Isomorphism. A Pathway to Institutionalize Intellectual Property in the Pacific Alliance
Keywords:
intellectual property; patents; neo-institutionalism; institutional immersion; Pacific AllianceAbstract
The objective of this article is to analyze the process of institutionalization of Intellectual Property (IP) in the Pacific Alliance (PA) from its origin in 2011 to 2020. This organization is made up of four countries: Colombia, Chile, Mexico and Peru. The theoretical foundation is located in the theory of neo-institutionalism, which grounds the analysis of isomorphism and institutional immersion regarding international agreements and political factions within the economic bloc. The question of this work is: What kinds of isomorphism and institutional immersion prevail in the IP documents assumed by the countries of the PA from 2011 to 2020? Two groups of documents were analyzed: the first group is made up of the documents that constitute the regulatory framework of IP in the international context, and the second group is made up of the documents that have been approved by the PA in this field. In the international context, seventeen treaties on intellectual property are analyzed under the scheme of the three types of isomorphism: coercive, mimetic and normative. Since its foundation, the PA has signed 27 documents related to intellectual property, which are distributed in the three types of isomorphism, where eight belong to the mimetic, seven coercive, ten normative and two mimetic and normative. Another concept that is analyzed is that of institutional immersion; under this scheme, seventeen documents signed by the Pacific Alliance are reviewed, where thirteen seek to promote cooperation, and five are mandated. It was found that mimicry maintains a strong influence in international intellectual property agreements; this is the result of institutional weakness; weak institutions seek to imitate the most successful ones, but it is also a consequence of tendencies to promote international cooperation. The continuation of this work should be aimed at explaining the influence of the institutionalization of intellectual property on the innovation indicators of the PA.References
Arredondo, F., Vázquez, J. C., & de la Garza, J. (2016). Factores de innovación para la competitividad en la Alianza del Pacífico. Una aproximación desde el Foro Económico Mundial. Estudios Gerenciales, 32(141), 299–308. https://doi.org/ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.estger.2016. 06.003
Besen, S. M., & Raskid, L. (1991). An introduction to the law and economics of intellectual property. Journal of Economics Perspectives, 5(1), 3-27.
Bird, W., & Stefan, I. (2019). Does asymmetry cause anti-competitive practices? Les Nouvelles-Journal of the Licensing Executives Society, 54(1), 6. https://papers.ssrn .com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3317073#references-widget
Choo, C. W., & Bontis, N. (2002). Knowledge, intellectual capital, and strategy. In C. W. Choo & N. Bontis (Eds.), The strategic management of intellectual capital and organizational knowledge (pp. 3-19). Oxford University Press.
Cimoli, M., & Primi, A. (2008). Propiedad intelectual y desarrollo: Una interpretación de los (nuevos) mercados del conocimiento. In J. M. Martínez Piva (Ed.), Generación y protección del conocimiento: propiedad intelectual, innovación y desarrollo económico (pp. 29-57). CEPAL.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design. Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage.
Díaz, M., Casas, R., & Giráldez, R. (2019). Análisis de las redes de colaboración en la innovación para el desarrollo. Revista COODES, 7(1), 5-25. http://coodes .upr.edu.cu/index.php/coodes/ article/view/228
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095101
Dinu, E. (2022). Exploring the effect of intellectual capital management on innovativeness in a R&D institute. Management Dynamics in the Knowledge Economy, 10(3), 225-238. https://doi.org/10.2478/mdke-2022-0015
Drahos, P., & Braithwaite, J. (2002). Information feudalism: Who owns the knowledge economy? Earthscan. https://content.taylorfrancis.com/books/download
Furubotn, E., & Richter, R. (2005). Institutions and economic theory: The contribution of the new institutional economics (economics, cognition, and society). University of Michigan Press. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.6715
García, R. (2017). Patentamiento universitario e innovación en México, país en desarrollo: Teoría y política. Revista de La Educación Superior, 46(184), 77–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.resu.2017.11.001
Gold, E. R., Morin, J., & Shadeed, E. (2019). Does intellectual property lead to economic growth? Insights from a novel IP dataset. Regulation & Governance, 13(1), 107–124. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12165
Heredia, J., Flores, A., Geldes, C., & Heredia, W. (2017). Effects of informal competition on innovation performance: The case of Pacific Alliance. Journal of Technology Management & Innovation, 12(4), 22–28. https://doi.org/10.4067/s0718-27242017000400003
Hwang, K.S. (2012). A research on industrial property rights protection in case of Korea-China-Japan free trade agreements. The Journal of International Relations, 15(2), 171–190. https://doi.org/10.15235/jir.2012.12.15.2.171
Jiang, B. J. (2019). China specialized IP courts: Substances or theatre? Les Nouvelles, 301048, 1–8. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstractid=33 17011
Khorsheed, M. (2017). Learning from global pacesetters to build the country innovation ecosystem. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 8(1), 177–196. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s 13132-016-0362-z
Khoury, T., & Peng, M. (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), 337–345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2010.07.015
Llamas, R. (2005). Un análisis institucional de la implantación de la agenda local 21 por los ayuntamientos españoles [PhD Thesis]. Editorial de la Universidad de Granada. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/28185653_Un_analisis_institucional_de_la
Lukianenko, O., Dvornyk, I., & Kolechko, D. (2018). Intellectual capital in the structure of global economy. International Economic Policy, 28, 88–107. https://www. proquest.com/openview
Macías, A., & Alonso, P. (2016). Knowledge economy and the commons: A theoretical and political approach to post-neoliberal common governance. Review of Radical Political Economics, 48(1), 140–157. https://doi.org/10.1177/04866134155 86991
Martin, P. (2021). A future-focused view of the regulation of rural technology. Agronomy, 11(6), 1153. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11061153
Maskus, K. E. (2015). Intellectual property in a globalizing world: Issues for economic research. Asia-Pacific Journal of Accounting & Economics, 22(3), 231–250. https://doi.org/10.1080/16081625.2015.1057947
Maskus, K. E., & Reichman, J. H. (2004). The globalization of private knowledge goods and the privatization of global public goods. Journal of International Economic Law, 7(2), 279–320. https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/7.2.279
May, C. (2004). Cosmopolitan legalism meets “thin community”: Problems in the global governance of intellectual property. Government and Opposition, 39(3), 393-422. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1477-7053.2004.000128.x
Mejía Chávez, E. V., & Ayaviri Nina, D. (2018). Avances y perspectivas de la propiedad intelectual en América Latina y el Caribe. Revista Espacios, 39(41), 5-12.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research. A guide to design and implementation. Jossey-Bass.
Moser, P (2013). Patens and innovation: Evidence from economic history. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 27(1), 23-44.
Muzaka, V. (2013). Contradictions, frames and reproductions: The emergence of the WIPO Development Agenda. Review of International Political Economy, 20(1), 215–239. https://doi.org/10.1080/09692290.2011.62311.
North, D.C. (1981). Structure and change in economic history. W. W. Norton and Co.
Nunberg, B., & Green, A. (2004). Operationalizing political analysis: the expected utility stakeholder model and governance reforms. Open Knowledge Repository. http://hdl.handle.net/ 10986/11248
Oliver, C. (1996). The institutional embeddedness of economic activity. Advances in Strategic Management, 13, 163–186.
Pérez, P., Calderón, G., & Noriega, E. (2021). Generation of university spin off companies: challenges from Mexico. J. Technology Management Innovation, 16(1), 1–9. http://jotmi.org
Portes, A. (2012). Institutions and development: A conceptual reanalysis. In A. Portes & D.L. Smith (Eds.), Institutions count. The role and significance in Latin American development (pp. 1-23). University of California Press.
Powell, W. W., & Di Maggio, P. J. (1999). El nuevo institucionalismo en el análisis organizacional. In U.A. del E. de México. (Ed.), Nuevas lecturas de política y gobierno (pp. 109-118). Fondo de Cultura Económica-Colegio Nacional de Ciencias Polí¬ticas y Administración, UAM.
Ramírez, L. F., & Isaza, J. G. (2019). When size matters: Trends in innovation and patents in Latin American universities. Journal of Technology Management & Innovation, 14(3), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-27242019000300044
Rodríguez Aranda, I., & Vieira Posada, E. (2015). Perspectivas y oportunidades de la Alianza del Pacífico (CESA, Vol. 5). CESA-Universidad del Internado.
Rodrik, D. (2018). What do trade agreements really do? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 32(2), 73-90. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.32.2.73
Roffe, P. (2008). La propiedad intelectual y la nueva generación de acuerdos de libre comercio: El tratado entre Chile y Estados Unidos de Norteamérica. In J.M. Martínez Piva (Ed.). Generación y protección del conocimiento: propiedad intelectual, innovación y desarrollo económico (pp. 125-1589). CEPAL.
Scott, W. R. (2003). Institutional carriers: reviewing modes of transporting ideas over time and space and considering their consequences. Industrial and Corporate Change, 12(4), 879–894. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/12.4.879
SELA. (2017). Avances en las iniciativas de cooperación en materia de propiedad intelectual, propiedad industrial, derechos de autor, marcas y patentes en América Latina y el Caribe. XXVII Reunión de Directores de Cooperación Internacional de América Latina y el Caribe: Cooperación para la Propiedad Intelectual. http://www.sela.org/media/3211918/dt-2-doc-base-directores-2017-esp.pdf
Storper, M. (2018). Separate worlds? Explaining the current wave of regional economic polarization. Journal of Economic Geography, 18(2), 247–270. https://doi.org/ 10.1093/jeg/lby011
The World Bank. The World Bank open data. The World Bank. https://data.worldbank. org/topic/science-and-technology?locations=AD
Tîțu, M. A., Oprean, C., POP, A. B., & Țîțu, S. (2018). Implementing intellectual property policies in a Romanian state university. Management Dynamics in the Knowledge Economy, 6(1), 87-104. https://doi.org/10.25019/MDKE/6.1.05
United Nations. (2018). La agenda 2030 y los objetivos de desarrollo sostenible: Una oportunidad para América Latina y el Caribe. Repositorio. https:// repositorio.cepal.org/bitstream/handle/11362/40155/24/S1801141_es.pdf
Uranga, M. G., Gómez, M. del S. L., & de la Mata, A. A. (2008). The trips-plus in bilateral agreements boosted by United States: Consequences for developing countries. Revista de Economía Mundial, 20, 23–48. http://bibliotecadigital.udea. edu.co/bitstream/10495/11323/1/LopezGomezMaria_2008_ADPICTratadosBilaterales.pdf
Vargas-Hernández, J. (2020). Strategic transformational transition of green Economy, Green Growth and Sustainable Development: An Institutional approach. International Journal of Environmental Sustainability and Green Technologies, 11(1), 34–56. https://doi.org/ 10.4018/IJESGT.2020010103
Wright, S. (2008). Globalizing governance: The case of intellectual property rights in the Philippines. Political Geography, 27(7), 721–739. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.polgeo. 2008.08.004
Zurbano, M., Bidaurratzaga, E., & Martinez, E. (2014). Las transformaciones de los modelos territoriales de desarrollo en el contexto de la globalización. Aportaciones desde la perspectiva del desarrollo humano local. Revista de Estudios Regionales, 99, 103–133. https://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=75531857004
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Santos LÓPEZ-LEYVA, Juan Gabriel MARTÍNEZ
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs license, the users are free to share (copy, distribute and transmit the contribution) with the condition to attribute the contribution in the manner specified by the author or licensor. They may not alter, transform, or build upon this work.
