政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/158555
English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  全文笔数/总笔数 : 118940/150005 (79%)
造访人次 : 84345215      在线人数 : 2141
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
搜寻范围 查询小技巧：
  • 您可在西文检索词汇前后加上"双引号"，以获取较精准的检索结果
  • 若欲以作者姓名搜寻，建议至进阶搜寻限定作者字段，可获得较完整数据
    •  进阶搜寻


    请使用永久网址来引用或连结此文件: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/158555


    题名: 專利盒制度對國家創新影響的實證研究
    An Empirical Study on the Impact of Patent Box Regimes on National Innovation
    作者: 許竣為
    Hsu, Chun-Wei
    贡献者: 吳文傑
    史蘭亭
    Wu, Wen-Chieh
    Shih, Lan-Ting
    許竣為
    Hsu, Chun-Wei
    关键词: 專利盒制度
    創新
    全球創新指數
    租稅激勵
    關聯性原則
    Patent Box Regime
    Innovation
    Global Innovation Index
    Tax Incentives
    Nexus Approach
    日期: 2025
    上传时间: 2025-08-04 14:22:38 (UTC+8)
    摘要: 本文旨在研究影響國家創新能力的關鍵因素，並特別聚焦於專利盒制度對創新的影響。研究選取部分歐洲及亞洲國家於 2011 年至 2023 年間的追蹤資料，透過固定效果面板模型，分析稅收政策與其他經濟、制度性變數對全球創新指數的影響。本文區分專利盒制度的作用為兩種相互拉鋸的效果，分別是正向的「創新激勵效果」與負向的「租稅規避效果」，兩種效果加總即為制度的淨影響。兩種效果大小也會因不同國家與年度的背景下有所差異。
    實證結果顯示，專利盒減免對國家創新能力具有正向作用。一元固定效果模型中，專利盒制度對創新指數表現為正向影響；而在控制國家與年度異質性的二元固定效果模型下，專利盒對創新指數的影響為正向顯著，顯示其整體創新激勵效果大於租稅規避效果。此結果有別於過往文獻多強調其租稅規劃功能，推測係因 OECD 於 2015 年起實施關聯性原則，要求企業須實際投入本地研發活動，方可享有稅收優惠，有效提升制度對在地創新的實質誘因。
    此外，本文亦發現，教育程度提升與智慧財產權保護強度有助於提升創新表現，為關鍵促進因子；相對地，國家經濟體大小則對創新表現有負向影響。整體而言，研究結果支持專利盒制度具備促進創新的政策潛力，並為未來創新導向稅制之設計提供實證參考。
    This paper aims to study the key factors influencing national innovation capacity, with a particular focus on the impact of patent box regimes. Using panel data from selected European and Asian countries between 2011 and 2023, this research applies fixed-effects models to analyze how tax policy and other economic or institutional variables affect the Global Innovation Index (GII). The patent box regime is conceptualized as generating two opposing effects: a positive innovation-promotion effect and a negative tax-avoidance effect. The net impact depends on the relative strength of these two forces, which may vary across countries and over time.
    Empirical results show that greater tax reductions under patent box regimes are positively associated with national innovation outcomes. In the one-way fixed effects model, the presence of a patent box correlates with a positive influence on innovation. In the two-way fixed effects model, which accounts for both country-specific and time-specific heterogeneity, the effect becomes statistically significant—suggesting that the innovation-promoting impact outweighs the tax-avoidance effect. This finding diverges from earlier literature that emphasized tax planning incentives, possibly due to the OECD’s post-2015 Nexus Approach, which requires firms to conduct substantive local R&D activities to qualify for tax benefits, thereby reducing misuse and reinforcing innovation incentives.
    The study also finds that higher education attainment and stronger intellectual property protection positively affect innovation, while larger economic size is associated with a negative influence. Overall, the findings support the potential of patent box regimes as effective innovation-oriented tax policies and offer empirical evidence for future policy design.
    參考文獻: Aghion, P. (2008). Higher education and innovation. Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik, 9(Supplement), 28-45.
    Aghion, P., & Howitt, P. (1990). A model of growth through creative destruction. In: National Bureau of Economic Research Cambridge, Mass., USA.
    Allred, B. B., & Park, W. G. (2007). Patent rights and innovative activity: evidence from national and firm-level data. Journal of International Business Studies, 38, 878-900.
    Alstadsæter, A., Barrios, S., Nicodeme, G., Skonieczna, A. M., & Vezzani, A. (2018). Patent boxes design, patents location, and local R&D. Economic Policy, 33(93), 131-177.
    Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the work environment for creativity. Academy of management journal, 39(5), 1154-1184.
    Bloom, N., Griffith, R., & Van Reenen, J. (2002). Do R&D tax credits work? Evidence from a panel of countries 1979–1997. Journal of Public Economics, 85(1), 1-31.
    Bornemann, T., Kelley Laplante, S. O., & Osswald, B. (2023). The effect of intellectual property boxes on innovative activity and tax benefits. Journal of the American Taxation Association, 45(2), 7-33.
    Bornemann, T., & Osswald, B. (2020). The effect of intellectual property boxes on innovative activity & effective tax rates. WU International Taxation Research Paper Series(2018-03).
    Chesbrough, H. (2003). The logic of open innovation: managing intellectual property. California management review, 45(3), 33-58.
    Coccia, M. (2014). Driving forces of technological change: The relation between population growth and technological innovation: Analysis of the optimal interaction across countries. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 82, 52-65.
    Coe, D. T., & Helpman, E. (1995). International r&d spillovers. European economic review, 39(5), 859-887.
    Crespi, G., & Zuniga, P. (2012). Innovation and productivity: evidence from six Latin American countries. World development, 40(2), 273-290.
    Crossan, M. M., & Apaydin, M. (2010). A multi‐dimensional framework of organizational innovation: A systematic review of the literature. Journal of management studies, 47(6), 1154-1191.
    Czarnitzki, D., Hanel, P., & Rosa, J. M. (2011). Evaluating the impact of R&D tax credits on innovation: A microeconometric study on Canadian firms. Research policy, 40(2), 217-229.
    De Luca, A., & Hausch, J. (2017). Patent Box Regimes-A Vehicle for Innovation and Sustainable Economic Growth. Can. Tax J., 65, 39.
    Dechezleprêtre, A., Einiö, E., Martin, R., Nguyen, K.-T., & Van Reenen, J. (2016). Do tax incentives for research increase firm innovation? An RD design for R&D.
    Ding, Y., Yin, F., Chin, L., Zhou, K., Taghizadeh-Hesary, F., & Li, Y. (2024). Can government R&D expenditure promote innovation? New evidence from 37 OECD countries. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 1-25.
    Dischinger, M., & Riedel, N. (2011). Corporate taxes and the location of intangible assets within multinational firms. Journal of Public Economics, 95(7-8), 691-707.
    Ejemeyovwi, J. O., Osabuohien, E. S., Johnson, O. D., & Bowale, E. I. (2019). Internet usage, innovation and human development nexus in Africa: the case of ECOWAS. Journal of Economic Structures, 8, 1-16.
    Fagerberg, J. (2006). Innovation: A guide to the literature.
    Fagerberg, J., & Srholec, M. (2008). National innovation systems, capabilities and economic development. Research policy, 37(9), 1417-1435.
    Falk, M. (2004). What determines patents per capita in OECD countries?
    Freeman, C. (1987). Technical innovation, diffusion, and long cycles of economic development. The Long-Wave Debate: Selected Papers from an IIASA (International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis) International Meeting on Long-Term Fluctuations in Economic Growth: Their Causes and Consequences, Held in Weimar, GDR, June 10–14, 1985,
    Furman, J. L., & Hayes, R. (2004). Catching up or standing still?: National innovative productivity among ‘follower’countries, 1978–1999. Research policy, 33(9), 1329-1354.
    Furman, J. L., Porter, M. E., & Stern, S. (2002). The determinants of national innovative capacity. Research policy, 31(6), 899-933.
    Grossman, G. M., & Helpman, E. (1991). Trade, knowledge spillovers, and growth. European economic review, 35(2-3), 517-526.
    Haufler, A., & Schindler, D. (2023). Attracting profit shifting or fostering innovation? On patent boxes and R&D subsidies. European economic review, 155, 104446.
    Keller, W. (2004). International technology diffusion. Journal of economic literature, 42(3), 752-782.
    Lall, S. (2000). The Technological structure and performance of developing country manufactured exports, 1985‐98. Oxford development studies, 28(3), 337-369.
    Law, S. H., Lee, W. C., & Singh, N. (2018). Revisiting the finance-innovation nexus: Evidence from a non-linear approach. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 3(3), 143-153.
    Lee, S., Nam, Y., Lee, S., & Son, H. (2016). Determinants of ICT innovations: A cross-country empirical study. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 110, 71-77.
    Lundvall, B.-A. (1992). National systems of innovation: Towards a theory of innovation and interactive learning. Francis Printer.
    Mohnen, P., Vankan, A., & Verspagen, B. (2017). Evaluating the innovation box tax policy instrument in the Netherlands, 2007–13. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 33(1), 141-156.
    Männasoo, K., Hein, H., & Ruubel, R. (2018). The contributions of human capital, R&D spending and convergence to total factor productivity growth. Regional Studies, 52(12), 1598-1611.
    Mukherjee, A., Singh, M., & Žaldokas, A. (2017). Do corporate taxes hinder innovation? Journal of Financial Economics, 124(1), 195-221.
    Nelson, R. R. (1993). National innovation systems: a comparative analysis. Oxford university press.
    Neubig, T., & Wunsch-Vincent, S. (2018). Tax distortions in cross-border flows of intangible assets. International Journal of Innovation Studies, 2(3), 101-121.
    Romer, P. M. (1990). Endogenous technological change. Journal of political Economy, 98(5, Part 2), S71-S102.
    Schwab, T., & Todtenhaupt, M. (2017). Spillover from the haven: Cross-border externalities of patent box regimes within multinational firms. IEB Working Paper 2017/15.
    Silva-Gámez, A. I., Méndez-Prado, S. M., & Arauz, A. (2022). What’s Happening with the Patent Box Regimes? A Systematic Review. Sustainability, 14(18), 11423.
    Sivak, R., Caplanova, A., & Hudson, J. (2011). The impact of governance and infrastructure on innovation. Post-Communist Economies, 23(02), 203-217.
    Solow, R. M. (1956). A contribution to the theory of economic growth. The Quarterly journal of economics, 70(1), 65-94.
    Van de Ven, A. H. (1986). Central problems in the management of innovation. Management science, 32(5), 590-607.
    Varsakelis, N. C. (2006). Education, political institutions and innovative activity: A cross-country empirical investigation. Research policy, 35(7), 1083-1090.
    Zegarowicz, Ł. (2018). The patent box as an instrument for creating innovation in EU countries. Optimum. Economic Studies, 92(2), 154-167.
    Zhang, Q., Chen, Y., Zhong, Y., & Zhong, J. (2024). The positive effects of the higher education expansion policy on urban innovation in China. AIMS Mathematics., 9, 2985-3010.
    描述: 碩士
    國立政治大學
    財政學系
    112255019
    資料來源: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0112255019
    数据类型: thesis
    显示于类别:[財政學系] 學位論文

    文件中的档案:

    档案 描述 大小格式浏览次数
    501901.pdf2647KbAdobe PDF0检视/开启


    在政大典藏中所有的数据项都受到原著作权保护.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告 Copyright Announcement
    1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏，無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用，惟仍請適度，合理使用本網站之內容，以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用，則請先取得著作權人之授權。
    The digital content of this website is part of National Chengchi University Institutional Repository. It provides free access to academic research and public education for non-commercial use. Please utilize it in a proper and reasonable manner and respect the rights of copyright owners. For commercial use, please obtain authorization from the copyright owner in advance.

    2.本網站之製作，已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益，如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者，請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw)，維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
    NCCU Institutional Repository is made to protect the interests of copyright owners. If you believe that any material on the website infringes copyright, please contact our staff(nccur@nccu.edu.tw). We will remove the work from the repository and investigate your claim.
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - 回馈