2018年-PIIE彼得森国际经济研究所_Chinas_Forced_Technology_Transfer_ProblemAnd_What_to_Do_About_It_10页_210kb

报告摘要

POLICY BRIEF SUMMARY: China's Forced Technology Transfer Problem—And What to Do About It

Core Content

This policy brief, authored by Lee G. Branstetter, examines the issue of forced technology transfer by China and proposes a multilateral and targeted response to address it. It highlights how China's policies compel foreign multinational corporations (MNCs) to transfer strategically sensitive technologies to indigenous firms, often under the guise of market access, and how this undermines global innovation and US national interests.

Main Points

Forced Technology Transfer is a systemic issue in China, affecting industries such as automotive, IT, and telecommunications.
State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs) often act as gatekeepers, using their influence to pressure foreign firms into transferring technology.
Intellectual Property (IP) Rights Enforcement in China is weak, with few legal consequences for misappropriation.
The US-China trade war has been exacerbated by broad-based tariffs, which may cause more harm to US firms than to Chinese ones.
A targeted and multilateral approach is needed to effectively counter China's practices without triggering widespread retaliation.

Key Issues and Recommendations

1. Forced Technology Transfer Mechanisms

China uses foreign direct investment (FDI) rules, joint ventures, and monopolistic market conditions to force technology transfers.
In the auto industry, foreign firms are compelled to form joint ventures with Chinese entities, often at the cost of technology control and profitability.
In the IT sector, firms must navigate joint venture requirements to access the Chinese market, risking future competition from local firms.
SOEs are central to these practices, leveraging political connections to secure favorable treatment and technology access.

2. Global Economic Impact

Forced technology transfers harm global innovation by deterring MNCs from investing in China.
These practices increase production costs and reduce efficiency in the global economy.
They also act as a subsidy for less innovative Chinese firms, potentially slowing worldwide innovation.
WTO violations are evident, as China's actions conflict with its TRIMs and TRIPs obligations.

3. Proposed Solutions: CFIUS and IEEPA

The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) should be reformed to focus on outbound technology transfers to countries of special concern.
CFIUS should not block US outbound FDI, as it is better suited to private firms to assess risks.
A narrow definition of critical technologies should be developed with input from National Academies and federal science agencies.
A clear interagency process should define countries of special concern based on IP protection, SOE practices, and institutional factors.
CFIUS should consider third-country access to technology before imposing restrictions.
Appeals process should be introduced for firms affected by CFIUS decisions, ensuring fairness and transparency.

4. Use of IEEPA for Sanctions

The International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) provides legal authority for targeted sanctions against Chinese entities involved in forced technology transfer.
These sanctions could include travel bans, asset freezes, and trade penalties.
Multilateral cooperation with Western allies is essential to ensure effective enforcement and shared burden.

Conclusion

Inaction is not a viable response to China's forced technology transfer practices.
A targeted, multilateral, and legally sound approach is necessary to deter China without escalating trade conflict.
CFIUS and IEEPA can be effectively leveraged with proper reforms to address the issue and protect US IP.

Key Takeaways

China's forced technology transfer is a systemic issue that affects a wide range of industries.
Multinational corporations are often pressured into compliance due to market access constraints.
WTO obligations are violated by China's practices, but litigation is ineffective due to lack of transparency.
Targeted sanctions and multilateral cooperation are more effective than broad-based tariffs.
CFIUS reform and IEEPA utilization can serve as key tools to counter China's behavior.