientific and rational optimization of the internal resources allocation of the court,but also the need to integrate external forces,strengthen the cultivation of social services such as legal service institutions,and promote the scale,specialization,branding and internationalization of the legal service industry. The development of the direction has made legal services a bridge and link for the effective connection between public relief and private relief. On the one hand,the use of the professionalism and efficiency of legal services to establish a system of technical identification of judicial identification,expert support,etc.,improve effectively the quality and efficiency of judicial protection of scientific and technological innovation. On the other hand,intellectual property owners are encouraged to use legal professional services to defend their rights,raise awareness of intellectual property rights of intellectual property rights,shock the infringers,and resolve a large number of intellectual property disputes before the prosecution,thus alleviating the shortage of judicial resources.
Technological innovation is the fundamental driving force for economic growth,and judicial protection and legal services are important tools for promoting technological innovation. However,the researches on the impact of judicial protection and legal services on technological innovations have to be deepened,and their conclusions are inconsistent. The reasons are:( 1)The evaluation on degree of judicial protection is not comprehensive enough. For example,the practice of using a single indicator( such as the proportion of lawyers in the total population or the number of courts in the first instance of patent disputes as a substitute variable) is simple and easy,but the problem of partiality is more obvious. The method of measuring from the perspective of intellectual property legislation ignores distinctions between legislation and law enforcement,while overestimating the actual level of protection in developing countries. China is still perfecting the rule of law,and the degree of law enforcement still lags far behind legislative practice.( 2) The research scope is too narrow,and it should not be limited to the disputes on intellectual property rights,infringement,etc.,and should focus on comprehensive judicial protection covering intellectual property output and application. Moreover,research on the relationship between judicial protection and different levels of technological innovation and regional differences remains pending.( 3) Ignore the role of legal services.Based on panel data from 30 provinces and municipalities in China between 1998 and 2013,this paper integrates technological innovation,judicial efficiency,judicial quality,and legal services into a unified endogenous framework,which evaluates the judicial efficiency by the settlement rate. This work uses the ratio of the number of civil administrative protests closely related to the judicial protection of scientific and technological innovation to the number of civil administrative cases as an indicator for the quality of justice. We use the number of lawyers per 10,000 people as an indicator of the legal service status. Because judicial protection and legal services have a certain lag on the impact of technological innovation,and in order to overcome potential endogenous problems,the lag phase of all explanatory variables is substituted into the regression equation. This paper empirically analyzed the relationship between judicial protection,legal services and technology innovation by means of the regression with FE model and Driscoll-Kraay standard errors method. The estimation method is suitable for short-panel data,and can better control heteroscedasticity between groups,autocorrelation within groups,and contemporaneous correlation problems between groups.Progresses achieved in this work include: Firstly,the law enforcement link of judicial protection is taken as the main entry point,and judicial protection is subdivided into judicial efficiency and judicial quality,and comprehensively examines the impact of judicial protection and legal services on China's scientific and technological innovation. Secondly,the scientific and technological innovations are divided into two levels to analyze the contribution of judicial protection and legal services to different levels of scientific and technological innovation. Finally,the regional differences in judicial protection and the impact of legal services on technological innovation are explored.The analyses revealed that: judicial protection and legal services have a significant positive effect on China's scientific and technological innovation. Meanwhile,the legal services make the private relief a powerful complement to the public relief. Judicial quality,rather than the judicial efficiency,has a greater overall effect on technological innovation. For different levels of technological innovation,judicial efficiency has a significant positive impact on the invention,but its effects on utility model and design are insignificant. While utility models and designs are more sensitive to the judicial quality,legal services have a greater role in promoting innovation.In addition,there is an obvious regional variation in the importance of judicial efficiency,judicial quality and legal services on the technological innovations. The positive effect of judicial efficiency on technological innovation is more notable in the eastern region; the improvement of judicial quality has a more significant promoting effect on technological innovation in the central and western regions. Finally,improvement in legal services plays the most important role for promoting technological innovation in the western region.Apart of strengthening the judicial protection of scientific and technological innovation,on the one hand,we must adhere to the principle of"both hands and hard work"in judicial efficiency and judicial quality. Meanwhile,in the specific implementation,we should target different levels of innovation and the development stages according to different regions. Focus on it. Under the premise of observing the law of judicial work and ensuring the quality of justice and for the purpose of encouraging high-level innovation,we should focus on exploring new measures to improve judicial efficiency in judicial reform,but in the central and western regions where judicial quality is not fully guaranteed,we must not be blind in the pursuit of judicial efficiency. The promotion of judicial quality should be a priority.In addition,strengthening the judicial protection of scientific and technological innovation requires not only scientific and rational optimization of the internal resources allocation of the court,but also the need to integrate external forces,strengthen the cultivation of social services such as legal service institutions,and promote the scale,specialization,branding and internationalization of the legal service industry. The development of the direction has made legal services a bridge and link for the effective connection between public relief and private relief. On the one hand,the use of the professionalism and efficiency of legal services to establish a system of technical identification of judicial identification,expert support,etc.,improve effectively the quality and efficiency of judicial protection of scientific and technological innovation. On the other hand,intellectual property owners are encouraged to use legal professional services to defend their rights,raise awareness of intellectual property rights of intellectual property rights,shock the infringers,and resolve a large number of intellectual property disputes before the prosecution,thus alleviating the shortage of judicial resources.
引文
[1] K. Arrow. The economic implication of learning by doing[J].The Review of Economic Studies,1962,29(3):155-173.
[2] W. D. Nordhaus. Invention,growth and welfare:A theoretical treatment of technological change[M]. Cambridge,Mass:MIT Press,1969:168.
[3] E. Helpman. Innovation,imitation and intellectual property rights[J]. Econometrica,1993(61):1247-1280.
[4] C. Shapiro. Navigating the patent thicket:Cross licenses,patent pools,and standard setting[J]. Social Science Electronic Publishing,2001(1):119-150.
[5] G. Park. International patent protection:1960-2005[J]. Research Policy,2008,37(4):761-766.
[6]李平,崔喜君,刘建.中国自主创新中研发资本投入产出绩效分析[J].中国社会科学,2007(11):32-43.Li Ping,Cui Xijun,Liu Jian. Performance analysis of R&D capital input and output in chinese independent innovation:With discussion of the effects of human capital and intellectual property rights protection[J]. Social Sciences in China,2007(11):32-43.
[7]李胜兰,麦景琦.专利立法保护与司法保护对我国技术进步影响的实证研究[A].第十届中国法经济学论坛论文集,2012:232-246.Li Shenglan,Mai Jingqi. An empirical study on the effects of patent legislation protection and judicial protection on China’s technological progress[A]. The Proceedings of the 10th China Law and Economics Forum,2012:232-246.
[8]许春明,单晓光.中国知识产权保护强度指标体系的构建及验证[J].科学学研究,2008(4):715-723.Xu Chunming,Shan Xiaoguang. Constructing of the index system and verification for the intensity of intellectual property protection in china[J]. Studies in Science of Science,2008(4):715-723.
[9]董雪兵,朱慧,康继军,宋顺锋.转型期知识产权保护制度的增长效应研究[J].经济研究,2012(8):4-17.Dong Xuebing,Zhu Hui,Kang Jijun,Song Shunfeng. The effect of intellectual property rights protection system on chinese economic growth during transition period[J]. Economic Research Journal,2012(8):4-17.
[10] Maskus,E. Keith,Pennubarti,Mohan. How trade-related are intellectual property rights?[J]. Journal of International Economics,1995,39(3-4):227-248.
[11]孙旭玉.中国知识产权保护水平与影响因素的实证分析[J].理论学刊,2010(7):54-59.Sun Xuyu. An empirical analysis of the level of intellectual property protection and its influencing factors in China[J].Theory Journal,2010(7):54-59.
[12]姚莉.司法效率:理论分析与制度构建[J].法商研究,2006(3):94-101.Yao Li. Judicial efficiency:Theoretical analysis and institutional construction[J]. Studies in Law and Business,2006(3):94-101.
[13]王华.更严厉的知识产权保护制度有利于技术创新吗?[J].经济研究,2011(S2):124-135.Wang Hua. Do stronger intellectual property rights promote innovation?[J]. Economic Research Journal,2011(S2):124-135.
[14] A. B.,Jaffe. Real effects of academic research[J]. American Economic Review,1989,76(5):957-970.
[15]段会娟.集聚、知识溢出类型与区域创新效率[J].科技进步与对策,2011(19):140-144.Duan Huijuan. Agglomeration,knowledge spillover type and regional innovation performance[J]. Science&Technology Progress and Policy,2011(19):140-144.
[16]陈刚.法官异地交流与司法效率[J].经济学(季刊),2012(7):1171-1192.Cheng Gang. The geographical rotation of judges and judicial efficiency in China:Evidence from the chief justices of thehigher people’s courts[J]. China Economic Quarterly,2012(7):1171-1192.
[17]樊纲,王小鲁,张立文,朱恒鹏.中国各地区市场化相对进程报告[J].经济研究,2003(3):9-18.Fan Gang,Wang Xiaolu,Zhang Liwen,Zhu Hengpeng. Marketization index for China’s provinces[J]. Economic Research Journal,2003(3):9-18.
[18]陈宇峰,朱荣军.中国区域R&D资本存量的再估算:1998-2012[J].科学学研究,2016(1):69-80.Chen Yufeng,Zhu Rongjun. The re-estimation of regional R&D capital stock in China during 1998 and 2012[J]. Studies in Science of Science,2016(1):69-80.
[19]张洪辉.社会资本、法律保护与研发投资[J].华中科技大学学报,2014(5):121-131.Zhang Honghui. Social capital,law protection and R&D investment[J]. Journal of Huazhong University of Science and Technology,2014(5):121-131.
[20] C. Freeman. Continental,national and sub-national innovation systems-Complementarity and economic growth[J]. Research Policy,2002,31(2):191-211.
[21]侯鹏,刘思明,建兰宁.创新环境对中国区域创新能力的影响及地区差异研究[J].经济问题探索,2014(11):73-80.Hou Peng,Liu Siming,Jian Lanning. The impact of innovation environment on China’s regional innovation capability and regional difference[J]. Inquiry into Economic Issues,2014(11):73-80.
[22]党文娟,张宗益,康继军.创新环境对促进我国区域创新能力的影响[J].中国软科学,2008(3):52-57.Dang Wenjuan,Zhang Zongyi,Kang Jijun. The impact of regional innovation environment on the regional innovation capability[J]. China Soft Science,2008(3):52-57.
(1)以RP指数和GP指数为代表。
(1)狭义的法律服务是指平等的社会成员从市场上以对价方式取得的具有商品属性的法律服务,广义的法律服务还包括立法、司法、法学教育等公共法律服务,本文仅指狭义的“法律服务”。
(1)参见2015中国知识产权指数报告。
(2)参见中国2015知识产权司法保护白皮书。
(1)对于个别缺失值,采用移动平均法予以补齐。
(2)Freeman [20]设定专利授权滞后研发投入3年,但专利申请对研发投入的滞后期相对较短,而且我国的研发投入主要用于应用研究开发,研发周期较短。另外,滞后期设定过长会大大减少样本量。因此本文将滞后期设定为1。
(3)传统豪斯曼检验不适用于聚类稳健标准误的情况,因此又利用STATA软件的非官方命令xtoverid,使用聚类稳健标准误进行检验,检验结果仍支持使用固定效应模型。
(1)依据国务院西部开发办标准,东部地区指京、津、冀、辽、沪、苏、浙、闽、鲁、粤、琼,中部地区指晋、内蒙古、吉、黑、皖、赣、豫、鄂、湘,西部地区为渝、川、贵、云、陕、甘、宁、桂、青、藏、新。
(2)模型9中研发人力投入的系数为负且不显著,原因可能是西部地区的研发人力投入方向主要是见效快的应用研究和试验发展领域,研发周期较短,上一期的研发人力投入对当期科技产出的影响较小。为此,将模型9中滞后一期的研发人力投入数据置换为当期数据以后,研发人力投入的系数变为正且在5%的水平下显著(其他变量的系数并无显著变化),验证了上述推断。
(1)我国法院将“加强保护、分门别类、宽严适度”作为科技创新司法保护的基本政策,也反映出差异化司法保护的意向。
[2] W. D. Nordhaus. Invention,growth and welfare:A theoretical treatment of technological change[M]. Cambridge,Mass:MIT Press,1969:168.
[3] E. Helpman. Innovation,imitation and intellectual property rights[J]. Econometrica,1993(61):1247-1280.
[4] C. Shapiro. Navigating the patent thicket:Cross licenses,patent pools,and standard setting[J]. Social Science Electronic Publishing,2001(1):119-150.
[5] G. Park. International patent protection:1960-2005[J]. Research Policy,2008,37(4):761-766.
[6]李平,崔喜君,刘建.中国自主创新中研发资本投入产出绩效分析[J].中国社会科学,2007(11):32-43.Li Ping,Cui Xijun,Liu Jian. Performance analysis of R&D capital input and output in chinese independent innovation:With discussion of the effects of human capital and intellectual property rights protection[J]. Social Sciences in China,2007(11):32-43.
[7]李胜兰,麦景琦.专利立法保护与司法保护对我国技术进步影响的实证研究[A].第十届中国法经济学论坛论文集,2012:232-246.Li Shenglan,Mai Jingqi. An empirical study on the effects of patent legislation protection and judicial protection on China’s technological progress[A]. The Proceedings of the 10th China Law and Economics Forum,2012:232-246.
[8]许春明,单晓光.中国知识产权保护强度指标体系的构建及验证[J].科学学研究,2008(4):715-723.Xu Chunming,Shan Xiaoguang. Constructing of the index system and verification for the intensity of intellectual property protection in china[J]. Studies in Science of Science,2008(4):715-723.
[9]董雪兵,朱慧,康继军,宋顺锋.转型期知识产权保护制度的增长效应研究[J].经济研究,2012(8):4-17.Dong Xuebing,Zhu Hui,Kang Jijun,Song Shunfeng. The effect of intellectual property rights protection system on chinese economic growth during transition period[J]. Economic Research Journal,2012(8):4-17.
[10] Maskus,E. Keith,Pennubarti,Mohan. How trade-related are intellectual property rights?[J]. Journal of International Economics,1995,39(3-4):227-248.
[11]孙旭玉.中国知识产权保护水平与影响因素的实证分析[J].理论学刊,2010(7):54-59.Sun Xuyu. An empirical analysis of the level of intellectual property protection and its influencing factors in China[J].Theory Journal,2010(7):54-59.
[12]姚莉.司法效率:理论分析与制度构建[J].法商研究,2006(3):94-101.Yao Li. Judicial efficiency:Theoretical analysis and institutional construction[J]. Studies in Law and Business,2006(3):94-101.
[13]王华.更严厉的知识产权保护制度有利于技术创新吗?[J].经济研究,2011(S2):124-135.Wang Hua. Do stronger intellectual property rights promote innovation?[J]. Economic Research Journal,2011(S2):124-135.
[14] A. B.,Jaffe. Real effects of academic research[J]. American Economic Review,1989,76(5):957-970.
[15]段会娟.集聚、知识溢出类型与区域创新效率[J].科技进步与对策,2011(19):140-144.Duan Huijuan. Agglomeration,knowledge spillover type and regional innovation performance[J]. Science&Technology Progress and Policy,2011(19):140-144.
[16]陈刚.法官异地交流与司法效率[J].经济学(季刊),2012(7):1171-1192.Cheng Gang. The geographical rotation of judges and judicial efficiency in China:Evidence from the chief justices of thehigher people’s courts[J]. China Economic Quarterly,2012(7):1171-1192.
[17]樊纲,王小鲁,张立文,朱恒鹏.中国各地区市场化相对进程报告[J].经济研究,2003(3):9-18.Fan Gang,Wang Xiaolu,Zhang Liwen,Zhu Hengpeng. Marketization index for China’s provinces[J]. Economic Research Journal,2003(3):9-18.
[18]陈宇峰,朱荣军.中国区域R&D资本存量的再估算:1998-2012[J].科学学研究,2016(1):69-80.Chen Yufeng,Zhu Rongjun. The re-estimation of regional R&D capital stock in China during 1998 and 2012[J]. Studies in Science of Science,2016(1):69-80.
[19]张洪辉.社会资本、法律保护与研发投资[J].华中科技大学学报,2014(5):121-131.Zhang Honghui. Social capital,law protection and R&D investment[J]. Journal of Huazhong University of Science and Technology,2014(5):121-131.
[20] C. Freeman. Continental,national and sub-national innovation systems-Complementarity and economic growth[J]. Research Policy,2002,31(2):191-211.
[21]侯鹏,刘思明,建兰宁.创新环境对中国区域创新能力的影响及地区差异研究[J].经济问题探索,2014(11):73-80.Hou Peng,Liu Siming,Jian Lanning. The impact of innovation environment on China’s regional innovation capability and regional difference[J]. Inquiry into Economic Issues,2014(11):73-80.
[22]党文娟,张宗益,康继军.创新环境对促进我国区域创新能力的影响[J].中国软科学,2008(3):52-57.Dang Wenjuan,Zhang Zongyi,Kang Jijun. The impact of regional innovation environment on the regional innovation capability[J]. China Soft Science,2008(3):52-57.
(1)以RP指数和GP指数为代表。
(1)狭义的法律服务是指平等的社会成员从市场上以对价方式取得的具有商品属性的法律服务,广义的法律服务还包括立法、司法、法学教育等公共法律服务,本文仅指狭义的“法律服务”。
(1)参见2015中国知识产权指数报告。
(2)参见中国2015知识产权司法保护白皮书。
(1)对于个别缺失值,采用移动平均法予以补齐。
(2)Freeman [20]设定专利授权滞后研发投入3年,但专利申请对研发投入的滞后期相对较短,而且我国的研发投入主要用于应用研究开发,研发周期较短。另外,滞后期设定过长会大大减少样本量。因此本文将滞后期设定为1。
(3)传统豪斯曼检验不适用于聚类稳健标准误的情况,因此又利用STATA软件的非官方命令xtoverid,使用聚类稳健标准误进行检验,检验结果仍支持使用固定效应模型。
(1)依据国务院西部开发办标准,东部地区指京、津、冀、辽、沪、苏、浙、闽、鲁、粤、琼,中部地区指晋、内蒙古、吉、黑、皖、赣、豫、鄂、湘,西部地区为渝、川、贵、云、陕、甘、宁、桂、青、藏、新。
(2)模型9中研发人力投入的系数为负且不显著,原因可能是西部地区的研发人力投入方向主要是见效快的应用研究和试验发展领域,研发周期较短,上一期的研发人力投入对当期科技产出的影响较小。为此,将模型9中滞后一期的研发人力投入数据置换为当期数据以后,研发人力投入的系数变为正且在5%的水平下显著(其他变量的系数并无显著变化),验证了上述推断。
(1)我国法院将“加强保护、分门别类、宽严适度”作为科技创新司法保护的基本政策,也反映出差异化司法保护的意向。