+ All Categories
Home > Documents > N Ê* +ò : + , %º' , O7S%Ë*j * '~5v %·+Þ -«' +Ö ö

N Ê* +ò : + , %º' , O7S%Ë*j * '~5v %·+Þ -«' +Ö ö

Date post: 12-Apr-2022
Category:
Upload: others
View: 8 times
Download: 0 times
Share this document with a friend
19
: A Study on the Characteristics of Foreign Licensing Strategy in Korean Firms * ** I. II. III. IV. V. VI. * , , 042-821-5552, younglee @cnu.ac.kr ** , , [email protected] - 105 -
Transcript
Page 1: N Ê* +ò : + , %º' , O7S%Ë*j * '~5v %·+Þ -«' +Ö ö

:

A Study on the Characteristics of Foreign Licensing Strategy in

Korean Firms

* **

I.

II.

III.

IV.

V.

VI.

* , , 042-821-5552, younglee @cnu.ac.kr ** , , [email protected]

- 105 -

Page 2: N Ê* +ò : + , %º' , O7S%Ë*j * '~5v %·+Þ -«' +Ö ö

.

1.

.

1990 22 1,087

2% . ,

.

1990 500

. [ 1] [ 1] 2000

200 0.07 2001 0.23

2008 2,530 45%

.

.

[ 1] (1995~2008)1

1 . (2009).

- 106 -

Page 3: N Ê* +ò : + , %º' , O7S%Ë*j * '~5v %·+Þ -«' +Ö ö

[ 1] (1995~2008 )

< 1> 1990

0.1 .

2001 2008 0.45

.

.

.

Aulakh, Cabusgil and Sarkar(1998) , Villar(2004), Bessy et al(2000) .

, , ,

.

Contractor(1980), Root & Contractor(1981), Cho(1988) .

, , , ,

.

Farok J. Contractor(1985), Brouthers&Nakos(2004),

Vishwasrao(2006) . ,

, , .

.

. (2004), (2005), (2008)

.

( , 1990).

. 1990 2

- 107 -

Page 4: N Ê* +ò : + , %º' , O7S%Ë*j * '~5v %·+Þ -«' +Ö ö

.

2.

1990

2 .

2010 , 2

.

.

, ,

.

1 300

.

.

, , ,

.

2

, ,

.

SPSS. 18 , .

II.

1.

(licensing) ,

(proprietary assets)

. 2

. J. K. Contractor3

4.2%

2 (2007) 21 pp. 122-123. 3 F. J. Contractor(1985) Licensing in International Strategy Quorum Books.

- 108 -

Page 5: N Ê* +ò : + , %º' , O7S%Ë*j * '~5v %·+Þ -«' +Ö ö

6.6%

.

[ 2]

Contractor .

.

( : form of specification, modes, drawings, manuals, layouts )

( : ,start-up, testing, training, recruitment, management development )

.

19.7% .

.

OECD TBP Manual(Proposed

Standard Method of Compiling and Interpreting Technology Balance of Payment Data)

4 .

, ,

F. J. Contractor

.

- 109 -

Page 6: N Ê* +ò : + , %º' , O7S%Ë*j * '~5v %·+Þ -«' +Ö ö

2.

.

.

1)

.

,

.

Sahay and Aulakh(1996) , ,

R&D

. Contractor(1985)

. , , ,

.

8

.

,

.

2)

Farok J. Contractor(1985)

. U. S. Direct

Investment Abroad(1977)

.

- 110 -

Page 7: N Ê* +ò : + , %º' , O7S%Ë*j * '~5v %·+Þ -«' +Ö ö

[ 3] 4

60%

29% . .

.

Sharmila Vishwasrao(2006)

FDI Arm s length

. , ,

.

(2000) ( )

FDI ,

Arm s length .

(2001)

FDI .

Brouthers&Nakos(2004) FDI

. (2008)

Arm s length

FDI .

3)

. (Lump-sum fees)

(Running royalties) .

. (1999)5

4 U. S. Direct Investment Abroad(1977) 5 (1990),

(($ millions)

Majority Affiliates 1,996(17%) 4,143(71%)

Minority Affiliates 2,705(23%) 714(12%)

Unaffiliated 7,000(60%) 991(29%)

11,701(100%) 5,848(100%)

- 111 -

Page 8: N Ê* +ò : + , %º' , O7S%Ë*j * '~5v %·+Þ -«' +Ö ö

, , ,

Aulakha, et al(1998)

, ,

. (2005)

( ), ( ),

. Vishwasrao(2006)

,

, , R&D ,

.

(2007, 2008)

. F. J. Contractor(2005_

.

[ 2 ]

[ 2]

. R .

C ( ), C ( ),

C ( ) C ( ) . T

, , , , ,

. T

- 112 -

Page 9: N Ê* +ò : + , %º' , O7S%Ë*j * '~5v %·+Þ -«' +Ö ö

. Contractor

T T

.

.

.

[ 3]

, , ,

, ,

.

1.

FDI

Arm s length .

, , .

FDI . (Vishwasrao 2006)

Arm s length

- 113 -

Page 10: N Ê* +ò : + , %º' , O7S%Ë*j * '~5v %·+Þ -«' +Ö ö

FDI .( 2000, 2001,

2004)

FDI

.( 2004)

Arm s

length .(Brouthers&Nakos 2004)

FDI Arm s length .(Vishwasrao 2006)

2.

,

. , ,

, .

.(Aulakh et al. 1998)

.( 2005)

.( 2008)

.(Flota,

1998; Kogut, 1991)

.(Aulakha et al, 1998; , 2005)

.

.

.( 2007)

.(Lou, 2005)

- 114 -

Page 11: N Ê* +ò : + , %º' , O7S%Ë*j * '~5v %·+Þ -«' +Ö ö

.

.

.

.

.

1.

2010 1 8 2010 4 6 3 , ,

37 .

2.

1)

(1)

8 29 78%

.

.

.

(2)

, ,

. 81.1%

13.5% 5.4% .

.

(3)

15

12 . 18.9%

81.1% .

- 115 -

Page 12: N Ê* +ò : + , %º' , O7S%Ë*j * '~5v %·+Þ -«' +Ö ö

8

.

2)

(1)

10 21.6% 10 78%

.

.

FDI

.

(2)

56.8%

,

. ,

.

3)

(1)

51%

48.6% .

(2)

54.1% .

.

(3)

59.5%

.

40.5% .

.

- 116 -

Page 13: N Ê* +ò : + , %º' , O7S%Ë*j * '~5v %·+Þ -«' +Ö ö

4)

(1)

32.4% 67.6%

.

13.5%

27.0% 16.2% .

(2)

40.5% .

.

5)

.

[ 4]

((100%) ((5 ))

54.1 3.85

45.9 3.82

67.6 4.04

64.9 3.54

86.5 4.19

51.4 3.69

45.9 3.7

62.2 4.08

86.5% , ,

.

45.9% 51.4% .

5 (1 : ~ 5 : )

,

.

- 117 -

Page 14: N Ê* +ò : + , %º' , O7S%Ë*j * '~5v %·+Þ -«' +Ö ö

6)

FDI

Arm s length . 70.3%

. 29.7%

Arm s length

FDI .

7)

(2004)

4 .

A. Initial payment:

B. Lump-sum royalty:

C. Running royalty:

D. Others:

3 .

LS base: Lump-sum royalty, Initial payment + Lump-sum royalty

RR base: Running royalty, Initial payment + Running royalty

LS+RR base: Lump-sum royalty + Running royalty,

Initial payment + Lump-sum royalty + Running royalty

RR base

56.8% .

LS+RR base 27%

LS+RR

base . LS base

16.2% 70.3%

FDI

.

[ 5]

Arm s length 11 29.7 29.7 29.7

FDI 26 70.3 70.3 100.0

37 100.0 100.0

- 118 -

Page 15: N Ê* +ò : + , %º' , O7S%Ë*j * '~5v %·+Þ -«' +Ö ö

8)

.

[ 7]

LS BASE RR BASE LS+RR BASE

Arm s

length

FDI

% 9.1% 63.6% 27.3% 100.0%

% 16.7% 33.3% 30.0% 29.7%

% 2.7% 18.9% 8.1% 29.7%

% 19.2% 53.8% 26.9% 100.0%

% 83.3% 66.7% 70.0% 70.3%

% 13.5% 37.8% 18.9% 70.3%

% 16.2% 56.8% 27.0% 100.0%

% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

% 16.2% 56.8% 27.0% 100.0%

Arm s length

LS BASE 9.1% RR BASE 63.6% LS+RR BASE

27.3% . FDI LS BASE

19.2% RR BASE 53.8% LS+RR BASE 26.9% .

Arm s length FDI

. Arm s length

. FDI Arm s length

[ 6]

LS BASE 6 16.2 16.2 16.2

RR BASE 21 56.8 56.8 73.0

LS+RR BASE 10 27.0 27.0 100.0

37 100.0 100.0

- 119 -

Page 16: N Ê* +ò : + , %º' , O7S%Ë*j * '~5v %·+Þ -«' +Ö ö

. FDI 53.8% RR BASE

LS+RR BASE LS BASE

.

.

1.

. 78.4%

. FDI

70.3% FDI

. 10

78.4% FDI

.

51.4% 48.6%

32.4% 67.6% .

.

.

.

.

,

, , , ,

, ,

70.3%

RR base

. Arm s length

FDI LS BASE

. Arm s length

FDI LS BASE

FDI

.

- 120 -

Page 17: N Ê* +ò : + , %º' , O7S%Ë*j * '~5v %·+Þ -«' +Ö ö

2.

.

. 37

.

. .

, ,

.

1 .

2

.

. Aulakh, et

al(1998) Vishwasrao(2006)

.

.

( , )

.

.

.

- 121 -

Page 18: N Ê* +ò : + , %º' , O7S%Ë*j * '~5v %·+Þ -«' +Ö ö

..

(2005), , , Vol 30, No.1.

, (2001), -

, , 12 2 .

(2008), pp ,

, 118 .

(2004),

A Journal of Technology Innovation , Vol 12, No.2.

(2002), : ,

, 22 2 .

, (2000), , ,

11 2 .

(2007),

, .

(2008), ,

,Vol 33, No.1.

, (2008), , ,

Vol 19, No. 2.

(1990), ,

.

itutional Environment and the Cost of

The Economics of Institutions in The New Millennium ,

Tubingen, Germany, September 22-24 .

Technology licensing Agreements

Bhart N. A and T , The

Journal of Industrial Economics Vol. XL , March.

Farok J of Technology Licensing by U.S

Multinationals: A framework for Analysis and an Empirical JIBS , Vol. 11, No.2.

F. J.

JIBS , Vol . 12, No.3.

Farok J ernational Technology Transfer: Major Issue and Policy

Responses JIBs fall, pp113-135.

-

Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 19, pp. 1007-1028.

Kang Management

- 122 -

Page 19: N Ê* +ò : + , %º' , O7S%Ë*j * '~5v %·+Þ -«' +Ö ö

International Review , Vol. 28, No.2, pp.70-79.

Baylor University.

pp.19-33.

in International Licensing Agreements.

Journal of International Business Studies, Vol.36, pp.209-230.

Macho- f

25, 1996, pp.43-57.

-429.

Preet

JIBs , Vol. 29, No.2, pp409-420.

Journal of Economics& Management Strategy , Vol14, No.2.

Vishwasrao Sharmila ies vs. Fees: How do firms pay for foreign technology?, International

Journal of Industrial Organization Vol.25 pp.741-759.

Choice of Exchange Structure Strategic Management Journal , Vol.15 No.4.

Villar, M. C.(2004) .

- 123 -


Recommended