SearcharxivSearch

arXiv subjects

Su Jung Jee

Publications and source records attributed to Su Jung Jee.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

From catch-up to frontier: The utility model as a learning device to escape the middle-income trap

The second-tier patent system, known as utility models (UMs), has been considered a tool for supporting technological learning in catching-up economies. UMs often impose lower inventive step requirements than patents, making them accessible to inventors with limited capacity. However, the mechanisms by which the UM system supports the catch-up process and the system's long-term impact in the post-catch-up period remain underexplored. We address this gap by empirically examining how and under which conditions the UM system can create synergies with catch-up strategies and influence the emerging industrial structure in the post-catch-up phase. Drawing on the literature on catch-up and intellectual property rights (IPR), we argue that catch-up strategies that prioritize imitative and adaptive learning in short-cycle technologies can be complemented by the UM system, supporting the development of indigenous capabilities to produce high-impact frontier technologies and internalize their value-added. Using South Korea as a case study, we present two key findings: First, the country's post-catch-up frontier technologies (US patents) are more impactful when they build on active learning experiences encoded in domestic UMs. Second, UM-reliant frontier technologies contribute to value internalization (local value-added relative to foreign value-added). Our findings extend the literature on the role of different types of IPR in various stages of development and inform policy discussions on how UMs can be used to support capability building in developing countries.

econ.GN

Making intellectual property rights work for climate technology transfer and innovation in developing countries

This study investigates the controversial role of Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) in climate technology transfer and innovation in developing countries. Using a systematic literature review and expert interviews, we assess the role of IPRs on three sources of climate technology: (1) international technology transfer, (2) adaptive innovation, and (3) indigenous innovation. Our contributions are threefold. First, patents have limited impact in any of these channels, suggesting that current debates over IPRs may be directed towards the wrong targets. Second, trademarks and utility models provide incentives for climate innovation in the countries studied. Third, drawing from the results, we develop a framework to guide policy on how IPRs can work better in the broader context of climate and trade policies, outlining distinct mechanisms to support mitigation and adaptation. Our results indicate that market mechanisms, especially trade and demand-pull policies, should be prioritised for mitigation solutions. Adaptation differs, relying more on indigenous innovation due to local needs and low demand. Institutional mechanisms, such as finance and co-development, should be prioritised to build innovation capacities for adaptation.

econ.GN

Knowledge for a warmer world: a patent analysis of climate change adaptation technologies

Technologies can help strengthen the resilience of our economy against existential climate-risks. We investigate climate change adaptation technologies (CCATs) in US patents to understand (1) historical patterns and drivers of innovation; (2) scientific and technological requirements to develop and use CCATs; and (3) CCATs' potential technological synergies with mitigation. First, in contrast to mitigation, innovation in CCATs only slowly takes off, indicating a relatively low awareness of investors for solutions to cope with climate risks. Historical trends in environmental regulation, energy prices, and public support can be associated with patenting in CCATs. Second, CCATs form two main clusters: science-intensive ones in agriculture, health, and monitoring technologies; and engineering-intensive ones in coastal, water, and infrastructure technologies. Analyses of technology-specific scientific and technological knowledge bases inform directions for how to facilitate advancement, transfer and use of CCATs. Lastly, CCATs show strong technological complementarities with mitigation as more than 25% of CCATs bear mitigation benefits. While not judging about the complementarity of mitigation and adaptation in general, our results suggest how policymakers can harness these technological synergies to achieve both goals simultaneously.

econ.GN