Next Article in Journal
Editorial of “Sustainable Use and Management of Nonconventional Water Resources for Agricultural Development”
Previous Article in Journal
Ecosystem Functions in Urban Stormwater Management Ponds: A Scoping Review
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 16
Issue 17
10.3390/su16177764
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Structural Characteristics and Evolution of the Dual Network of Patent Technology Collaboration and Innovation in China–Japan–ROK

by
Pengfei Wang
1,2,
Nguepi Tsafack Elvis
2 and
Hua Cheng
1,2,*
1
Key Laboratory of Intelligent Textile and Flexible Interconnection of Zhejiang Province, Hangzhou 310018, China
2
School of Economics and Management, Zhejiang Sci-Tech University, Hangzhou 310018, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2024, 16(17), 7764; https://doi.org/10.3390/su16177764
Submission received: 5 July 2024 / Revised: 1 September 2024 / Accepted: 3 September 2024 / Published: 6 September 2024
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
In the context of a new round of scientific and technological revolution and industrial transformation, inter-regional international cooperation is facing fierce competition and sustainable development pressure in domestic, geopolitical, and global industrial chains and that a rational division of labor and coordination of cooperative innovation subjects, key technology nodes, and technology subgroups are of great importance to improve and upgrade the industrial and supply chain cooperation of China–Japan–ROK, as well as to enhance the efficiency of cooperation and innovation. This study uses the patented technical cooperation and innovation dual network structure analysis model and social network analysis (SNA) to analyze the dual network relationship and evolution characteristics of patent technology cooperation and innovation at different stages, based on data from 5912 invention patents applied by China, Japan, and ROK. We find that the China–Japan–ROK patent technology collaboration network is unmatched in size, and the areas of cooperation are expanding on a daily basis. However, the network’s innovation activities have not yet stabilized, and there is still room for collaborative innovation among enterprises to grow and evolve. Multinational corporations in Japan and South Korea have occupied the network’s core position at various times, forming seven key innovation groups with high-tech enterprises such as Samsung Display, Samsung Electronics, Hyundai Motor, NEC, and LEKIN as core nodes. Patents such as H01L, G02F, H04N, H01M, and G02B dominate the key technology nodes and technology subgroups, indicating that high-tech patents such as electronic information technology, semiconductors, displays, and automobile manufacturing are the primary areas of cooperation and innovation between China, Japan, and South Korea.

1. Introduction

With the deepening of economic globalization and regional integration, independent research and development (R&D) can no longer meet the sustainable development needs of each country and region to expand overseas markets. The international flow of innovation resources, the transnational interaction of innovation subjects, and the internationalization of innovation behaviors have gradually weakened the boundaries of the innovation system, and the search for external cooperation has become a new way of technological innovation [1]. Especially with the advent of a new round of scientific and technological revolution and industrial transformation in the world, countries are looking for new momentum for economic growth and social development and regard scientific and technological innovation as an important breakthrough [2]. For developing countries, international technical cooperation is an effective channel for learning external knowledge, acquiring advanced science and technology, promoting domestic technological innovation, and realizing their own interests [3].
Technology cooperation is the collaboration carried out in the process of technology research and development, including the cooperation of researchers within organizations as well as the cooperation of researchers across organizations [4], and is also widely known as science and technology cooperation or R&D cooperation. Technology cooperation helps to achieve open innovation, improve R&D efficiency, reduce R&D risks [5], and provides more opportunities for countries to achieve leapfrog development. When the relevant subjects of technological collaboration come from various countries, it is called international technological cooperation. This not only helps countries accelerate scientific and technological growth together, but it is also an important method of building a community of human destiny.
As the most influential economy in East Asia, China–Japan–ROK (Republic of Korea) cooperation can provide a strong impetus for economic development in Asia and the world. The three countries are close to each other geographically, culturally, and industrially, and therefore have very close scientific and technological cooperation with each other. Most of the added value of China’s exports of smartphones, tablets, and consumer electronics comes from processors, sensors, and other components produced in ROK, Japan, and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) [6]. Although China is a big country in science and technology, its overall technological level is still relatively backward compared with developed countries such as Europe, the United States, and Japan [7]. Based on this, China’s foreign technical cooperation needs to seek a larger variety of partners, explore a broader range of cooperation space, and strengthen technical collaboration with Japan and the ROK, which is crucial to regional economic, scientific, and technological sustainable development.
However, there is a lack of analysis of the characteristics and evolution trend of the R&D network of patent technology cooperation between China, Japan, and the ROK, and matching analysis of the organizational network and the technical network can provide a more accurate and comprehensive panoramic analysis, serving as a reference for the government’s science and technology innovation policy formulation, technology layout, and R&D.
To the best of our knowledge, we aim to answer the following questions: What are the structural characteristics and evolution of the China–Japan–ROK patent technology cooperation network? What are the structural characteristics of the core cooperation and innovation group? How do multinational Japanese and Korean firms shape the network structure of the China–Japan–ROK technology collaboration? To answer these issues, we used data from 5912 innovation patents submitted jointly by China, Japan, and the ROK between 2002 and 2022. This paper employs social network analysis (SNA) to examine the dual network relationship and evolution characteristics of patent technology cooperation and innovation at various stages. It uses an analysis framework that encompasses the overall structure, the positioning of the innovation subject network, and the cohesion subgroups’ surface-point slice. It also attempts to provide theoretical insights and decision-making support for each country’s technological layout, R&D collaboration, and management practices.
The significance of this research is as follows: (1) Laying a theoretical foundation for future emerging technology cooperation in R&D and innovation. (2) While providing academic reference for global technical cooperation and innovation analysis indicators, patent technology analysis indicators can be used to establish the relationship between innovation subjects and technology fields and determine the rules of technology linkage. (3) By analyzing the organizational cooperation network and technology network, the evolution process of innovation in this field can be found, and the future trend of technology R&D and development frontier can be predicted, which will help enterprises and governments to formulate relevant industrial policies.
The possible marginal contributions of this paper are as follows: (1) Supplementation of the research framework. Based on the overall structure, the location of the innovation subject network, and the surface-point slice of the cohesion subgroup, this paper constructs the dual network and evolutionary representation of China–Japan–ROK patent technology cooperation and innovation in order to effectively supplement the analytical framework of cooperation network structure research. (2) Expansion of research methods. This paper uses the patented technical cooperation and innovation dual network structure analysis model and SNA method to scientifically explore the characteristic factors of network structure so as to enrich and expand the empirical research on international technology cooperation and innovation and provide policy enlightenment for optimizing regional sustainable development and national innovation networks.

2. Literature Review

The connection structure analysis theory of regional systems is based on graph theory, which views a network structure as an arrangement of simple points and lines, and interactions between distinct objects are represented by graphs that connect vertices, nodes, and points. This theory aids in the creation of vertices and edges that correlate to a problem circumstance in order to identify a solution [8,9]. The theory evolved into social network analysis (SNA), which can be interpreted as networks based on people’s relational qualities, human behavior, and social structures. According to this view, social structures are interacting relational structures rather than just collections of individuals [10,11,12,13]. Members of a society influence one another through interactions, and a social structure is more than just a collection of individual autonomous traits [14]. This theory was later developed as a spatial cognition system that examines regional connection architectures and served as the foundation for calculating centrality, connectedness, and nodularity between areas by converting inter-regional commuting data into an interaction matrix [15,16].
Within the general subject of SNA, there are two distinct techniques to characterize network features, each with accompanying theories of how networks work: node location and overall network structure [17]. Node position describes how a node’s location inside the network affects its behavior and future. This viewpoint is shown by the strength of weak ties [18], which states that nodes located between two otherwise unconnected nodes have better access to information and resources from other areas of the network. Brokerage is a related theory, defined by Stovel and Shaw [19] as “one of a small number of mechanisms by which disconnected or isolated individuals (or groups) can interact economically, politically, and socially.” Peeples and Haas [20] provide the most explicit application of brokerage to archeology, noting that there are a variety of possible outcomes for people in broker positions depending on the nature of the information and resources being shared. Cultural variables may tamp down or elevate people who use the information or resources, with implications for the persistence of nodes over time.
Today, the study of international technological cooperation has received extensive attention from scholars, and the motivation, situation, and influencing factors of international technological cooperation have been studied in the literature. In terms of motivations for collaboration, Prem’s findings [21] include academic motivations such as improving research quality, impact, and expanding horizons, as well as industry motivations such as business collaboration, market entry, and reducing R&D costs, and policymakers’ motivations, including national competition and international aid. In terms of the cooperation situation, Wang et al. [22] pointed out that regional cooperation between small and medium-sized countries is of great value for the successful development and development of joint scientific and technological applied research. Finardi and Buratti [23] analyzed the international technological cooperation among the BRICS countries and the relative strength of the cooperation between the five countries relative to the cooperation networks of their neighboring countries, focusing on the international scientific cooperation networks that exist in the BRICS countries. In terms of influencing factors, Andersen [24] studied the problem of knowledge stickiness in the process of transnational technology cooperation; Yoon and Jeong [25] analyzed the impact of technology, market, resources, and cooperation on international R&D cooperation and summarized the four key influencing factors, including innovation ability, technology specialization model, the openness of international technical cooperation, and the economic potential of technology, and believed that international technical cooperation is affected by domestic knowledge base, language, geographical distance, and enterprise market strategy.
Scientific measurement of international technical cooperation is an important basis for conducting research and understanding reality, and the existing literature mainly adopts two ways to measure the level of international technical cooperation, namely, scientometric methods and SNA. Davidson Frame and Carpenter [26] measure a country’s role and position in international technological cooperation in terms of authorship and authorship institution in the same paper or patent. It is argued that multi-authored and multi-addressed papers or patents are the basic unit for measuring scientific activity and that an increase in collaborative literature or patents is a sign of growth in technical cooperation [27]. Wagner and Leydesdorff [28] used the SCI paper to measure international scientific cooperation, constructed a cooperation matrix to measure the position of members in the cooperative network, and used SNA to test the hypothesis that international cooperation is a self-organizing network. However, most of the current research on innovation cooperation from a social network perspective focuses on measuring various structural characteristics of the cooperation network as well as analyzing the relationship between network structure and the quantity and quality of knowledge creation and technological performance [29]. There is a lack of research on technological cooperation at the international level; a country or region is made up of multiple industries, and conclusions drawn on the basis of a single industry have limited applicability to international technological cooperation networks.
In summary, as a synonym for innovation activities, the analysis of innovation bodies and technologies through patents has attracted the attention of many scholars. However, there are fewer studies on the analysis of technological cooperation and innovation networks in China, Japan, and the ROK, especially lacking the combing of comparative analysis of international cooperation patent data. With the advent of a new round of technological revolution, more accurate research is needed on the structural characteristics, evolution process, and development trend of the cooperative R&D network among the three East Asian countries. Therefore, this paper takes 5912 cooperative patents as the research object and explores the structural characteristics and evolution of China, Japan, and ROK in the cooperation network from the dual perspectives of organizational cooperation network and technical network, as well as the technological evolution trend in different fields, to provide a reference for science and technology policy formulation and technological research.

3. Methodology

In recent years, more and more scholars have begun to use SNA to explore the structural characteristics of cooperation networks, including perspectives such as social network mining [30,31,32], disciplinary development [33,34], industrial [35,36], and corporate R&D [37,38]. In this research, Gephi 0.9.2 is used to calculate the nodes, the connectivity between nodes, and the relative distance of the R&D collaboration network, which helps to intuitively understand the development dynamics, structural characteristics, and evolution process of organizational collaboration, etc. Table 1 describes the calculation methods and descriptions of the indicators.
In the analysis of inter-country patent cooperation networks, this paper establishes an analytical framework from the overall structure, the location of the innovation subject network, and the surface-point slice of the cohesion subgroup. Firstly, the overall indicators of the patent cooperation network of innovation subjects in different countries at different stages are analyzed, and the structural characteristics of the network are clarified. Secondly, the number and distribution of cooperative patents of each innovation organization in the network are explored, and the position of nodes in the network is explained. Finally, from the perspective of cohesive subgroups, the internal relationship of the network is deeply analyzed, and the analysis model of the dual network structure of patent technology cooperation and innovation is shown in Figure 1.

4. Analysis and Results

4.1. Data

The data in this paper come from the PatSnap database (https://analytics.zhihuiya.com/, accessed on 29 November 2023). Patent cooperation is considered to be the most direct indicator of international technical cooperation and is widely used in the study of international technical cooperation [39,40]. Usually, the applicant of a patent is the right holder after the patent is granted, who can pledge, transfer, and license the patent, etc. Therefore, for the patent cooperation between China, Japan, and Korea, this paper considers that the applicant’s address includes two or more patents from China (CN), Japan (JP), and ROK (KR) at the same time is the patent cooperation with more realistic economic significance. Since there is a long lag in the time of invention patent granting compared with patent application, the number of patent applications is used in this paper to reflect the cooperative research and development of technology in a timely and accurate manner.
Therefore, the search strategy in this paper is to construct the search query according to four different combinations (i.e., CN-JP, CN-KR, KR-JP, and CN-JP-KR) based on the applicant’s country, with the legal status selected as “active” and the application time frame limited to before 2022. In addition, the world’s five Intellectual Property Offices (IP5) and 28 national and regional offices, including Germany, Australia, France, and Spain, which are among the world’s major economies, handle more than 80% of the world’s patent applications and 95% of all work carried out under the Patent Cooperation Agreement (PCT); therefore, it is necessary to select the countries and regions listed above as the world’s major countries and regions [41,42]. Therefore, the above major countries and regions in the world are selected as the main regions for the research and layout of technological cooperation and innovation in China, Korea, and Japan. Through the above operations, the results of application merging and data screening, etc., finally obtained 5912 patents consistent with this study.

4.2. Analysis of Patent Cooperation Situation

4.2.1. Analysis of Trends in Collaborative Patent Applications

Based on the analysis of the sample data, it is found that the application year of patent cooperation among China, Japan, and the ROK starts in 2002, so the time range of this study is limited to 2002–2022, and the results are shown in Figure 1. Among them, from 2002 to 2008, the number of cooperative patent applications in the three East Asian countries was relatively small, and the cooperative research on mutual technological innovation was just starting, but the development momentum was strong; the first peak of 210 applications was reached in 2008. This stage is mainly affected by the global economic integration strategy and China’s accession to the WTO in 2001. The liberalization of foreign trade and the all-around open economic system prompted the multinational corporations and enterprises of Japan and the ROK to actively participate in inter-regional technological cooperation and patent layout [43], which played a role in promoting bilateral or multilateral international scientific and technological cooperation in the future. From 2009 to 2014, with the advantages of economic development and the acceleration of regional integration, the technical cooperation research of China, Japan, and the ROK entered a period of rapid growth. At this stage, China learned from the successful experience of developed countries and regions such as Japan and the ROK and turned to the world economy and achieved rapid growth, which is the best manifestation of this trend [44], so the growth of patent cooperative applications is relatively obvious. Among them, 338 applications reached the second peak in 2012. From 2015 to 2022, the number of patent cooperation applications reached the third peak of 709 in 2018, but due to the impact of COVID-19 and geopolitics, international cooperative innovation activities could not be carried out normally, so the number of patent cooperation applications between China, Japan, and ROK showed a cliff-like downward trend. The number of applications in 2022 is only 99, which is even smaller than the scale of cooperation in 2004.
To study the structural characteristics of the patent cooperation network, this paper uses the polynomial regression formula (y = −0.076x4 + 610.96x3 – 2 × 106x2 + 2 × 109x − 1 × 1012, R2 = 0.8719) to obtain the goodness-of-fit coefficient (decidable coefficient) R2 = 0.8719. The linear regression fit of the decidable coefficient is close to 1, indicating that the degree of regression fitting better reflects the overall development trend of the network (represented by the red dotted line in Figure 2) and divides the trend of patent technology cooperation into four stages: 2002–2008, 2009–2012, 2013–2018, and 2019–2022.
Through the analysis of the development trend of the above stages, it is found that there is a close relationship between the trilateral cooperation and the coordination of standards and regulatory systems, as well as the changes in market demand and the development of patent technology cooperation among the three countries [45,46]. From the 1980s of the 20th century to the beginning of the 21st century, Sino–Japanese scientific and technological cooperation was launched and accelerated. The Sino–Japanese Agreement on Scientific and Technological Cooperation signed in 1980 marked the official beginning of Sino–Japanese intergovernmental cooperation in science and technology. The signing of a memorandum of understanding between the Ministry of Science and Technology of China and the Japan Science and Technology Agency (JITSA) to jointly solicit and fund large-scale joint research projects, as well as technical cooperation under Japan’s official development assistance (ODA) to China, has laid a solid foundation for Sino–Japanese cooperation and innovation activities. Although China and the ROK established formal diplomatic relations relatively late, after 1998, the two countries gradually upgraded from friendly and cooperative relations to comprehensive cooperative partnerships and then to strategic cooperative partnerships. Since 1999, the leaders of the three countries have started the process of cooperation between China, Japan, and the ROK and established a future-oriented and all-round cooperation partnership, so through the meeting of officials of the Ministry of Science and Technology under the framework of ASEAN and China, Japan, and the ROK (10 + 3), the channels of scientific and technological cooperation among the three countries have increased, and international cooperation in R&D of patent technology has become more frequent.

4.2.2. Distribution of Patent Cooperation between China, Japan, and ROK

According to the International Patent Classification (IPC), patents are divided into eight parts. Part A is for the needs of life. Part B is for operation and transportation. Part C is chemistry and metallurgy. Part D is textiles and papermaking. Part E is for stationary buildings. Part F is mechanical engineering, lighting, heating, and blasting. Part G is physics. Part H is electricity. In terms of technology types, Part H is the largest number of invention patents jointly filed by China, Japan, and the ROK, with a patent ratio of 33.34%, followed by Part G (18.64%) and Part C (13.11%), as shown in Table 2.
With the advancement of China’s reform and opening up policy and the deepening of regional cooperation, Japan and ROK have become China’s main sources of technology imports, and China’s huge market has become increasingly attractive to developed countries [47,48]. In terms of capital-intensive and technology-intensive industries, Japan and the ROK have an absolute competitive advantage in the global market [49]. The former is the “world supply base” of semiconductor materials, high-tech and high-value-added machinery, components, raw materials, and machinery and equipment. The latter has obvious advantages in the fields of automotive manufacturing, wireless communication equipment, and displays.

4.3. Analysis of the Organizational Collaborative Innovation Network

In the analysis of inter-country patent cooperation networks, this paper establishes an analytical framework from the overall structure, the location of the innovation subject network, and the surface-point slice of the cohesion subgroup. Firstly, the overall indicators of the patent cooperation network of innovation subjects in different countries at different stages are analyzed, and the structural characteristics of the network are clarified. Secondly, the number and distribution of cooperative patents of each innovation organization in the network are explored, and the position of nodes in the network is explained. Finally, the internal relationship of the network is deeply analyzed from the perspective of cohesive subgroups.

4.3.1. Analysis of the Evolution Characteristics of the Overall Network Structure

According to the data of China–Japan–ROK jointly applying for invention patents in four stages, an n × n order matrix is generated. The number of cooperative patents between organizations is the corresponding value in the matrix, and the larger the value, the more the number of cooperations. If there are no patents of cooperation between organizations, the corresponding value is 0. The generated n × n-order symmetry matrix was imported into Gephi software, and with the help of the Fruchterman–Reingold layout algorithm, the topological evolution mapping of the organizational cooperation network shown in Figure 3 was obtained. Among them, the larger nodes indicate that the number of nodes cooperating with them is larger, and the coarser connecting lines indicate that the number of cooperation between nodes is more frequent.
From 2002 to 2008, the number of nodes and edges of the organization’s cooperation network was relatively small, the network structure was relatively loose, there was no aggregation, and only a few innovative subjects were prominent. Since 2008, the organizational cooperation and R&D activities between China, Japan, and the ROK have become more active, the network structure has presented a multi-node multilateral radiation network state, the network connection is relatively dense, and more and more enterprises and scientific research institutions have joined the field of scientific and technological innovation, forming a growing cooperative group. In the third stage, the scale of the network is unprecedented, and the areas of cooperation between China, Japan, and the ROK are deepening, which plays a positive role in promoting the three countries to become the world’s top five science and technology clusters, and at the same time, it is crucial to the vitality of the national innovation ecosystem.
The evolution mapping of the above stages is calculated by Table 1 equations above, and the results of the indicators related to the network structure characteristics shown in Table 3 are obtained.
The diameter of the network in Table 3 has developed rapidly from 6 to 7 in the first two stages to 10, but it has not yet reached the range of 12 to 14 proposed by Bettencourt et al. [50] for cooperative innovation networks in the field of science and technology after development, indicating that the innovation activities of cooperative networks have not stabilized, and there is still room for continued growth and development of cooperative innovation between institutions.
According to the research results of Watts D. J. [51] and Uzzi B. et al. [52], the average degree, average weighted degree, and average clustering coefficient reflect the compactness of the network, and the first two values show a gradual upward trend, indicating that the scale of R&D is expanding and the number of partners of R&D institutions is gradually increasing. However, the average clustering coefficient showed a downward trend, indicating that the cooperation between inventors and patentees was not close, and a relatively stable cooperative relationship was not formed.
Previous studies have shown that the evolution of the organizational cooperation innovation network between China, Japan, and the ROK is related to the influence of multiple factors between governments [53]. Since 2010, when China became the world’s second largest economy, Japan and ROK’s domestic sense of competition with China began to rise significantly, disrupting official high-level scientific and technological exchanges between the regions, as well as halting technological cooperation based on the channels of Japan’s international institutions. Restrictions, especially in high-tech and advanced manufacturing areas such as integrated circuits, processors, semiconductor storage, and numerically controlled machine tools [54,55], have had a profound impact on technological cooperation and innovation activities between countries [56].

4.3.2. Characteristic Analysis of the Innovation Subject Network

As the core force of the global innovation ecosystem, enterprises play a crucial role in the patent cooperation network between China, Japan, and the ROK. In the first two stages of development, the number of collaborating entities in Sino–Japanese (362,399) and Japanese–ROK (353,460) was relatively similar, respectively, reflecting the role of Japanese companies as the core entities among the East Asian region during this period. From 2013 to 2018, compared with the weakening trend of Sino–ROK cooperation, the number of cooperation entities between Sino–Japanese and Japanese–ROK increased rapidly, to 1635 and 1025, respectively, and the number of cooperation between universities and research institutions also increased significantly. The results are shown in Table 4.
According to China’s Ministry of Commerce, in 2018 alone, China–Japan–ROK invested more than 70 billion RMB in each other, and the total amount of multilateral trade exceeded 4.5 trillion RMB, creating huge benefits through bilateral cooperation. Through trade exchanges, the three countries have not only expanded their own production and economic scale but also promoted the production and expanded trade of each other’s countries, so that the spillover effect of the economic integration of China, Japan, and the ROK is greater than that of other countries and regions, and the direct effect of the spillover effect of the three countries has always maintained a high trend.
Especially of the impact of COVID-19, Sino–US tensions, and geopolitics, China–Japan–ROK science and technology cooperation is facing great challenges and complex impacts; the number of organizational collaborations between enterprises and research institutions has dropped significantly after 2019, and the patent cooperation and innovation activities in East Asia have been unprecedentedly challenged. With the beginning of a new round of industrial revolution and scientific and technological transformation, science and technology have become an important area of competition between countries, and the resistance to cooperation between China, Japan, and the ROK in the field of high-tech is bound to continue to increase. At the same time, although Sino–ROK has reached a strategic cooperative partnership, there are still great limitations in the actual cooperation between each other, and the strategic cooperative partnership is still in the initial stage. In recent years, Sino–ROK has not been able to effectively solve the bilateral relations constraints of the “security short board” problem. The US–ROK alliance is increasingly restricting the development of Sino–ROK relations. Therefore, the superposition of multiple factors has caused great interference and damage to the stable development of the patent cooperation network of China–Japan–ROK, and the inter-regional scientific and technological cooperation has been profoundly affected.
Among the innovative subjects of China–Japan–ROK patent technology cooperation, multinational corporations are not only the main contributors to a series of extremely important economic development achievements in the global market system but also an important force leading and promoting the formation and development of the global value chains. By analyzing the top 10 innovation bodies of China–Japan–ROK patent cooperation at different stages, it is helpful to sort out the group characteristics of the trilateral cooperative innovation network. In Table 5, Table 6, Table 7 and Table 8, according to the analysis of the current applicant’s address (ANC_COUNTRY), Japanese and the ROK enterprises have become the core bodies of the organizational cooperation network and have occupied a monopoly position in different periods, and the globally renowned enterprises represented by AQUA, Panasonic, Samsung, LG, etc., play a vital role in the China–Japan–ROK patent cooperation network and have a huge impact on the regional scientific and technological innovation of the three East Asian countries. Although China is a major patent country and the major scientific and technological innovation cluster region in the world, the influence of domestic enterprises in the patent cooperation network is relatively limited, and there is still a relatively large gap compared with multinational enterprises in Japan and the ROK.
Compared with the previous two stages, China’s innovation entities began to show strong R&D cooperation capabilities and patent layout awareness in 2013. Multinational companies such as FG Innovation, Haier, and Wuhan Tianma Microelectronics actively developed technological cooperation with Japan, and there is still a lot of room for improvement in the scale of Sino–ROK cooperation compared with the cooperation between Japan–ROK and Sino–Japanese. The emergence of this phenomenon is closely related to the “Chinese Going Global Strategy” [57,58], which was officially launched in 2001. To optimize China’s industrial structure and obtain economic and technological resources, the Chinese government put forward the goal of cultivating large-scale multinational corporations with international competitiveness and exploring the international market space during the period of Jiang Zemin so as to break through trade barriers and enhance the country’s competitiveness. This policy has been steadily implemented since 2008 and has been rapidly implemented under President Xi Jinping’s “The Belt and Road” initiative so that China’s outward foreign direct investment (OFDI) jumped to second place in the world in 2016.
From 2019 to 2022, the influence of ROK’s innovation groups in the patent cooperation network began to weaken, and compared with the previous three stages, only NAVER and NHN were among the top 10 innovation bodies, and the direction of cooperation also shifted from high-tech fields such as electronic information technology, displays, and automobile manufacturing to Internet services and search engine websites. Japan has always been the backbone of the trilateral patent cooperation network and has become a leader in dominating regional scientific and technological cooperation and innovation.

4.3.3. Analysis of Cohesive Subgroups

In the analysis of social networks, Lazega et al. [59] pointed out that a subgroup of actors is a subset of actors that satisfies the following conditions, that is, the actors in this set have relatively strong, direct, close, regular, or positive relationships with each other. Therefore, the analysis of the set of actors with close ties is to divide the small groups with strong connections formed within the network, which is conducive to revealing the substructure within the network. In this paper, the cohesive subgroup analysis is carried out by using the modularity class community discovery and detection function of Gephi, and the resolution is set to 0.5. It is found that there are seven cohesive subgroups in the China–Japan–ROK patent cooperation network. Samsung Display (dark green), Tsinghua University (light green), LEKIN (orange), NEC (black), Samsung Electronics (purple), Bandai Namco (blue), and Hyundai Motor (red) are the seven major innovation groups, which provide a clearer understanding of the internal structure of the subnetwork. The results are shown in Figure 4.
Among the seven innovation groups, high-tech enterprises such as multinational information technology and automobile manufacturing have become the core nodes of the cooperation network. As globally renowned companies, ROK’s Samsung Display, Samsung Electronics, Hyundai Motor, Japan’s NEC, and China’s LEKIN and other companies have demonstrated strong resource radiation and technological innovation driving capabilities in the network. It not only actively expands overseas markets by using technology and brand advantages but also drives more joint patent applications and promotes scientific and technological innovation activities through economic and trade exchanges. At the same time, under the development of bilateral or multilateral government working mechanisms and innovation practice activities, China–Japan–ROK regional cooperation in science and technology innovation has had a profound impact on global technology innovation cooperation.

4.4. Analysis of IPC Technical Network

4.4.1. Analysis of the Technical Field of Patent Cooperation

Analyzing the technology areas of the sample data, a bubble chart of IPC patent collaboration was obtained as shown in Figure 5. The bubbles for technologies such as H01 (electrical components), H04 (telecommunication technology), G06 (computing), G02 (optics), C09 (dyes), and D06 (treatment of fabrics, etc.) appear more prominently, indicating that the three countries have a higher number of patent collaborations in the above technology fields, which is consistent with the conclusion that organizational collaborations are mainly based on high-tech patents in electronic information technology, semiconductors, displays, and automobile manufacturing, as described in the previous section. This is consistent with the conclusion that organizational cooperation is dominated by high-tech patents in electronic information technology, semiconductors, displays, and automobile manufacturing, as described earlier.
After COVID-19, because of the influence of the international external environment, the economic and trade relations between China, Japan, and the ROK are becoming more sensitive, the “competitive” factor is gradually increasing, and the interfering effects of multiple pressures are increasing the uncertainty of regional cooperation relations. Therefore, after 2020, the scale of the patent cooperation technology field has shrunk rapidly, of which technologies such as F25 (refrigeration or cooling; combined heating and cooling systems), D06, F24 (heating; stoves), H05 (electrical technology not included in other categories), and G03 (photography; cinematography) have no patent application data, which are closely related to the signal of decoupling of high-end industrial chains between Sino–Japanese and Sino–ROK.

4.4.2. Analysis of the Evolutionary Characteristics of the IPC Technology Network

Combined with the time dimension and IPC4 sub-categories, the analysis of the co-occurrence network of patented technologies helps obtain the development trend and evolution characteristics of China–Japan–ROK technological cooperation at different stages. Figure 6 shows that there are obvious key technology nodes in the IPC4 network evolution mapping in different periods, and this type of node is related to other technology nodes, forming several technology subgroups. From 2002 to 2008, technologies such as H01L (semiconductor devices), G02F (optical devices or appliances), H04N (image communication), and G06F (electrical digital data processing) were more prominent, which had a strong radiation effect on other related technologies during this period, so they were more competitive in the market. Compared with the first stage, key technology nodes such as G02B (optical components, systems, or instruments) and H01M (methods or devices for direct conversion of chemical energy into electrical energy, such as battery packs) appeared from 2009 to 2012, and several technology subgroups were formed during this period, with the nodes within the subgroups being more tightly connected. Since 2013, D06F (treatment of textiles) and H05B (electric heating), as well as the fourth stage of B29C (molding and joining of plastics) and G09F (displays) technologies, have become important directions for the innovation and development of patent technology cooperation of China–Japan–ROK.
As the world’s advanced equipment manufacturing power, Japan has a strong competitive advantage in the field of advanced machine tools, automation equipment, and robots. The ROK is a global semiconductor, LCD panels, photovoltaic, power battery, shipbuilding, and automotive industry with traditional advantages. Therefore, since the 21st century, semiconductors, optical components, electronic information technology, and other patents have always been the key direction of cooperation between China, Japan, and the ROK. However, with the rapid development of China’s manufacturing industry and the acceleration of industrial transformation and upgrading, the position in the global value chain division of labor is changing, and some high-end industries are in head-on competition with Japan and the ROK. For example, there is competition between China and Japan in the fields of electronic equipment, electrical equipment, and mechanical equipment. The ROK’s position in the global value chain is lower than Japan’s, and it is more susceptible to the impact of China’s industrial upgrading, including semiconductors, LCD panels, photovoltaics, power batteries, shipbuilding, and automobiles.

5. Discussions

The findings of this article are useful in determining the innovation bodies, organizational cooperation network relationships, and IPC technology network correlation characteristics of China–Japan–ROK. Although existing academic study objectives encompass numerous countries and areas on a global scale, no research has been conducted on the network linkage and evolution characteristics of patent technology cooperation and innovation between China, Japan, and the Republic of Korea. As a result, this work seeks to enhance existing research in terms of research object and research substance, with the goal of potentially filling a research gap. The technical cooperation network between China, Japan, and the ROK is not only large-scale but also has strong complementary industrial advantages. Japan and the ROK are the main providers of technology and high-end components, while China is the main creator of product cost advantages. In the semiconductor field, China has a huge market demand, Japan has advanced compound semiconductor technology and semiconductor materials technology, and the ROK is the leader in semiconductor memory and production; therefore, the joint technology research and development of China–Japan–ROK is conducive to breaking through the relevant technology monopolies of other countries. In addition, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), which came into force in 2022, is the first free trade agreement signed by China, Japan, and the ROK and also the first free trade partnership among the three countries, which plays an important role in promoting international cooperation and research among the regions.
However, with the start of a new round of industrial revolution and scientific and technological change, China–Japan–ROK scientific and technological cooperation is also facing multiple pressures from domestic, geopolitical, and U.S. factors. Japan and the ROK have begun to pay more attention to the independent controllability, decentralization, and localization of the industrial chain, and the government has begun to implement the control of dual-use advanced technology research and at the same time strengthen the interference in the international scientific and technological cooperation of scientific research institutions, universities, and enterprises, so it will have a profound impact on the future scientific and technological cooperation between China, Japan, and the ROK. As China’s national power grows, Japan’s own economic means have slowed down, and Tokyo has begun to move closer to the US in order to balance China’s national power [60]. In the long run, the attempts of Japan and ROK to break away from their dependence on China supply chains may lead to a decrease in technology transfer and technology spillovers for Chinese firms, resulting in a decrease in the propensity for technology transfer and a corresponding decrease in the size of R&D cooperation networks and technology transfer opportunities among innovators.

6. Conclusions

This study looks into the structural characteristics and evolution of patent technology cooperation and innovation networks in China, Japan, and the ROK, revealing a large-scale, complex network with deeper areas of collaboration, particularly in high-tech fields, despite obstacles such as geopolitical tensions and global events.
To begin, the China–Japan–ROK cooperative innovation network is separated into four stages of development based on cooperative patent application trends: 2002–2008, 2009–2012, 2013–2018, and 2019–2022. Among these, the network structure of the organizational cooperative innovation network was somewhat flexible in the early stages, with only a few innovative subjects standing out. Since 2008, cooperative R&D activities between innovative bodies have increased, the network structure has evolved into a multi-node multilateral radiation network, and an increasing number of enterprises and scientific research institutions have entered the field of scientific and technological innovation, forming a gradually growing cooperative group. Second, the network’s scale was unparalleled in the third stage, and the field of collaboration between China, Japan, and the ROK is becoming increasingly deep, which is critical for the three nations to become the world’s top five science and technology clusters. However, the cooperative network’s innovation activities have not yet stabilized, and there is still room for further growth and development of cooperative innovation across organizations. Finally, at various points in the IPC technical cooperation network, China, Japan, and the ROK have worked more closely together in the fields of IPC H, G, and C, and there are key technology nodes and technology subgroups, primarily high-tech patents such as electronic information technology, semiconductors, displays, and automobile manufacturing. However, because of COVID-19, Sino–US tensions, and geopolitics, China, Japan, and the Republic of Korea face significant hurdles in science and technology cooperation, particularly in high-tech and sophisticated manufacturing industries such as integrated circuits, processors, semiconductor storage, and CNC machine tools. Finally, this study discovered that enterprises play an important role in the China–Japan–ROK patent cooperation network and are crucial to the global innovation ecosystem. Among them, Japanese and ROK enterprises play a very visible role as the core subject in East Asia, occupying the core position of the network in different periods, exerting a huge impact on regional scientific and technological innovation in the three East Asian countries, and forming seven major innovation groups with Samsung Display, Samsung Electronics, Hyundai Motor and NEC, and LEKIN and other high-tech enterprises as the core nodes.
Based on the paper’s primary conclusions, the following policy implications are proposed for the decision-making of governments, policymakers, businesses, and research organizations. First and foremost, as significant neighbors and partners, China, Japan, and the ROK must cooperate and innovate in order to advance national and regional interests. Although the three countries compete head-on in chip manufacturing, power batteries, and new energy vehicles, there are opportunities for collaboration in the competition, particularly in emerging industries with higher design, raw material, equipment, and consumable requirements. Second, China’s reasonably full industrial structure, large consumer market, and adequate supply of financial resources can allow for the industrialization of new technology. Japan and the ROK have rich technology accumulation and strong innovation capabilities, and China–Japan–ROK can establish a cooperation model for emerging industries from innovation to industrialization to scale, as well as build an industrial chain and supply chain system for emerging industries, which is of great significance for improving global competitiveness and sustainable development of enterprises. Finally, China should correctly address the core and sensitive issues influencing bilateral relations, including the “US factor” and the “Korean Peninsula factor,” and aggressively promote regional peace and stability. Based on the RCEP, accelerate the negotiation of the China–Japan–ROK FTA and create a higher-level free trade area by applying to join the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), which will provide institutional guarantees for the three countries’ industrial and supply chains to remain stable.
Although this paper has reference significance and value for filling gaps in the research on the evolution characteristics of dual networks of China–Japan–ROK patent technology cooperation innovation, there are some limitations. Due to limitations in patent databases, this study relies on patent data from the PatSnap database, which may not capture all forms of technology collaboration, as some collaborations may not result in patent applications. However, limiting the scope of this study to three countries will limit the research horizon. In the future, more extensive worldwide data will be accessible for comparison of different countries for a more in-depth analysis.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, P.W. and H.C.; methodology, P.W.; software, P.W.; validation, H.C. and N.T.E.; formal analysis, P.W.; investigation, P.W.; resources, H.C.; data curation, P.W.; writing—original draft preparation, P.W.; writing—review and editing, N.T.E.; visualization, P.W.; supervision, H.C.; project administration, P.W.; funding acquisition, P.W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The authors gratefully acknowledge funding from Key Laboratory of Intelligent Textile and Flexible Interconnection of Zhejiang Province (grant number 111504A4E22004), Silk and Fashion Culture Research Center of Zhejiang Province, Zhejiang Provincial Key Research Institute of Philosophy and Social Science (grant number 2022JDKTYB27).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data are available from the corresponding author upon request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Niosi, J.; Bellon, B. The global interdependence of national innovation systems: Evidence, limits, and implications. Technol. Soc. 1994, 16, 173–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. He, T. International scientific collaboration of China with the G7 countries. Scientometrics 2009, 80, 571–582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Sokolov, A.; Shashnov, S.; Kotsemir, M.; Grebenyuk, A. Quantitative analysis for a better-focused international STI collaboration policy: A case of BRICS. Technol. Forecast. Soc. 2019, 147, 221–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Megnigbeto, E. International collaboration in scientific publishing: The case of West Africa (2001–2010). Scientometrics 2013, 96, 761–783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Zheng, J.; Zhao, Z.; Zhang, X.; Chen, D.; Huang, M.; Lei, X.; Zhang, Z.; Zhao, Y. International scientific and technological collaboration of China from 2004 to 2008: A perspective from paper and patent analysis. Scientometrics 2012, 91, 65–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Thorbecke, W. Rebalancing Trade in East Asia: Evidence from the Electronics Industry. Emerg. Mark. Financ. Trade 2017, 53, 2696–2705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Cao, X.P.; Hanson-Rasmussen, N. Dynamic Change in the Export Technology Structure of China’s Environmental Goods and Its International Comparison. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Borgatti, S.; Everett, M. A Graph-Theoretic Perspective on Centrality. Soc. Netw. 2006, 28, 466–484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Bonacich, P. Power and Centrality: A Family of Measures. Am. J. Sociol. 1987, 92, 1170–1182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Borgatti, S. Centrality and Network Flow. Soc. Netw. 2005, 27, 55–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Models and Methods in Social Network Analysis; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2005; pp. 8–30.
  12. Friedkin, N. Theoretical Foundations for Centrality Measures. Am. J. Sociol. 1991, 96, 1478–1504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Wasserman, S.; Faust, K. Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1994. [Google Scholar]
  14. Zuzanska-Zysko, E. Role of Advanced Producer Services Shaping Globalization Processes in a Post-Industrial Region: The Case of the Gornoslasko-Zaglebiowska Metropolis. Sustainability 2021, 13, 211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Boyd, J.P.; Mahutga, M.C.; Smith, D.A. Measuring Centrality and Power Recursively in the World City Network: A Reply to Neal. Urban Stud. 2013, 50, 1641–1647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Green, N. Functional polycentricity: A formal definition in terms of social network analysis. Urban Stud. 2007, 44, 2077–2103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Borgatti, S.P.; Halgin, D.S. On Network Theory. Organ. Sci. 2011, 22, 1168–1181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Granovetter, M. The Strength of Weak Ties: A Network Theory Revisited. Am. Sociol. Assoc. 1983, 1, 201–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Stovel, K.; Shaw, L. Brokerage. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2012, 38, 139–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Peeples, M.; Roberts, J.M., Jr. To binarize or not to binarize: Relational data and the construction of archaeological networks. J. Archaeol. Sci. 2013, 40, 3001–3010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Prem, E. Identifying international research cooperation capabilities in information and communication technologies. Sci. Public Policy 2014, 41, 658–672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Wang, Y.; Bellus, M.; Ehrlich, A.; Mile, M.; Pristov, N.; Smolíková, P.; Spaniel, O.; Trojáková, A.; Brozková, R.; Cedilnik, J.; et al. 27 Years of regional cooperation for limited area modelling in central europe. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 2018, 99, 1415–1432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Finardi, U.; Buratti, A. Scientific collaboration framework of BRICS countries: An analysis of international coauthorship. Scientometrics 2016, 109, 433–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Andersen, P.H. Organizing international technological collaboration in subcontractor relationships: An investigation of the knowledge-stickiness problem. Res. Policy 1999, 28, 625–642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Yoon, B.; Jeong, Y. Development of International Cooperation Maps for R&D Policy: Exploring National Factors in South Korea. Sci. Technol. Soc. 2015, 20, 225–251. [Google Scholar]
  26. Davidson Frame, J.; Carpenter, M.P. International Research Collaboration. Soc. Stud. Sci. 1979, 9, 481–497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Wang, X.; Xu, S.; Wang, Z.; Peng, L.; Wang, C. International scientific collaboration of China: Collaborating countries, institutions and individuals. Scientometrics 2013, 95, 885–894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Wagner, C.S.; Leydesdorff, L. Network structure, self-organization, and the growth of international collaboration in science. Res. Policy 2005, 34, 1608–1618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Eslami, H.; Ebadi, A.; Schiffauerova, A. Effect of collaboration network structure on knowledge creation and technological performance: The case of biotechnology in Canada. Scientometrics 2013, 97, 99–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Lin, C.; Wu, L.; Wen, Z.; Tong, H.; Griffiths-Fisher, V.; Shi, L.; Lubensky, D. Social Network Analysis in Enterprise. Soc. Netw. Anal. Enterp. 2012, 100, 2759–2776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Fan, W.; Gordon, M.D. The Power of Social Media Analytics. Commun. ACM 2014, 57, 74–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Monaghan, S.; Lavelle, J.; Gunnigle, P. Mapping networks: Exploring the utility of social network analysis in management research and practice. J. Bus. Res. 2017, 76, 136–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Schiller, F.; Penn, A.S.; Basson, L. Analyzing networks in industrial ecology—A review of Social-Material Network Analyses. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 76, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Lee, K.; Jung, H. Dynamic semantic network analysis for identifying the concept and scope of social sustainability. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 233, 1510–1524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Wu, K.; Yang, T.; Wei, X. Does the structure of intersectoral embedded carbon flow network matter to carbon reduction in China? J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 233, 1061–1074. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Marques, L.; Manzanares, M.D. Towards social network metrics for supply network circularity. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Man. 2023, 43, 595–618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Ghali, M.R.; Frayret, J.; Robert, J. Green social networking: Concept and potential applications to initiate industrial synergies. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 115, 23–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Hoppe, B.; Reinelt, C. Social network analysis and the evaluation of leadership networks. Leadership Quart. 2010, 21, 600–619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Wang, X.; Ren, J.; Zhang, Y.; Zhu, D.; Qiu, P.; Huang, M. China’s patterns of international technological collaboration 1976–2010: A patent analysis study. Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 2014, 26, 531–546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Yataganbaba, A.; Kurtbas, I. A scientific approach with bibliometric analysis related to brick and tile drying: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 59, 206–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Ju, Y.; Sohn, S.Y. Identifying patterns in rare earth element patents based on text and data mining. Scientometrics 2015, 102, 389–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Danguy, J.; de Rassenfosse, G.; van Pottelsberghe De La Potterie, B. On the origins of the worldwide surge in patenting: An industry perspective on the R&D-patent relationship. Ind. Corp. Chang. 2014, 23, 535–572. [Google Scholar]
  43. Choi, W.M. Legal Analysis of Korea-ASEAN Regional Trade Integration. J. World Trade 2007, 41, 581–603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Cumings, B. On the history and practice of unilateralism in east asia: Or, the more things change, the more they remain the same. Pac. Focus. 2008, 23, 139–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Yoshimatsu, H. Regional cooperation in Northeast Asia: Searching for the mode of governance. Int. Relat. Asia-Pac. 2010, 10, 247–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Kang, I.; Han, S.; Shin, G.C. A process leading to strategic alliance outcome: The case of IT companies in China, Japan and Korea. Int. Bus. Rev. 2014, 23, 1127–1138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Dong, L.; Dai, M.; Liang, H.W.; Zhang, N.; Mancheri, N.; Ren, J.Z.; Dou, Y.; Hu, M.M. Material flows and resource productivity in China, South Korea and Japan from 1970 to 2008: A transitional perspective. J. Clean Prod. 2017, 141, 1164–1177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Wang, L.L.; Jiang, S.; Zhang, S.Y. Mapping technological trajectories and exploring knowledge sources: A case study of 3D printing technologies. Technol. Forecast. Soc. 2020, 161, 120251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Hemmert, M.; Cross, A.R.; Cheng, Y.; Kim, J.J.; Kohlbacher, F.; Kotosaka, M.; Waldenberger, F.; Zheng, L.J. The distinctiveness and diversity of entrepreneurial ecosystems in China, Japan, and South Korea: An exploratory analysis. Asian Bus. Manag. 2019, 18, 211–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Bettencourt, L.; Kaiser, D.I.; Kaur, J. Scientific discovery and topological transitions in collaboration networks. J. Informetr. 2009, 3, 210–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Watts, D.J. Networks, dynamics, and the small—World phenomenon. Am. J. Sociol. 1999, 105, 493–527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Uzzi, B.; Spiro, J. Collaboration and creativity:the small world problem. Am. J. Sociol. 2005, 111, 447–504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Davis, C.L.; Meunier, S. Business as Usual? Economic Responses to Political Tensions. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 2011, 55, 628–646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Yu, Y.; Li, H.; Bao, H.B. Price dynamics and market relations in solar photovoltaic silicon feedstock trades. Renew Energy 2016, 86, 526–542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Moreno-Brieva, F.; Merino-Moreno, C. Technology generation of lithium batteries in leading countries. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 28, 28367–28380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Park, J. Political Rivals and Regional Leaders: Dual Identities and Sino-Japanese Relations within East Asian Cooperation. Chin. J. Int. Polit. 2013, 6, 85–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Chen, Y.; Li, X.; Wang, L.; Wang, S. Is China different from other investors in global land acquisition? Some observations from existing deals in China’s Going Global Strategy. Land. Use Policy 2017, 60, 362–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Jalil, A.; Rauf, A.; Sikander, W.; Yonghong, Z.; Tiebang, W. Energy consumption, economic growth, and environmental sustainability challenges for Belt and Road countries: A fresh insight from “Chinese Going Global Strategy”. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 28, 65987–65999. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Lazega, E.; Stanley, W.; Katherine, F. Social network analysis: Methods and applications. Rev. Française Sociol. 1995, 36, 781–783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Auslin, M.; Green, M. Japan’s security policy in East Asia. Asian Econ. Policy Rev. 2007, 2, 208–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 16 07764 g001
Figure 1. Patented technical cooperation and innovation dual network structure analysis model.
Figure 1. Patented technical cooperation and innovation dual network structure analysis model.
Sustainability 16 07764 g001
Sustainability 16 07764 g002
Figure 2. Trends in patent cooperation between China, Japan, and ROK.
Figure 2. Trends in patent cooperation between China, Japan, and ROK.
Sustainability 16 07764 g002
Sustainability 16 07764 g003
Figure 3. Topological evolution mapping of the organizational cooperation network.
Figure 3. Topological evolution mapping of the organizational cooperation network.
Sustainability 16 07764 g003
Sustainability 16 07764 g004
Figure 4. Network topology of seven major cohesive subgroups in China–Japan–ROK.
Figure 4. Network topology of seven major cohesive subgroups in China–Japan–ROK.
Sustainability 16 07764 g004
Sustainability 16 07764 g005
Figure 5. Bubble chart of the evolution of China–Japan–ROK cooperation in the field of technology.
Figure 5. Bubble chart of the evolution of China–Japan–ROK cooperation in the field of technology.
Sustainability 16 07764 g005
Sustainability 16 07764 g006
Figure 6. Evolutionary characteristics of the IPC technology network.
Figure 6. Evolutionary characteristics of the IPC technology network.
Sustainability 16 07764 g006
Table 1. Calculation indicators of patent technology cooperation and innovation network.
Table 1. Calculation indicators of patent technology cooperation and innovation network.
Indicator TypeIndicator NameCalculation FormulaExplanation
The overall network structureaverage path length 2 n ( n − 1 ) ∑ i , j d i j The average path length of the network is the average of the distance between pairs of nodes where there is a connected path, where n is the number of network nodes, and dij is the distance between nodes and i and j.
network diameter max i , j ⁡ d i j The maximum value of the distance between any two nodes in the network.
network density ∑ i = 1 N ∑ j = 1 N d i j n ( n − 1 ) , (i  ≠ j )Network density is the ratio of the number of edges that have the highest number of connected edges (excluding self-connections) to the total number of relationships between nodes in a given network, where N is the total number of nodes in the network.
average degree ∑ i , j = 1 N a i j / N The degree refers to the average of the degrees of all nodes in the network, which can reflect the average number of partners owned by all nodes in the network,   a i j is the degree value between the node pairs i and j.
average weighted degree ∑ i , j = 1 N w i j / N Average weighted degree refers to the average value of the weighted of all nodes in the network.
clustering coefficient 1 n ∑ 1 N 2 e i k i k i − 1 The clustering coefficient refers to the average of the clustering coefficients of all nodes in the network, where e i is the actual number of edges between adjacent nodes of node i, and k i is the degree of node i.
Innovative body network locationstop 10 innovative bodies ∑ P ( i ↔ j ) P ( i ↔ j ) denotes the number of technology patents filed by country or region i in cooperation with country or region j.
Cohesive subgroupsmodularity classk-core analysisThe k-core is a cohesive subgroup analysis method based on node degree, and the k-kernels obtained by different k values are also different, and the larger the k value, the more closely connected the subgroup is, which can reveal the hierarchical structure of the link strength.
Table 2. Distribution of patent cooperation between China, Japan, and ROK in various fields.
Table 2. Distribution of patent cooperation between China, Japan, and ROK in various fields.
Type of PatentABCDEFGHTotal
Number of patents452619775392114487110219715912
Ratio7.65%10.47%13.11%6.63%1.93%8.24%18.64%33.34%100.00%
Table 3. Structural evolution characteristics of organizational cooperation networks.
Table 3. Structural evolution characteristics of organizational cooperation networks.
Network Characteristic Parameters2002–20082009–20122013–20182019–2022
Average Degree3.9773.9833. 9953.776
Average Weighted Degree42.00082.70598.02346.566
Diameter67106
Graph Density0.0230.0220.0200.018
Average Path Length2.7512.8654.4032.411
Average Clustering Coefficient0.7750.8060.7380.785
Table 4. Distribution of the types of China–Japan–ROK cooperation organizations at different stages.
Table 4. Distribution of the types of China–Japan–ROK cooperation organizations at different stages.
YearCooperating CountriesNumber of CompaniesNumber of Universities/Research InstitutesOthers
2002–2008CN-JP3624814
CN-KR184148
JP-KR3532546
2009–2012CN-JP3996529
CN-KR1262522
JP-KR4605649
2013–2018CN-JP1635110137
CN-KR1774245
JP-KR1025188124
2019–2022CN-JP5863259
CN-KR66837
JP-KR3595238
Table 5. Top 10 innovative bodies in China–Japan–ROK patent cooperation, 2002–2008.
Table 5. Top 10 innovative bodies in China–Japan–ROK patent cooperation, 2002–2008.
No.InstitutionsTotal Number of PatentsCooperating Countries (Number of Collaborations)ANC_COUNTRY
1Samsung Electronics103CN-KR (80), JP-KR (23)KR
2Haier99CN-JP (99)CN
3Samsung Display85CN-KR (1), JP-KR (84)KR
4AQUA71CN-JP (71)JP
5Hitachi Display64CN-JP (64)JP
6Beijing Samsung Communication48CN-KR (48)KR
7TDK40CN-JP (40)JP
7ST Industries40CN-JP (40)JP
9LG39CN-KR (34), JP-KR (5)KR
10Suzhou Lixiu36CN-KR (36)CN
Table 6. Top 10 innovative bodies in China–Japan–ROK patent cooperation, 2009–2012.
Table 6. Top 10 innovative bodies in China–Japan–ROK patent cooperation, 2009–2012.
No.InstitutionTotal Number of PatentsCooperating Countries (Number of Collaborations)ANC_COUNTRY
1Samsung Electronics82CN-KR (47), JP-KR (35)KR
2Panasonic55CN-JP (51), JP-KR (4)JP
3LG New Energy50JP-KR (50)KR
4Guangdong Panasonic Environmental System49CN-JP (49)JP
5AVANSTRATE46CN-JP (15), JP-KR (35)JP
6Tsinghua University39CN-JP (33), CN-KR (6)CN
7Toray35JP-KR (31), CN-KR (4)JP
7Anhanstech Korea35CN-JP (40)JP
9Hyundai Motor34CN-KR (1), JP-KR (33)KR
10Kia Motor33JP-KR (33)KR
Table 7. Top 10 innovative bodies in China–Japan–ROK patent cooperation, 2013–2018.
Table 7. Top 10 innovative bodies in China–Japan–ROK patent cooperation, 2013–2018.
No.InstitutionTotal Number of PatentsCooperating Countries (Number of Collaborations)ANC_COUNTRY
1FG Innovation532CN-JP (532)CN
2Sharp474CN-JP (474)JP
3AQUA198CN-JP (198)JP
4Haier187CN-JP (187)CN
5Samsung Electronics129CN-KR (92), JP-KR (37)KR
6Rinnai107JP-KR (107)JP
6Leyou Korea107JP-KR (107)KR
8AVANSTRATE103CN-JP (67), JP-KR (36)JP
9AISKAI New Materials61JP-KR (61)KR
10Panasonic56CN-JP (49), JP-KR (7)JP
Table 8. Top 10 innovative bodies in China–Japan–ROK patent cooperation, 2019–2022.
Table 8. Top 10 innovative bodies in China–Japan–ROK patent cooperation, 2019–2022.
No.InstitutionTotal Number of PatentsPatent Cooperation Area (Number of Patents)ANC_COUNTRY
1FG Innovation184CN-JP (184)CN
2Sharp169CN-JP (169)JP
3NAVER.116JP-KR (116)KR
4Tenma Japan51CN-JP (51)JP
5Wuhan Tianma Microelectronics50CN-JP (50)CN, JP
6LINE WORKS41JP-KR (41)JP
7Thermos LLC36CN-JP (36)JP
8Crown Mfg. Corp.35CN-JP (35)CN
9NHN34JP-KR (34)KR
10AQUA33CN-JP (33)JP
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Wang, P.; Elvis, N.T.; Cheng, H. Structural Characteristics and Evolution of the Dual Network of Patent Technology Collaboration and Innovation in China–Japan–ROK. Sustainability 2024, 16, 7764. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16177764

AMA Style

Wang P, Elvis NT, Cheng H. Structural Characteristics and Evolution of the Dual Network of Patent Technology Collaboration and Innovation in China–Japan–ROK. Sustainability. 2024; 16(17):7764. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16177764

Chicago/Turabian Style

Wang, Pengfei, Nguepi Tsafack Elvis, and Hua Cheng. 2024. "Structural Characteristics and Evolution of the Dual Network of Patent Technology Collaboration and Innovation in China–Japan–ROK" Sustainability 16, no. 17: 7764. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16177764

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop