History, Institutions, and Intellectual Property Rights: Debate between the United States and China

Abstract

Using a point-counterpoint format, this panel seeks to address the key and timely debate over intellectual property rights (IPR) between China and the United States (U.S.). Today, the U.S. takes a strong position on improving and enforcing IPR, especially calling out countries such as China and India for intellectual property violations of technology and cultural content such as films and television. Yet Peng (2013) and Peng, Ahlstrom, Carraher, & Shi (2017) have argued that, during the 19th century the U.S. was not a leading IPR advocate as it is today, but rather, was a leading IPR violator, mostly pilfering British inventions and cultural content. Developing an institution-based view of IPR history, they identify three underlying theoretical mechanisms: path dependence, long-term processes, and institutional transitions. It is sometimes argued that both the U.S. refusal to protect foreign IPR in the 19th century and the current Chinese lack of enthusiasm to meet U.S. IPR demands embody rational responses to their respective situations. However, in the long run, institutional transitions in favor of better IPR protection are possible. Finally, they draw on the IPR history in over 10 other countries to develop a more globally generalizable framework. Begging to differ, Vertinsky argues that China is not in the same position today as the U.S. was in the 19th century, and that the long-term processes affecting its evolution will be quite different. The U.S. and other Western powers should consider the use of any bargaining power that they have now to compel China to enhance IPR protection before it becomes obsolete.