Chapter One: General Rankings, Research Findings, and In-
Depth Analysis of the 2018 China Intellectual Property Rights
Index Report
Chief Editor: Mr. Wang, Zhengzhi
Assistant Editor: Zheng Qiao Chen (Matthew)
As indicated by the World Bank Report, the already burdened international trade
environment could be further exacerbated by the aggravating and negative impacts of
rounds of unpredictable trade talks and negotiations among major global economic
powers, compounded by the ever-increasing risk of escalating trade restriction
measures. Meanwhile, with China’s continuous growth in the area of advanced
technology, many of China’s advance technology is at an equal footing with leading
countries around the world, with some fields even leading the international industry.
With a more concrete emphasize on independent research and self-development,
China’s policy approach of technological development in the foreseeable future should
be based on a combination of both “open cooperation” and “self-reliance.”
The overall significance of intellectual property thus becomes more apparent
contrasting with such a complicated international background. In April 2018, as
stressed by President Xi, Jinping in his keynote speech in the opening ceremony of the
2018 Annual Session of Boao Forum of Asia, “Strengthen the protection of intellectual
property…is a key component of constructing a more comprehensive IP protection
system. It is also one of the major stimulating factors enhancing China’s economic
competitiveness. As such, the demand for such protection come from not only foreign
entities investing in China, but also domestic Chinese companies in general.” (As
President Xi) also points out, “(the Chinese government) plans to restructure the
1 / 23
National Intellectual Property Administration, PRC1, which will in turn strengthen legal
enforcement of intellectual property protection, increase the extent of enforcement,
significantly raise the cost of IP infringement, and in doing so accomplish the purpose
of legal deterrence (of IP infringement).”
(It is thus foreseeable that) the industry of Intellectual Property will usher in one of
the best periods of development, and it is destined to undertake a greater responsibility
in the socio-economic development of China. One crucial element in the area of
intellectual property development is the construction of a favorable environment, which
can be achieved via introducing friendlier innovative entrepreneurship environment, an
improved business operating environment, and a healthier ecological environment.
Within the 2018 edition of the Intellectual Property Index Report, we included indexes
measuring both business operating environment and ecological environment, the
purpose of which is to evaluate (with empirical data) the developmental status of both
environments within the various provinces of China and understanding the effect of
such status with respect to the development of intellectual property.
I. Overall Rankings of the 2018 China Regional Intellectual Property Rights Index
Report
Within the region of mainland China, the overall top 10 ranking provinces
within the 2018 Index Report (including autonomous regions and municipalities
directly under the Central Government, hereinafter collectively referred to as provinces)
are (from top to bottom): Beijing, Guangdong, Jiangsu, Shanghai, Zhejiang, Shandong,
Anhui, Tianjin, Hubei, and Chongqing.
The provinces (11 provinces) ranked in the middle are: Hunan, Fujian, Shaanxi,
Sichuan, Liaoning, Henan, Guangxi, Jilin, Jiangxi, Hebei, and Heilongjiang.
The 10 provinces ranked in the bottom of the report are: Guizhou, Shanxi,
Gansu, Yunnan, Inner Mongolia, Hainan, Ningxia, Qinghai, Tibet and Xinjiang (Please
refer to Figure 1-1).
Table 1-1 Overall rankings of 2018 China Regional Intellectual Property Rights Index
1 Originally known as the “State Intellectual Property Office (People’s Republic of China)”
2 / 23
Comprehensive Comprehensive Creative
Province Strength Output Level Flow Level Performance Potential
Index Ranking Index Ranking Index Ranking Index Ranking Index Ranking
Beijing 0.593 1 0.634 1 0.594 2 0.649 1 0.497 3
Guangdong 0.536 2 0.425 3 0.661 1 0.532 4 0.525 2
Jiangsu 0.509 3 0.487 2 0.415 4 0.491 6 0.644 1
Shanghai 0.466 4 0.415 4 0.485 3 0.620 2 0.344 6
Zhejiang 0.422 5 0.391 5 0.264 6 0.565 3 0.468 4
Shandong 0.321 6 0.213 11 0.297 5 0.368 13 0.405 5
Anhui 0.286 7 0.348 6 0.170 12 0.364 14 0.262 9
Tianjin 0.282 8 0.215 10 0.161 15 0.494 5 0.258 10
Hubei 0.279 9 0.203 12 0.204 7 0.391 9 0.318 7
Chongqing 0.251 10 0.160 15 0.170 11 0.467 7 0.206 15
Hunan 0.251 11 0.153 16 0.166 13 0.412 8 0.272 8
Fujian 0.246 12 0.177 13 0.173 9 0.390 10 0.246 11
Shaanxi 0.243 13 0.215 9 0.172 10 0.372 11 0.213 14
Sichuan 0.230 14 0.230 8 0.163 14 0.307 20 0.218 13
Liaoning 0.225 15 0.153 17 0.193 8 0.370 12 0.183 16
Henan 0.209 16 0.135 19 0.135 17 0.329 17 0.236 12
Guangxi 0.206 17 0.290 7 0.082 22 0.297 22 0.157 21
Jilin 0.177 18 0.088 25 0.136 16 0.351 15 0.133 24
Jiangxi 0.169 19 0.104 20 0.091 21 0.316 19 0.165 19
Hebei 0.164 20 0.088 24 0.112 18 0.280 24 0.174 17
Heilongjiang 0.161 21 0.164 14 0.092 20 0.245 27 0.142 23
Guizhou 0.156 22 0.148 18 0.045 26 0.262 25 0.170 18
Shanxi 0.149 23 0.077 28 0.067 24 0.330 16 0.124 28
Gansu 0.144 24 0.081 26 0.106 19 0.227 29 0.162 20
Yunnan 0.138 25 0.102 21 0.079 23 0.230 28 0.142 22
Inner
Mongolia 0.133 26 0.038 31 0.044 27 0.325 18 0.125 26
Hainan 0.131 27 0.077 27 0.017 30 0.307 21 0.124 27
Ningxia 0.126 28 0.097 23 0.041 28 0.260 26 0.105 29
Qinghai 0.114 29 0.102 22 0.059 25 0.208 31 0.087 31
Tibet 0.113 30 0.059 30 0.014 31 0.290 23 0.090 30
Xinjiang 0.113 31 0.076 29 0.040 29 0.210 30 0.127 25
II. 2018 China Regional Intellectual Property Rights Index Report: Major Finding
The China Regional Intellectual Property Rights Index Report was initially
prepared starting from 2009, covering all 31 provinces in mainland China with the
exception of Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan. With years of accumulation of
3 / 23
empirical data, we were able to construct a comprehensive database that is capable of
profoundly analyze intellectual property status among the various regions of China
(provinces). We approach our analysis by contrasting time (vertically) and geographical
space (horizontally), and it is our finding that:
1. The top 10 provinces enjoy a stable long-term development, and Beijing remains
in the 1st place for 9 consecutive years
Since 2010, rankings of the top 10 provinces enjoy a comparatively stable long-
term development. Provinces such as Beijing, Jiangsu, Shanghai, Guangdong,
Zhejiang, Tianjin, and Shandong were ranked among the top 10 placements each year,
with Beijing sitting at the 1st place for nine consecutive years. Fujian and Chongqing
have each fallen out of the top 10 once and twice, respectively (Chongqing ranked 12th
in the Index Report 2011, Fujian ranked 11th and 12th in the index report 2017 and
2018, respectively). The province of Liaoning has not been ranked in the top 10 since
2015. The province of Anhui has been continuously ranked among the top 10 since
2015, while the province of Hunan and the province of Hubei has each been ranked
among the top 10 once and twice, respectively. Please refer to Chart 1-2 for a detailed
ranking.
Analyzing the Top 10 provinces of the 2018 Intellectual Property Index Report, it
is not difficult to find that most of the provinces are relatively economically developed.
Looking at the data from a geographic perspective, seven of these provinces are from
the eastern region, with only Anhui and Hubei from the middle region, and Chongqing
from the western region of China. In addition, from a regional perspective, the Bohai
Bay Economic Circle (Rim) includes provinces such as Beijing, Tanjing, and Shandong.
The Yangtze River Delta Economic Circle (Rim) includes provinces such as Jiangsu,
Shanghai, Zhejiang, and Anhui. The Pearl River Delta economic circle includes the
province of Guangdong.
Table 1-2 Top 10 China regional intellectual property rights index over the years
4 / 23
Ranking 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
1 Bei-
jing
Bei-
jing
Bei-
jing
Bei-
jing
Bei-
jing
Bei-
jing
Bei-
jing
Bei-
jing
Bei-
jing
2 Shang-
hai
Shang-
hai
Shang-
hai
Shang-
hai
Jiang-
su
Jiang-
su
Jiang-
su
Jiang-
su
Guang
-dong
3 Guang
-dong
Guang
-dong
Guang
-dong
Jiang-
su
Shang-
hai
Shang-
hai
Shang-
hai
Guang
-dong
Jiang-
su
4 Jiang-
su
Jiang-
su
Jiang-
su
Guang
-dong
Guang
-dong
Guang
-dong
Guang
-dong
Shang-
hai
Shang-
hai
5 Zhe-
jiang
Zhe-
jiang
Zhe-
jiang
Zhe-
jiang
Zhe-
jiang
Zhe-
jiang
Zhe-
jiang
Zhe-
jiang
Zhe-
jiang
6 Tianjin Shan-
dong
Shan-
dong
Shan-
dong
Tianjin Tianjin Shan-
dong
Shan-
dong
Shan-
dong
7 Shan-
dong
Tianjin Tianjin Tianjin Shan-
dong
Shan-
dong
Tianjin Tianjin Anhui
8 Liao-
ning
Fujian Liao-
ning
Liao-
ning
Liao-
ning
Fujian Chong
- qing
Chong
- qing
Tianjin
9 Chong
- qing
Liao-
ning
Fujian Fujian Fujian Chong
- qing
Fujian Anhui Hubei
10 Fujian Hunan Chong
- qing
Chong
- qing
Chong
- qing
Anhui Anhui Hunan Chong
- qing
2. The degree of IP developmental differentiation in various regions has not yet
diminished, but the differentiational gap between the top 10 provinces is steadily
lessening
Overall the IP score each province receives differ substantially, with the trend line
declining abruptly at the beginning, which eventually steadily smooths out. We
adopted the (index) of coefficient of variation2 to calculate the rate of dispersion in the
IP Index Report.
Comparing the coefficient of variation for the most recent three fiscal periods, with
0.55 of 2016, 0.56 of 2017, and 0.54 of 2018, it is our finding that the overall
differentiational gap of intellectual property development remains high. This finding
can be demonstrated by the fact that the overall median score we obtained from the
2018 Index Report is roughly about 0.209, which is substantially lower than the 0.593
achieve by Beijing, less than a third of Beijing’s index score.
2 The calculation formula of coefficient of variation: C•V = (standard deviations SD/ MEAN) × 100%.
5 / 23
As indicated by the 2018 Index Report, the (average) coefficient of variation of the
top 10 provinces is 0.319; the coefficient of variation of the middle 10 provinces is
0.167; whereas the coefficient of variation of the last 10 provinces is 0.117. As the
ranking decreases with each province, the (gap of) coefficient of variation gradually
declines less dramatically. This (sharp) decline in turn demonstrates the fact that
comparing to more economically advanced provinces such as Beijing, Guangdong,
Jiangsu, Shanghai, and Zhejiang, the intellectual property development rate of other
provinces is relatively slower. At the same time, by simply comparing to the 2017
Intellectual Property Index Report, we concluded that the gap of coefficient of variation
among the top 10 provinces is narrowing down as well, indicating that the leading
advantages maintained by Beijing is also consistently declining (Please refer to Figure
1-1).
Figure 1-1 A comparison between 2017 and 2018 of the China Regional Intellectual
Property Rights Index
3. Regional distribution of intellectual property rights in China resembles a pattern
that is comparable to that of a “central agglomeration, and terrace diffusion.” (the
level of intellectual property development radiates outward from few highly developed
regions and spreads out evenly towards the outer regions of China.) 6 / 23
Over the years, the overall regional distribution of intellectual property
(development) is noticeable and quite consistent. The distribution somewhat
demonstrates a pattern that is “higher in the eastern region and gradually declines
towards the western region,” the level of IP development radiates from the higher
“eastern coastal area” of China towards the “central region of China,” the central
hinterland so to speak. The level of IP development then gradually moderates and
spreads outwards from the “central region” to the “western regions” of China. As
such, the (IP development rate of) the three major regions of China resemble a graphical
pattern that is similar to the shape of “terrace farming,” altitude declines as the land
gradually spreads out. A majority of the top 10 provinces in the Index Report are from
the eastern regions of China, the 10 provinces ranked lowest mainly are from the central
and western region of China. Looking at the issue from a historical background, the
development of intellectual property right correlates strongly with the degree/level of
industrialization. Renowned economists such as Dr. Douglas C. North believes that
the development of property rights systems, including intellectual property, is a
prerequisite for expansion of the industrial revolution. The regional distribution of
China’s IP index thus corresponds to its regional economic development level.
Meanwhile, simply by comparing the data collected over the years, we have also
concluded that the level of development of intellectual property in China also resembles
the regional distribution pattern of “central agglomeration.” That is, the three center-
hub of China’s intellectual property right development are Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei, the
Yangtze River Delta, and the Pearl River Delta. Spreading and diffusion of
technology is thus a crucial mechanisms of regional IP development. The Yangtze
River Delta, with Shanghai sitting at the center, is one of the most effective regions in
terms of technological diffusion. (Please refer to Figure 1-2)
7 / 23
Figure 1-2 Figure of regional distribution of China regional intellectual property rights
index
4. As a result of the strategical policies implemented specifically for the Greater Bay
Area (including Guangdong, Hong Kong, and Macau), the average level of IP
development of southern China has overall improved with the province of
Guangdong leading at the forefront
The greater southern China region is mainly consisted of the Guangdong province,
the Guangxi province, and the Hainan province. Within this greater region, benefiting
from policies specially implemented for the Greater Bay Area, the IP index score
achieve by the province of Guangdong increased from 0.482 to 0.536, placing itself in
the second place from the third in 2017. The gap between the province of Guangdong
and Beijing is continuously and gradually diminishing. Comparing current data with
that of the 2017, placement of the Guangxi Province and the Hainan Province remains
unchanged. Driven by the excellent performance of the Guangdong province, the
average level of intellectual property right index in the greater southern China enjoyed
an overall improvement.
Intellectual property is the driving force for the future of the Greater Bay Area. As
of 2016, the total GDP of the Greater Bay Area already surpassed the Bay Area of San 8 / 23
Francisco. Cultural and financial innovation of Hong Kong is still leading the way;
technological innovation of Shenzhen is still by far the most progressive; whereas the
potential for innovation of the Guangdong province is destined to be momentous. As
of today, the three said cities participate together in a joint operation cooperating on
issues of intellectual property. As such, The Guangdong, Hong Kong, and Macau
Copyright Registration Hall at the Shenzhen Wantong Building is the first copyright
registration hall established by the China Copyright Protection Center in the greater
southern region of China. As a result of the steps taken by the Greater Bay Area on
the construction of intellectual property and the establishment of the “demonstration
zone” with respect to the regional intellectual property development, relevant resources
can be more effectively allocated, which will in turn stimulate development of cross
industry cooperation. It is thus reasonably foreseeable that such progress will radiates
outward towards the province of Guangxi and Hainan, and eventually stimulate the
entire greater southern China area.
5. The Province of Guangdong leads in the quality of patent, and (as indicated by the
empirical data) the quality of patent from the eastern region of China is relatively
higher comparing to that of the central and western region
The 10 Provinces ranked with top patent quality are: Guangdong, Beijing, Zhejiang,
Jiangsu, Shanghai, Shandong, Fujian, Tianjin, Hubei and Hunan. As such, the 10
Provinces that ranked at the bottom in this respect are: Yunnan, Jilin, Heilongjiang,
Inner Mongolia, Hainan, Gansu, Tibet, Qinghai, Ningxia and Guangxi. This
demonstrates a pattern that the patent quality index score is relative higher in the eastern
region of China, and the patent quality index score is relatively lower in the northern
and central western regions.
Table 1-3 Patents quality index ranking
Province Patents Quality
Province Patents Quality
Index Ranking Index Ranking
Guangdong 0.665 1 Jiangxi 0.136 17
Beijing 0.562 2 Xinjiang 0.136 18
9 / 23
Zhejiang 0.557 3 Shaanxi 0.124 19
Jiangsu 0.460 4 Chongqing 0.121 20
Shanghai 0.303 5 Shanxi 0.117 21
Shandong 0.228 6 Yunnan 0.116 22
Fujian 0.207 7 Jilin 0.112 23
Tianjin 0.199 8 Heilongjiang 0.110 24
Hubei 0.177 9 Inner 0.101 25
Mongolia
Hunan 0.169 10 Hainan 0.100 26
Sichuan 0.169 11 Gansu 0.081 27
Henan 0.156 12 Tibet 0.080 28
Guizhou 0.155 13 Qinghai 0.072 29
Hebei 0.149 14 Ningxia 0.044 30
Anhui 0.147 15 Guangxi 0.029 31
Liaoning 0.138 16
6. Difference between the level of intellectual property output and the quality of
patents in some provinces varies significantly
From regional distribution of the quality of patent we are able to identify a
phenomenon, that is, the ranking of patent quality generally corresponds to the overall
ranking of economic development, yet there are exceptions. Comparing the level of
output of intellectual property (with patent quality) among the provinces that ranked
top 10 in the patent quality index, Shandong, Hubei, Fujian, and Hunan are placed 11th,
12th, 13th, and 16th, respectively, in terms of intellectual property output. The Guangxi
Zhuang Autonomous Region, thou ranked 7th in the average output level of intellectual
property, is placed only at 31st on the patent quality index. The province of Shanxi,
thou ranked 9th in terms of intellectual property output, is placed at 19th on the quality
of patent index ranking. Also, on the IP output index, the province of Anhui ranked
6th, the province of Guizhou ranked 18th, and the province of Qinghai ranked 22nd, yet,
on the quality of patent index, those provinces ranked only 15th, 23rd, and 29th,
respectively. On the other hand, the province of Hebei, which is ranked only 24th on
the IP output index, is unexpectedly ranked 14th on the patent quality index.
7. Improvements made by some western provinces were significant, yet some eastern
provinces showed various types of stagnation
10 / 23
The 10 provinces with the highest overall IP improvement index score in China are:
Jiangxi, Yunnan, Fujian, Tibet, Hebei, Sichuan, Jilin, Guizhou, Henan, and Hunan.
The provinces ranked on the bottom are: Qinghai, Shandong, Jiangsu, Inner Mongolia,
Xinjiang, Tianjin, Shanxi, Shaanxi, Liaoning, and Heilongjiang. Analyzing this issue
from a historical perspective, it is not difficult to find that provinces from the central
and western region are consistently ranked top 10. This demonstrates the pattern that
even though central and western provinces had a relatively late start in development,
they maintain robust and substantial potential in the near future, and the gap in between
these central western provinces and more developed provinces from the eastern region
is consistently diminishing. Meanwhile, these empirical data also reveals another
phenomenon, that is, provinces within the same greater region gradually differentiates
among each other. Some provinces from the western region progresses rapidly,
whereas others remain in stagnation, with some provinces even declines in the ranking.
There is manifestation of stagnation from provinces of eastern regions as well. For
example, the overall improvement index rate of provinces such as Jiangsu and Tianjin
remain behind in the ranking. As such, it is our finding that the IP improvement index
score correlates relatively precisely with the IP output index score, and it is still the case
that within these two aspects, the central western provinces are ranked higher than the
eastern provinces.
8. The scale of patent and trademark (registration) manifests unique regional pattern,
and such pattern strongly correlates with the rate of economic development
The index score indicates that the scale of patent and trademark (registration and
application) of a region strongly correlates with the level of economic development of
that region. An economically well-developed region in general has a higher output of
commercial products from business/commercial entities, thus the higher rate of patent
applications. As such, since market competition of such developed regions are
generally fierce/intense, awareness of commercial brand and protection of intellectual
property (within the market) is also more comprehensive. Provinces that ranked top
10 in terms of the scale of patent registration are: Beijing, Guangdong, Zhejiang, 11 / 23
Jiangsu, Tianjin, Shanghai, Fujian, Anhui, Shandong, and Chongqing. Provinces
ranked at the bottom on this respect are: Hebei, Jilin, Guizhou, Xinjiang, Shanxi,
Qinghai, Yunnan, Hainan, Inner Mongolia, and Tibet. With respect to the scale of
trademark registration, provinces that ranked top 10 are: Beijing, Shanghai, Guangdong,
Zhejiang, Fujian, Jiangsu, Tianjin, Chongqing, Shandong, and Shaanxi, this data is
identical to that of the 2017 Index Report. The 10 provinces ranked at the bottom in
terms of the scale of trademark registration are: Hebei, Jilin, Jiangxi, Inner Mongolia,
Heilongjiang, Qinghai, Guizhou, Shanxi, Guangxi, and Gansu. From a holistic
overview, regional characteristics of the scale of patent and trademark registration are
quite revealing. Majority of provinces ranked in the top 10 come from more
economically developed areas of the eastern region, with only the province of
Chongqing, Anhui, and Shaanxi coming from the central region of China. The scale
of patent and trademark registration somewhat indicates the vitality of intellectual
property in relation to economy, and it is not difficult to find that economically well-
developed regions performers better in terms of the scale of patent and trademark
registration.
9. The level of intellectual property development of central and western region of
China is limited by factors such as business operation environment and ecological
environment
The 10 provinces with the lowest proportion of total foreign investment in GDP are
mainly from the central and western region of China, including: Xinjiang, Gansu,
Heilongjiang, Hunan, Tibet, Guizhou, Henan, Yunnan, Inner Mongolia, and Guangxi.
With only the exception of Guangxi (15.91%) and Inner Mongolia (15.10%), the
remaining eight provinces all received foreign invest with a percentage of lower than
15%. Especially noticeable is the province of Xinjiang (6.68%), which has a foreign
investment ratio of less than 7 percent. At the same time, the 10 provinces that
maintain the highest macro tax burden are Tibet, Qinghai, Gansu, Heilongjiang, Guanxi,
Henan, Jilin, Hunan, Hebei, and Shaanxi. Of the ten provinces, 6 of them also scored
lowest in terms of foreign investment ratio. In addition, the Report also measured 12 / 23
ecological environmental index, calculated by power consumption per unit of GDP,
sulfur dioxide emission per unit of GDP, wastewater discharges per unit of GDP, and
general solid waste discharge per unit of GDP. Based on the measurements, the power
consumption and wastewater discharge rate of the central and western regions are
substantially higher than other areas/regions. Thus, the overall business operational
environment of the central and western region is still relatively less developed than
other areas. The level of green environmental development of the central and western
region is still relatively lower than other areas. These factors severally limits the
structure of innovative environment of the central and western region of China, and
thereby limits the development of intellectual property of such areas/regions as well.
III. 2018 China Regional Intellectual Property Right Index Report: Data
Analysis
1. Top 10 of the 2018 China Regional Intellectual Property Rights Index
Provinces ranked in the top 10 places on the IP Index Report are, in descending
order: Beijing, Guangdong, Jiangsu, Shanghai, Zhejiang, Shandong, Anhui, Tianjin,
Hubei, and Chongqing (Please refer to Figure 1-4). This ranking result resembles the
data collected from the 2017 Index Report.
Table 1-4 Top 10 of 2018 China Regional Intellectual Property Rights Index
Output Flow Comprehensive Creative
Level Level Performance Potential
Comprehensive
Province Strength
Index Ranking Index Ranking Index Ranking Index Ranking Index Ranking
Beijing 0.593 1 0.634 1 0.594 2 0.649 1 0.497 3
Guangdong 0.536 2 0.425 3 0.661 1 0.532 4 0.525 2
Jiangsu 0.509 3 0.487 2 0.415 4 0.491 6 0.644 1
Shanghai 0.466 4 0.415 4 0.485 3 0.620 2 0.344 6
Zhejiang 0.422 5 0.391 5 0.264 6 0.565 3 0.468 4
Shandong 0.321 6 0.213 11 0.297 5 0.368 13 0.405 5
Anhui 0.286 7 0.348 6 0.170 12 0.364 14 0.262 9
Tianjin 0.282 8 0.215 10 0.161 15 0.494 5 0.258 10
Hubei 0.279 9 0.203 12 0.204 7 0.391 9 0.318 7
Chongqing 0.251 10 0.160 15 0.170 11 0.467 7 0.206 15
13 / 23
Overall the City of Beijing maintains its lead in the IP Index Report. Even though
the index score it received in 2018 is slightly lower than that of the 2017, it is still
ranked first among all 31 provinces. Of the four sub-indexes (category) analyzed in
the Index Report, Beijing is ranked 1st in two of these categories. More specifically,
Beijing is ranked 1st in both the intellectual property output index and the overall
performance (comprehensive performance) index; it is ranked 2nd in the flow level
index; and it is ranked in the 3rd place with respect to intellectual property creative
potential index. Beijing is the Capital City of China, numerous (top ranked)
universities and scientific research institutions directly affiliated with the central
government are located in Beijing. Thus, the city of Beijing enjoys a unique
advantage with respect to the development of intellectual property. With years of
cultivation, the District of Zhong Guan Cun (in Beijing) has already became a symbol
of innovation in China. Currently the City of Beijing is endeavoring with full force to
construct a national technological innovation center that is capable of global influence,
which highly emphasizes on progress of intellectual property. It is thus reasonably
foreseeable that the development of IP in Beijing will continue to expand and strengthen
in the near future.
The province of Guangdong overall ranked 2nd in the 2018 Index Report, it
advanced from the 3rd place in 2017 to the 2nd place in 2018, surpassing the province of
Jiangsu. More specifically, with respect to the four sub-indexes (categories), the
province of Guangdong ranks 3rd in the IP output level index, 1st in the level of flow
index, 4th in the comprehensive performance index, and 2nd in the creative potential
index. Previously the province of Guangdong was under intense pressure during the
period of economic transition. Yet based on data collected from the past two years, it
became apparent that the policy implemented for the Greater Bay Area is beginning to
benefit the province of Guangdong. More specifically, Hong Kong is leading in areas
such as cultural and financial innovation; technological innovation of Shenzhen is
ranked top in the nation; and the potential for innovation in the City of Guangzhou is
also substantial. As of today, these three cities participate together in a joint effort
cooperating on issues relating to intellectual property, and the cooperation is 14 / 23
continuously becoming more effective.
The province of Jiangsu ranked 3rd in 2018. From the fourth place in 2009, the
province of Jiangsu gradually advances on the index, and is consistently been ranked
in the 2nd place since 2014. Comparing with Beijing, which is still sitting at the first
place, there is still a considerable gap between Jiangsu and Beijing. Within a
foreseeable short term, it is still difficult for Jiangsu to advance to the level of Beijing.
Of the four sub-indexes, Jiangsu is placed 2nd in the level of IP output, 4th in the level
of flow index, 6th in the overall comprehensive performance index, and 1st in the index
of potential for innovation. These findings resemble that of the findings from 2017.
Of the four sub-indexes, the province of Jiangsu scored lowest in the category of
comprehensive performance. Different from Beijing, the development of intellectual
property of Jiangsu mainly relies on industries and (commercial) enterprises, thus from
a policy perspective, incentives and subsidies should continuously be provide to
enterprises (within the region) for further development of intellectual property.
The City of Shanghai ranked 4th in the 2018 Report Index. In terms of ranking,
Shanghai has been closely following Beijing since 2014, and dropped to 4th from the
second place in 2017, surpassed by only Jiangsu and Guangdong. With respect to the
four sub-indexes, the City of Shanghai is ranked 4th in terms of intellectual property
output index, 3rd in the level of flow index, 2nd in overall comprehensive performance,
and 6th in innovative potential index. Looking at the sub-indexes, the City of Shanghai
should be cautious for lack of innovative potential. In accordance to the national
“Thirteenth Five-Year Plan,” the City of Shanghai plans to construct a technological
innovation center that is capable of global influence. For this purpose, the city needs
to further strengthen progress made on intellectual property by building an international
transaction center for intellectual property, and a regional talent center for intellectual
property.
The province of Zhejiang is consistently remaining in the 5th place for many years,
its ranking is relatively steady. With respect to the four sub-indexes, the province of
Zhejiang ranked 5th in the intellectual property output index, 6th in the flow level index,
3rd in overall comprehensive performance, and 4th in the creative potential index. The 15 / 23
overall performance of the province is relatively stable.
The province of Shandong ranked 6th in the 2018 Report Index, its ranking has been
fluctuating between 6th and 7th for the past few years. With respect to the four sub-
indexes, Shandong is ranked 11th in the intellectual property output index, fifth in the
level of flow index, 13th in the overall comprehensive index, and 5th in the innovative
potential index. Comparing these rankings, Shandong scores relatively higher in the
level of flow and creative potential indexes. This indicates that the scale and scope of
enterprises from Shandong to self-import and utilize intellectual property is relatively
greater and more effective. Shandong also retains a substantial potential for
innovation. However, the province of Shandong is still limited with respect to
independent research and development, and the efficiency of enterprises in utilizing and
using intellectual property still needs to be improved.
The province of Anhui ranked 7th in the 2018 Report Index. Since 2015, the
Anhui province has been steadily placed among the top 10, it made further advancement
in the year of 2018. With respect to the four sub-indexes, the province of Anhui ranks
sixth in the intellectual property output index, 12th in the level of flow index, 14th in the
overall comprehensive performance index, and 9th in the innovative potential index.
The level of intellectual property output of Anhui is significantly higher than the other
three sub-indexes.
The City of Tianjin ranked 8th in the 2018 Report Index, moving down by one spot
from the 2017 Report Index. With respect to the four sub-indexes, Tianjin is ranked
10th in the intellectual property output index, 15th in the level of flow index, 5th in the
overall comprehensive performance index, and 10th in the creative potential index.
The IP output level and flow level of Tianjin is somewhat less satisfactory; however,
the overall performance is still adequate. The City of Tianjin should utilize
opportunities from the newly implemented policy for the “Beijing, Tianjin, and Hebei
Region,” as well as the establishment of the new “Xiongan” District, thereby enhance
its IP output level.
The province of Hubei ranked 9th in the 2018 Report Index, advancing one
placement from the 2017 Report Index. With respect to the four sub-indexes, Hubei 16 / 23
ranks 12th in the intellectual property output index, 7th in the level of flow index, 9th in
the overall comprehensive performance index, and 7th in the innovative potential index.
The level of IP output of Hubei is substantially lower comparing to the other three sub-
indexes.
The province of Chongqing secured the last placement in the top 10 ranking, which
remains the same as the 2017 Report Index. It is also the only province coming from
the eastern region of China. With respect to the four sub-indexes, Chongqing is
ranked 15th in the intellectual property output index, 11th in the level of flow index, 7th
in the overall comprehensive performance index, and 15th in the creative potential index.
The level of IP flow and overall comprehensive performance are relatively satisfactory.
Yet the province should focus more in areas such as the intellectual property output
level and potential for innovation, which is significantly lower than other provinces
from the top 10 ranking. Addressing this matter, the province of Chongqing should
increase investments in areas such as technological research, scientific and
technological personnel training, and importation of intellectual property.
Chongqing should also establish and construct relevant institutions and mechanisms to
overcome the relative disadvantages of its geographical location, to defeat its
geographical disadvantages with “policy advantages” so to speak.
2. Ranking of various greater regions: The Eastern China Region, Greater
Southern China Region, and the Greater Northern China Region are ranked top
three
The overall (IP development) level of the eastern region, southern region, northern
region and the central region of China leads above the national level. Further, the
southwest region, northeast region, and northwest region of China falls below the
national level. The precise ranking of all regions is as follow: the greater eastern
region, the greater southern region, the greater northern region, the greater central
region, the greater south eastern region, the north eastern region, and the northern west
region. Comparing with the Report Index from 2017, the Greater Southern Region
surpasses the greater northern region, and is currently ranked in the second place.
(Please refer to Figure 1-3 and 1-5 for details)
17 / 23
South China 0.291
North China 0.264
Central China 0.246
National Average 0.243
Southwest 0.214
Northeast 0.188
Northwest 0.148
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35
Figure 1-3 Contrast of the average level of regional intellectual property rights index and
national average level
Table 1-5 Regional intellectual property rights index situation
Intellectual property Regional Region Best city in the region
rights index ranking
East China 0.346 1 Jiangsu
South China 0.291 2 Guangdong
North China 0.264 3 Beijing
Central China 0.246 4 Hubei
Southwest 0.214 5 Chongqing
Northeast 0.188 6 Liaoning
Northwest 0.148 7 Shaanxi
National average 0.243
The Greater Eastern Region: the overall strength and capability of this
region is amongst the most robust, motivated by the significant performance of
Jiangsu and Shanghai
The Greater Eastern Region is constituted of 6 provinces and a municipality
directly under the Central Government, they are: the province of Jiangsu, Zhejiang,
Anhui, Fujian, Jiangxi, Shandong, and the City of Shanghai. It is one of the most
densely populated areas in China. The overall IP index score of the Greater Eastern
Region in 2018 is 0.346, which is significantly higher than the national average. 18 / 23
Among the national top 10 ranking, five provinces come from the greater eastern
region, they are: Jiangsu, Shanghai, Zhejiang, Shandong, and Anhui; the Fujian
province is ranked 12th; with only the province of Jiangxi ranked lower in the national
ranking. Most notably, Jiangsu and Shanghai received an intellectual property index
score of 0.509 and 0.466, respectively, which strongly demonstrate the powerful
radiating effects of the two areas.
The greater eastern region of China has historically been one of the most
economically developed regions, abundant in all types of natural resources and it is also
a cultural center hub. The region enjoyed a speedy international trade development as
a result of the Open-door policy since the early 1980s, it is also becoming one of the
most economically and IP developed regions of China via the help of importation of
technology, training of domestic professionals, and self-reliance on research and
development of technology. (Please refer to Figure 1-6)
Table 1-6 Intellectual property rights index and ranking table in east China
Province Intellectual property
rights index
Ranking within the
region National ranking
Jiangsu 0.509 1 3
Shanghai 0.466 2 4
Zhejiang 0.422 3 5
Shandong 0.321 4 6
Anhui 0.286 5 7
Fujian 0.246 6 12
Jiangxi 0.169 7 19
East China 0.346
National average 0.243
The Greater Southern Region of China: the province of Guangdong surpasses
other areas, the policy advantages of the Greater Bay Area is becoming
increasingly substantial
The greater southern region of China includes the province of Guangdong,
Guangxi, and Hainan. Within the region, IP index of the province of Guangdong
increased from 0.482 to 0.536 as a result of the policy advantages implemented for the
19 / 23
Greater Bay Area, as mentioned earlier. The province of Guangdong also advanced
to the second place from 2017’s third place, thereby continuously diminishing its gap
with the City of Beijing. Comparing the data collected from 2017, the ranking of
Guangxi and Hainan remains rather stable, and the outstanding performance of
Guangdong in turn stimulated the level of intellectual property development of the
entire greater southern region. Via the establishment and construction of the Greater
Bay Area, and through the regional demonstration zone3 for collaborative development
of intellectual property, relevant resources in innovation will be more effectively
allocated in terms of stimulating a joint development of the industry. The effect of
Guangdong’s outstanding performance is destined to radiate outwards towards the
province of Guangxi and Hainan in the near future, which will in turn stimulate the
development of the entire greater southern region. (Please refer to Figure 1-7)
Table 1-7 Intellectual property rights index and ranking table in south China
Province Intellectual property
rights index
Ranking within the
region National ranking
Guangdong 0.536 1 2
Guangxi 0.206 2 17
Hainan 0.131 3 27
South China 0.291
National average 0.243
The Greater Northern Region of China: the overall strength of intellectual
property is robust, and the synergy effect of Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei is reinforcing
The greater northern region of China consists of three provinces and two
municipalities directly under the central government, they are: the province of Hebei,
Shanxi, Inner Mongolia, the city of Beijing, and the City of Tianjin. This is also one
of the more densely populated regions of China. The average intellectual property
index score of this region is 0.264, which is slightly higher than the national average,
yet it falls behind of the greater eastern and southern region of China. Comparing the
data at hand with that of the 2017, even though the greater northern region falls behind
20 / 23
3
the greater southern region, it is still the third ranking region of China. In addition,
the synergy effect of Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei remains relatively constant and stable.
The City of Beijing is the center-core of intellectual property development in the
greater northern region, sitting at the 1st place of the national intellectual property index
ranking. The City of Tianjin follows closely behind and is ranked at 2nd place within
the region. With the policy implementation of several major scientific and
technological projects as a result of the “13th Five-Year Plan Period,” the City of Tianjin
retains substantial potential in the area of intellectual property development.
One of the major issues burdening the greater northern region of China has always
been uneven development. Intellectual property development of provinces other than
the City of Beijing and Tianjin falls far behind. The province of Hebei, Shanxi, and
Inner Mongolia are ranked respectively at 20th, 23rd, and 26th, a slight improvement
comparing with 2017. With the further deepening of the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei
cooperation, and the establishment of the new Xiongan District, the prospect of
intellectual property development in the greater northern China is promising. (Please
refer to Figure 1-8 for details.)
Table 1-8 Intellectual property rights index and ranking table in north China
Province Intellectual property
rights index
Ranking within the
region National ranking
Beijing 0.593 1 1
Tianjin 0.282 2 8
Hebei 0.164 3 20
Shanxi 0.149 4 23
Inner Mongolia 0.133 5 26
North China 0.264
National average 0.243
The Greater central region of China: within the region, the level of intellectual
property development among various provinces are relatively equal, and the
province of Hubei leads in the ranking
21 / 23
The greater central region of China consists of three provinces, they are: the
province of Henan, Hubei, and Hunan. Development of intellectual property within
the region is relatively balanced and is on par with the national average level. Within
the region, the province of Hubei is ranked 1st, with an intellectual property index score
of 0.279; it is ranked 9th in the national ranking. The province of Hunan is ranked 2nd
within the region, with an intellectual property index score of 0.251; it is ranked 11th in
the national ranking. The province of Henan falls behind in the third place within the
region, it scored 0.209 on the intellectual property index, and it is ranked 16th in the
national ranking. (Please refer to Figure 1-9 for details)
Table 1-9 Intellectual property rights index and ranking table in central China
Province Intellectual property
rights index
Ranking within the
region National ranking
Hubei 0.279 1 9
Hunan 0.251 2 11
Henan 0.209 3 16
Central China 0.246
National average 0.243
The North East Region of China: the overall performance of the region is less
satisfactory, yet its overall ranking advanced slightly
The northeast region of China consists of the Liaoning province, Jilin province,
and the Heilongjiang province. The overall rate of IP development within the region
is below the national average. Within the region, the IP index score of Liaoning is
0.225 and leads in the region, it is ranked 15th in the national ranking. The intellectual
property index score of Jilin and Heilongjiang are respectively 18th and 21st. Index
score of the latter two provinces advanced slightly comparing to that of the 2017
ranking. (Please refer to Figure 1-10 for more detail)
Table 1-10 Intellectual property rights index and ranking table in northeast
Province Intellectual property
rights index
Ranking within the
region National ranking
22 / 23
Liaoning 0.225 1 15
Jilin 0.177 2 18
Heilongjiang 0.161 3 21
Northeast 0.188
National average 0.243
The Southwest and the Northwest region of China: overall performance of
Chongqing, Shaanxi, and Sichuan is outstanding, yet the overall level of all other
provinces within the region is less satisfactory
The southwest and the northwest region of China is consisted of 10 provinces.
The economic foundation of the two regions is relatively weaker. The rate of
intellectual property development substantially falls behind the national average level.
There are some exceptions however, for example, Chongqing, Shaanxi, and Sichuan
respectively ranked 10th, 13th, and 14th on the national ranking. (Please refer to Figure
1-11)
Table 1-10 Intellectual property rights index and ranking table in southwest and northwest
Province Intellectual property
rights index
Ranking within the
region National ranking
Chongqing 0.251 1 10
Sichuan 0.230 2 14
Guizhou 0.156 3 22
Yunnan 0.138 4 25
Tibet 0.113 5 30
Southwest 0.214
Province Intellectual property
rights index
Ranking within the
region National ranking
Shaanxi 0.243 1 13
Gansu 0.144 2 24
Ningxia 0.126 3 28
Qinghai 0.114 4 29
Xinjiang 0.113 5 31
Northwest 0.148
National average 0.243
23 / 23
中国知识产权指数报告 2018
主编：王正志
第一章 中国知识产权指数报告 2018 总体排名、研究发现与深度
解析
世界银行报告认为，世界主要经济体贸易谈判的结果存在不确定性，同时贸易限制措
施升级的风险已经加剧，将会对全球贸易产生重大负面影响。同时随着我国在高科技领域
的积累，很多技术呈现与世界先进水平并跑的趋势，有些领域甚至开始领跑。未来我国科
学技术发展要开放合作和自力更生“两条腿”走路，同时更加强调自主研发。
在这种背景下，知识产权的重要性更加凸显。2018 年 4 月，习近平在博鳌亚洲论坛
2018 年年会开幕式上发表主旨演讲时指出，“加强知识产权保护。这是完善产权保护制度
最重要的内容，也是提高中国经济竞争力最大的激励。对此，外资企业有要求，中国企业
更有要求。”并表示，“将重新组建国家知识产权局，完善执法力量，加大执法力度，把违
法成本显著提上去，把法律威慑作用充分发挥出来。”
知识产权事业将迎来最好的发展时期，将在中国经济社会发展中承担更大的责任。知
识产权的发展关键之一在于塑造良好的环境，包括良好的创新创业环境、营商环境以及生
态环境等。在知识产权指数报告 2018 中，我们还增加了生态环境指数，考察中国省份生
态环境发展情况以及对知识产权发展的影响。
一、中国区域知识产权指数 2018 总体排名：
中国区域知识产权指数 20181排名前 10位的省（自治区、直辖市，以下简称为：省份）
依次是：北京、广东、江苏、上海、浙江、山东、安徽、天津、湖北、重庆。
排名中间 11 位的省份依次是：湖南、福建、陕西、四川、辽宁、河南、广西、吉林、
江西、河北、黑龙江。
排名末尾 10 位的省份依次是：贵州、山西、甘肃、云南、内蒙古、海南、宁夏、青
海、西藏、新疆。（具体见表 1-1）
表 1-1 中国区域知识产权指数 2018总体排名
省份
综合 产出 流动 综合 创造
实力 水平 水平 绩效 潜力
指数 排名 指数 排名 指数 排名 指数 排名 指数 排名
北 京 0.593 1 0.634 1 0.594 2 0.649 1 0.497 3
广 东 0.536 2 0.425 3 0.661 1 0.532 4 0.525 2
1 本报告正文阐述使用之年份均为报告发布年份，数据年份具体见指标下方说明。
江 苏 0.509 3 0.487 2 0.415 4 0.491 6 0.644 1
上 海 0.466 4 0.415 4 0.485 3 0.620 2 0.344 6
浙 江 0.422 5 0.391 5 0.264 6 0.565 3 0.468 4
山 东 0.321 6 0.213 11 0.297 5 0.368 13 0.405 5
安 徽 0.286 7 0.348 6 0.170 12 0.364 14 0.262 9
天 津 0.282 8 0.215 10 0.161 15 0.494 5 0.258 10
湖 北 0.279 9 0.203 12 0.204 7 0.391 9 0.318 7
重 庆 0.251 10 0.160 15 0.170 11 0.467 7 0.206 15
湖 南 0.251 11 0.153 16 0.166 13 0.412 8 0.272 8
福 建 0.246 12 0.177 13 0.173 9 0.390 10 0.246 11
陕 西 0.243 13 0.215 9 0.172 10 0.372 11 0.213 14
四 川 0.230 14 0.230 8 0.163 14 0.307 20 0.218 13
辽 宁 0.225 15 0.153 17 0.193 8 0.370 12 0.183 16
河 南 0.209 16 0.135 19 0.135 17 0.329 17 0.236 12
广 西 0.206 17 0.290 7 0.082 22 0.297 22 0.157 21
吉 林 0.177 18 0.088 25 0.136 16 0.351 15 0.133 24
江 西 0.169 19 0.104 20 0.091 21 0.316 19 0.165 19
河 北 0.164 20 0.088 24 0.112 18 0.280 24 0.174 17
黑 龙 江 0.161 21 0.164 14 0.092 20 0.245 27 0.142 23
贵 州 0.156 22 0.148 18 0.045 26 0.262 25 0.170 18
山 西 0.149 23 0.077 28 0.067 24 0.330 16 0.124 28
甘 肃 0.144 24 0.081 26 0.106 19 0.227 29 0.162 20
云 南 0.138 25 0.102 21 0.079 23 0.230 28 0.142 22
内 蒙 古 0.133 26 0.038 31 0.044 27 0.325 18 0.125 26
海 南 0.131 27 0.077 27 0.017 30 0.307 21 0.124 27
宁 夏 0.126 28 0.097 23 0.041 28 0.260 26 0.105 29
青 海 0.114 29 0.102 22 0.059 25 0.208 31 0.087 31
西 藏 0.113 30 0.059 30 0.014 31 0.290 23 0.090 30
新 疆 0.113 31 0.076 29 0.040 29 0.210 30 0.127 25
二、中国区域知识产权指数报告:主要发现
中国区域知识产权指数报告肇始于 2009年，涵盖除港澳台之外的全国 31个省份。持
续多年的数据积累，使我们具备了一个分析中国各地区知识产权状况的翔实的数据库2。
经过基于时间的纵向分析和基于地域空间的横向对比，课题组发现：
（一）排名前 10 强的省份长期稳定，北京连续 9年稳居第一
自 2010 年以来，知识产权指数排名前 10强的省份均十分稳定。北京、江苏、上海、
广东、浙江、天津、山东等 7 个省份每年都在前 10 强中，其中，北京更是连续 9 年稳居
全国第一。福建、重庆分别有 1次和 2次跌出前 10强（重庆在指数报告 2011中位列第 12
2中国区域知识产权指数的指标体系每年都在进行适当修订，以满足不断变化的经济社会和知识产权发展形势。
位，福建在指数报告 2017 和 2018中列第 11和 12 位），辽宁自 2015年后一直未能进入前
10位。安徽自 2015年开始一直位于前 10位，湖南和湖北分别有 1次和 2次进入前 10强。
具体变化见表 1-2。
仔细分析知识产权指数 2018前 10强，不难发现绝大多数都是经济发达省份。从地域
上看，7个省份位于东部地区，安徽和湖北属于中部地区，重庆属于西部地区。从区域上
看，渤海湾经济圈有北京、天津、山东 3个省份，长江三角洲经济圈有江苏、上海、浙
江、安徽 4个省份，珠江三角洲经济圈有广东 1个省份。
表 1-2 历年中国区域知识产权指数前 10强排名
排名 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
1 北京 北京 北京 北京 北京 北京 北京 北京 北京
2 上海 上海 上海 上海 江苏 江苏 江苏 江苏 广东
3 广东 广东 广东 江苏 上海 上海 上海 广东 江苏
4 江苏 江苏 江苏 广东 广东 广东 广东 上海 上海
5 浙江 浙江 浙江 浙江 浙江 浙江 浙江 浙江 浙江
6 天津 山东 山东 山东 天津 天津 山东 山东 山东
7 山东 天津 天津 天津 山东 山东 天津 天津 安徽
8 辽宁 福建 辽宁 辽宁 辽宁 福建 重庆 重庆 天津
9 重庆 辽宁 福建 福建 福建 重庆 福建 安徽 湖北
10 福建 湖南 重庆 重庆 重庆 安徽 安徽 湖北 重庆
（二）各地区知识产权发展分化程度不减，排名 10 强省份间差距不断缩小
全国 31 个省份的知识产权指数得分差异较大，趋势线在前面非常陡峭，后面开始平
缓。我们使用变异系数3来衡量知识产权指数的离散程度。
比较知识产权指数 2016 的变异系数（0.55）、2017 的变异系数（0.56）以及 2018 的
变异系数（0.54），我们发现总体地区知识产权发展的分化程度依然不减。知识产权指数
2018中位数是 0.209，远低于排名第一的北京（0.593），不到其三分之一。
知识产权指数 2018 排名前 10强的省份的变异系数为 0.319，中间 11位为 0.167，最
后 10 位为 0.117。随着排名的下落，变异系数越来越小，各省份之间的知识产权指数差
距在缩小，表明与北京、广东、江苏、上海、浙江等领先省份相比，大部分省份知识产权
发展的水平都相对不高。同时，与 2017年相比，我们发现排名前 10强的省份之间的差距
在变小，北京的领先优势持续缩小。
3变异系数的计算公式为：变异系数 C•V =（标准偏差 SD / 平均值 MEAN ）× 100%。
图 1-1 中国区域知识产权指数 2017和 2018各省份比较
（三）知识产权区域分布呈现“中心集聚，梯田扩散”的特征
多年以来，知识产权指数整体趋势的区域特征非常显著，而且较为一致，基本为“东
高西低”，由“东部沿海地区”到“中部腹地”再到“西部边远地区”，逐渐降低。三者形
成了“梯田”。知识产权综合实力指数前 10 强中以东部省份居多，后 10 位中则以中西部
地区为主。从历史上看，知识产权的产生及发展都是与工业化密不可分的。诺斯等经济学
家认为包括知识产权在内的产权制度的发展是工业革命发生发展的前提。中国区域知识产
权指数区域分布的特点与经济发展水平总体吻合。
同时，如果将历年数据对比，我们也可以发现知识产权的发展也呈现明显的“中心集
聚”的地理分布特征，京津冀、长三角和珠三角是中国知识产权发展的三个核心极。技术
扩散是区域知识产权发展的关键机制之一。以上海为中心的长三角的技术扩散发展最优。
图 1-2 中国区域知识产权指数区域分布图
（四）粤港澳大湾区战略下，广东带动华南地区平均水平提高
华南地区包括广东、广西、海南三省，区域内广东凭借粤港澳大湾区的政策优势，知
识产权指数由 0.482上升到 0.536，排名由指数报告 2017的第三名上升到第二名，进一步
缩小与北京的差距。与 2017 知识产权指数相比，广西和海南的排名基本保持不变，广东
的出色表现带动了华南地区知识产权指数平均水平的提高。
知识产权是粤港澳大湾区迈向未来的源动力。2016 年粤港澳大湾区的 GDP 总量已超
越旧金山湾区，香港的文化创新、金融创新遥遥领先，深圳的科技创新领跑全国，广州的
创新潜力巨大。如今，三地已经开展了相关知识产权层面的合作，位于深圳万通大厦的粤
港澳版权登记大厅，也是中国版权保护中心在华南地区设立的唯一版权登记大厅。通过粤
港澳大湾区的知识产权建设工作，打造区域知识产权协同发展示范区，有助于优化创新资
源配置、促进产业协同发展，未来有望向广西、海南二省辐射扩散，带动整个华南地区发
展。
（五）广东专利质量领先，东部专利质量好于中西部
专利质量指数排名前 10 位的省份是：广东、北京、浙江、江苏、上海、山东、福建、
天津、湖北和湖南。排名后 10 位的省份是云南、吉林、黑龙江、内蒙古、海南、甘肃、
西藏、青海、宁夏和广西。东部省份专利质量指数较高，而东北地区及中西部地区专利质
量指数较低。
表 1-3 专利质量指数排名
省 份 专利质量
省 份 专利质量
指数 排名 指数 排名
广东 0.665 1 江西 0.136 17
北京 0.562 2 新疆 0.136 18
浙江 0.557 3 陕西 0.124 19
江苏 0.460 4 重庆 0.121 20
上海 0.303 5 山西 0.117 21
山东 0.228 6 云南 0.116 22
福建 0.207 7 吉林 0.112 23
天津 0.199 8 黑龙江 0.110 24
湖北 0.177 9 内蒙古 0.101 25
湖南 0.169 10 海南 0.100 26
四川 0.169 11 甘肃 0.081 27
河南 0.156 12 西藏 0.080 28
贵州 0.155 13 青海 0.072 29
河北 0.149 14 宁夏 0.044 30
安徽 0.147 15 广西 0.029 31
辽宁 0.138 16
（六）部分省份知识产权产出水平与专利质量差异较大
从专利质量区域分布可以看到一个现象，专利质量排名与综合实力排名总体相差不大，
但是少数省份存在明显差别。与知识产权产出水平进行对比发现，专利质量指数排名前
10 名中，山东、湖北、福建、湖南分别位于知识产权产出水平指数排名的第 11、12、13、
16 名；排名知识产权产出水平第 7 位的广西省，专利质量指数却排在第 31 位，排在知识
产权产出水平第 9 位的陕西专利质量指数排名第 19 位。排在知识产权产出水平第 6 位的
安徽、第 18 位的贵州和第 22位的青海，专利质量指数分别排名第 15、23 和 29位；排名
知识产权产出水平第 24 位的河北，专利质量指数反而排在第 14位。
（七）部分西部省份进步显著，东部地区个别省份呈现疲态
中国区域知识产权综合实力进步指数最高的 10 个省份是江西、云南、福建、西藏、
河北、四川、吉林、贵州、河南和湖南。最低的 10 个省份是青海、山东、江苏、内蒙
古、新疆、天津、山西、陕西、辽宁和黑龙江。纵览历史数据，不难发现，排名前 10位
的一直主要是中西部省份，表明了部分中西部省份起步虽然较晚，但是具备后发优势，正
在缩短与发达地区的差距。同时，这些指数也反映了另外一个现象，即同区域内省份逐渐
出现分化的趋势，部分西部省份进步显著，也有部分原地踏步，甚至倒退，东部地区也有
部分省份呈现疲态，如江苏、天津等地的综合进步指数就处于排名后几位。同样，知识产
权产出水平进步指数排名与综合实力进步指数趋势类似，仍然是中西部省份靠前，东部省
份稍靠后。
（八）专利和商标规模存在明显区域特征，与经济发展水平高度契合
专利与商标规模指数与当地经济发展水平有较强的关联关系。经济发达地区经常有更
多的企业和产品，因此对应有更多的专利和商标；同时，这些地区的市场竞争水平因此往
往较高，因此品牌意识和知识产权保护意识也很强。专利规模指数排名前 10 位的省份
是：北京、广东、浙江、江苏、天津、上海、福建、安徽、山东和重庆。排名后 10位的
省份是：河北、吉林、贵州、新疆、山西、青海、云南、海南、内蒙古和西藏。商标规模
指数排名前 10位的省份是：北京、上海、广东、浙江、福建、江苏、天津、重庆、山东
和陕西，和指数报告 2017 一致。排名后 10位的省份是：河北、吉林、江西、内蒙古、黑
龙江、青海、贵州、山西、广西和甘肃。整体来看，专利和商标规模的区域特征较为明
显，排名前 10位中主要以东部经济发达地区为主，只有重庆、安徽、陕西是中西部省
份。专利和商标规模说明了知识产权经济的活跃度，可以发现经济发达地区的专利和商标
规模指数表现更好。
（九）营商环境和生态环境制约中西部地区知识产权发展
新疆、甘肃、黑龙江、湖南、西藏、贵州、河南、云南、内蒙古和广西是外商投资总
额占 GDP比重最低的 10 个省份，大部分是中西部地区。除广西（15.91%）和内蒙古
（15.10%）外，均不足 15%，其中新疆（6.68%）外商投资总额占 GDP比重甚至不足 7%。
同时，西藏、青海、甘肃、黑龙江、广西、河南、吉林、湖南、河北和陕西又是宏观税负
最高的 10省份，其中有 6个省份和外商投资占比最低的省份重合。此外，报告还测度了
生态环境指数，用单位 GDP电耗、单位 GDP二氧化硫排放和单位 GDP废水排放和单位 GDP
一般固体废弃物排放来衡量，中西部地区的耗能和排废水平明显高于其它区域。可见，中
西部地区的整体营商环境相对落后，绿色发展水平较其它区域更低，严重影响中西部地区
创新环境的构建，制约中西部地区知识产权水平发展。
三、中国区域知识产权指数报告 2018：结果解读
（一）中国区域知识产权指数 2018前 10 强
中国区域知识产权指数 2018排名前 10位的省份依次是：北京、广东、江苏、上海、
浙江、山东、安徽、天津、湖北、重庆。上榜省份与指数报告 2017一致。
表 1-4 中国区域知识产权指数 2018前 10强
省 份
综合 产出 流动 综合 创造
实力 水平 水平 绩效 潜力
指数 排名 指数 排名 指数 排名 指数 排名 指数 排名
北 京 0.593 1 0.634 1 0.594 2 0.649 1 0.497 3
广 东 0.536 2 0.425 3 0.661 1 0.532 4 0.525 2
江 苏 0.509 3 0.487 2 0.415 4 0.491 6 0.644 1
上 海 0.466 4 0.415 4 0.485 3 0.620 2 0.344 6
浙 江 0.422 5 0.391 5 0.264 6 0.565 3 0.468 4
山 东 0.321 6 0.213 11 0.297 5 0.368 13 0.405 5
安 徽 0.286 7 0.348 6 0.170 12 0.364 14 0.262 9
天 津 0.282 8 0.215 10 0.161 15 0.494 5 0.258 10
湖 北 0.279 9 0.203 12 0.204 7 0.391 9 0.318 7
重 庆 0.251 10 0.160 15 0.170 11 0.467 7 0.206 15
北京知识产权指数领先全国，虽较指数报告 2017 有所下降，但仍在 31 个省份中排名
第 1位。在分项指数方面，北京同样表现出色。四个分项指数中有两个排名第 1位。知识
产权产出水平、综合绩效指数位居第 1位，流动水平位居第 2位，知识产权创造潜力指数
位居第 3位。北京是中国首都，中央直属院校、科研机构多汇聚于此，发展知识产权具有
得天独厚的优势。经过多年发展，中关村已经成为中国创新的名片。当前北京正全力创建
具有全球影响力的全国科技创新中心，高度重视知识产权工作，预计未来知识产权发展会
持续强化。
广东排名第 2位，超越指数报告 2017排在第 2的江苏，紧逼北京。在分项指数方面，
广东分别位于第 3位（知识产权产出水平）、第 1 位（流动水平）、第 4位（综合绩效）和
第 2 位（创造潜力）。先前广东处于经济转型期间，面临着很大的压力。从这两年情况来
看，粤港澳大湾区政策效应初显，香港的文化创新、金融创新遥遥领先，深圳的科技创新
领跑全国，广州的创新潜力巨大。如今，三地已经开展了相关知识产权层面的合作，呈现
向好局面。
江苏排名第 3 位，从指数报告 2009 排名第 4 位，后来逐年上升，2014 年以来保持第
2位，2018 年下降到第 3位。与第 1位的北京相比，还有一定的差距，短期内较难赶超。
在分项指数方面，江苏分别位于第 2 位（知识产权产出水平）、第 4 位（流动水平）、第 6
位（综合绩效）和第 1位（创造潜力），与指数报告 2017基本一致。综合绩效是江苏表现
相对不佳的分项指数。与北京相比，江苏知识产权发展主要靠产业、企业，未来应该继续
鼓励、培育企业发展知识产权。
上海排名第 4 位，在知识产权指数报告 2014 之前一直紧随北京，处在第 2 位，在
2017 报告中被江苏、广东超过。从分项指数来看，上海分别位于第 4 位（知识产权产出
水平）、第 3位（流动水平）、第 2位（综合绩效）和第 6位（创造潜力），总体表现均衡。
从分项指数来看，上海知识产权发展需要警惕创造潜力不足的问题。按照国家“十三五规
划”，上海要建设“具有全球影响力的科技创新中心”，仍然需要进一步加强知识产权工作，
建好国际知识产权交易中心，区域知识产权人才中心。
浙江多年以来一直排名第 5 位，比较稳定。从分项指数来看，浙江分别位于第 5 位
（知识产权产出水平）、第 6位（流动水平）、第 3位（综合绩效）和第 4位（创造潜力），
总体表现稳定。
山东位居第 6位，多年来一直在第 6和第 7位之间波动。从分项指数来看，分别位于
第 11位（知识产权产出水平）、第 5位（流动水平）、第 13位（综合绩效）和第 5位（创
造潜力）。知识产权流动水平和创造潜力明显优于知识产权产出水平和综合绩效，说明山
东企业引进和利用知识产权的规模和效果较好，同时也具备了一定的创造潜力。但是知识
产权自主研发能力有限，企业利用知识产权的效率还有待提高。
安徽位居第 7位，自 2015年进入前 10位以来，2018年位次再次提升。从分项指数来
看，分别位于第 6位（知识产权产出水平）、第 12 位（流动水平）、第 14位（综合绩效）
和第 9位（创造潜力）。知识产权产出水平明显高于其他三个分项指数。
天津位居第 8 位，较指数报告 2017 下降一位。从分项指数来看，天津分别位于第 10
位（知识产权产出水平）、第 15位（流动水平）、第 5位（综合绩效）和第 10位（创造潜
力）。知识产权产出水平和知识产权流动水平表现不好，但是综合绩效表现尚可。天津要
努力把握新“京津冀”协同、雄安新区建设的大机遇，错位发展，提升知识产权产出水平。
湖北位列第 9 位，较指数报告 2017 上升一位。从分项指数来看，分别位于第 12 位
（知识产权产出水平）、第 7位（流动水平）、第 9位（综合绩效）和第 7位（创造潜力）。
知识产权产出水平表现明显落后于其他三个分项指数。
重庆占据了前 10 强的最后一席，与先前报告相同，也是唯一一个西部省份。从分项
指数来看，分别位于第 15位（知识产权产出水平）、第 11位（流动水平）、第 7位（综合
绩效）和第 15位（创造潜力）。流动水平和综合绩效较好，需要关注的是知识产权产出水
平和知识产权创造潜力，远落后于前 10 强的其他省份，应继续加大在科技研发、科技人
才培养、引进等方面的投入，创新相关体制机制，努力克服地域区位相对劣势，用“政策
高地”突破“地域洼地”。
（二）地区排名：华东、华南和华北占据前三位
整体来看，华东、华南、华北和华中均领先于全国平均水平，西南、东北、西北地区
落后于全国平均水平。七个区域的具体排名依次是：华东、华南、华北、华中、西南、东
北以及西北。与指数报告 2017 相比，华南地区超过了华北地区，排名第 2 位。详见图 1-
3。
图 1-3 各区域知识产权指数平均水平与全国平均水平比较
表 1-5分区域知识产权指数情况
地 区 知识产权指数 区域排名 区域内最强城市
华东地区 0.346 1 江苏
华南地区 0.291 2 广东
华北地区 0.264 3 北京
华中地区 0.246 4 湖北
西南地区 0.214 5 重庆
东北地区 0.188 6 辽宁
西北地区 0.148 7 陕西
全国平均 0.243
华东地区：知识产权总体实力最强，江苏和上海带动引领作用明显
0.148
0.188
0.214
0.243
0.246
0.264
0.291
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35
西北地区
东北地区
西南地区
全国平均
华中地区
华北地区
华南地区
华东地区包括上海、江苏、浙江、安徽、福建、江西、山东等六省一市，是我国城市
群最为密集的地区，其知识产权指数得分平均为 0.346，大幅高于全国平均水平。
全国前 10 强中，华东地区就占有 5 席，分别是江苏、上海、浙江、山东和安徽，福
建省排在第 12 位，只有江西排名靠后。其中江苏和上海知识产权指数得分分别是 0.509
和 0.466，辐射带动作用明显。
华东地区历史上一直物产富饶，人文荟萃，是中国经济最为发达的地区之一。改革开
放后更是借助对外贸易迅速崛起，通过对外技术引进、本土人才培养、技术自主研发成为
中国经济发展最发达、知识产权发展最好地区。
表 1-6 华东地区知识产权指数及排名表
省 份 知识产权指数 区域内排名 全国排名
江苏 0.509 1 3
上海 0.466 2 4
浙江 0.422 3 5
山东 0.321 4 6
安徽 0.286 5 7
福建 0.246 6 12
江西 0.169 7 19
华东地区 0.346
全国平均 0.243
华南地区：广东一枝独秀，粤港澳大湾区政策效应彰显
华南地区包括广东、广西、海南三省，区域内广东凭借粤港澳大湾区的政策优势，知
识产权指数由 0.482上升到 0.536，排名由指数报告 2017的第三名上升到第二名，进一步
缩小与北京的差距。与 2017 知识产权指数相比，广西和海南的排名基本保持不变，广东
的出色表现带动了华南地区知识产权指数平均水平的提高。通过粤港澳大湾区的知识产权
建设工作，打造区域知识产权协同发展示范区，有助于优化创新资源配置、促进产业协同
发展，未来有望向广西、海南二省辐射扩散，带动整个华南地区发展。
表 1-7 华南地区知识产权指数及排名表
省 份 知识产权指数 区域内排名 全国排名
广东 0.536 1 2
广西 0.206 2 17
海南 0.131 3 27
华南地区 0.291
全国平均 0.243
华北地区：知识产权总体实力较强，京津冀协同效应稳固
华北地区包括河北、山西、内蒙古三省与京津两市，是我国城市群较为密集的地区，
其平均指数为 0.264，略高于全国平均水平，落后于华东地区和华北地区。与指数报告
2017相比，虽落后于华南地区，但仍处于第 3位。京津冀协同效应稳固。
北京是华北地区知识产权发展的核心，知识产权指数排名全国第一。天津位于北京之
后，在区域内位列第二。随着“十三五”期间一批科技重大项目的落地，在发展知识产权
方面仍然有很大的潜力。
华北地区一直问题在于地区内发展不平衡，地区内其他省份表现与京津的差距太大。
河北、山西和内蒙古在全国分别排在第20位、23位和26位，较指数报告2017有所提升。
随着京津冀协同进一步深化推进，雄安新区建设，华北地区知识产权发展前景可期。
表 1-8 华北地区知识产权指数及排名表
省 份 知识产权指数 区域内排名 全国排名
北京 0.593 1 1
天津 0.282 2 8
河北 0.164 3 20
山西 0.149 4 23
内蒙古 0.133 5 26
华北地区 0.264
全国平均 0.243
华中地区：省份之间知识产权实力平均，湖北排名领先
华中地区包括河南、湖北和湖南三省，区域内较为均衡，处于全国平均水平上下。其
中，湖北区域内排名第一，知识产权指数为 0.279，在全国排名第 9 位；湖南区域内排名
第 2位，知识产权指数为 0.251，在全国排名第 11位；河南区域内排名居末，知识产权指
数得分为 0.209，在全国排名第 16位。
表 1-9 华中地区知识产权指数及排名表
省 份 知识产权指数 区域内排名 全国排名
湖北 0.279 1 9
湖南 0.251 2 11
河南 0.209 3 16
华中地区 0.246
全国平均 0.243
东北地区：整体表现不如人意，综合排名略有进步
东北地区包括辽宁、吉林和黑龙江三省，总体低于全国平均水平，其中，辽宁知识产
权指数为 0.225，是区域内的领头羊，排在全国的第 15 位。吉林和黑龙江分别处于 18 和
21位。吉林和黑龙江省份的位次较指数报告 2017 均有进步。
表 1-10 东北地区知识产权指数及排名表
省 份 知识产权指数 区域内排名 全国排名
辽宁 0.225 1 15
吉林 0.177 2 18
黑龙江 0.161 3 21
东北地区 0.188
全国平均 0.243
西南地区、西北地区：重庆、陕西、四川表现亮眼，其他省份整体水平不佳
西南、西北地区包括九省一市，经济基础十分薄弱，知识产权发展也大幅落后于全国
平均水平。但是个别省市表现亮眼，比如重庆、陕西和四川，知识产权指数在全国分别排
在第 10位、第 13位和第 14位。
表 1-11 西南和西北地区知识产权指数及排名表
省 份 知识产权指数 区域内排名 全国排名
重庆 0.251 1 10
四川 0.230 2 14
贵州 0.156 3 22
云南 0.138 4 25
西藏 0.113 5 30
西南地区 0.214
省 份 知识产权指数 区域内排名 全国排名
陕西 0.243 1 13
甘肃 0.144 2 24
宁夏 0.126 3 28
青海 0.114 4 29
新疆 0.113 5 31
西北地区 0.148
全国平均 0.243