Reverse causality in the R&D – patents relationship: an interpretation of the innovation persistence

Baraldi, Anna Laura and Cantabene, Claudia and Perani, Giulio (2013): Reverse causality in the R&D – patents relationship: an interpretation of the innovation persistence.

Abstract

Starting from the failure of the R&D-patents traditional relationship, when time-series and/or within industry dimensions are included in the empirical analysis, the present work tries to contribute to the empirical literature in two directions. Firstly, it perform a Granger causality test on the theoretical presumption of a reverse patents→R&D link as an explanation of the failure of the traditional relationship. Second, assuming the reverse patents-R&D causality, we test and interpret the lag structure of such a relationship as showing the effective patent life which firms expect in the two Schumpeterian patterns of innovations they belong to. To the light of the effective patent life, we offer a further explanation of innovation persistence which overturns the findings of the existing literature on persistence.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: R&D, patents, innovation persistence, Granger causality
• Subjects: C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods > C2 - Single Equation Models ; Single Variables; O - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth > O3 - Innovation ; Research and Development ; Technological Change ; Intellectual Property Rights; O - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth > O3 - Innovation ; Research and Development ; Technological Change ; Intellectual Property Rights > O30 - General

References

Aghion, P. and Howitt, P. (1992), “A model of growth through creative destruction”, Econometrica, 60, issue 2, pp. 323–351.

Antonelli, C. (2008), “Localized technological change: Towards the economics of complexity”, Routledge, London.

Antonelli C., Crespi F., Scellato G. (2012), “Inside innovation persistence: New evidence from Italian micro-data”, Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 23, 341-353.

Arellano, M. and Bond, S. (1991), “Some tests of specification for panel data: MonteCarlo evidence and an application to unemployment equations”, Review of Economic Studies, 58, pp. 277–97.

Arellano, M. and Bover, O. (1995), “Another Look at Instrumental Variable Estimation of Error Component Models”, Journal of Econometrics, 68, pp. 29–51.

Arrow, K.J., (1962), “Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for invention”, Universities-National Bureau of Economic Research Conference, The Rate and Direction of Economic Activities: Economic and Social Factors, Princeton University Press.

Baltagi, B.H. (2005), “Econometric analysis of panel data. 3rd ed.”, Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Beneito, P. (2006), “The innovative performance of in-house and contracted R&D in terms of patents and utility models ”, Research Policy, 35, pp. 502–517.

Bessen, J. and Hunt, R. (2007), An Empirical Look at Software Patents, Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 16, No. 1, pp. 157–189.

Bessen, J. and Maskin, E. (2009), ''Sequential Innovation, Patents, and Imitation,'' The RAND Journal of Economics, 40, issue 4, pp. 611–635.

Blundell, R. S. and Bond, S. (1998), “Initial Conditions and Moment Restrictions in Dynamic Panel data Models”, Journal of Econometrics, 87, pp. 115–143.

Boldrin, M. and Levine, D.K. (2002), “The case against intellectual property”, American Economic Review, Papers & Proceedings, 92, pp. 209–212.

Bottazzi, L. and Peri, G. (2003),“Innovation and spillovers in regions: Evidence from European patent data”, European Economic Review, 47, No. 4, pp. 687–710.

Breschi, S., Malerba, F., Orsenigo, L. (2000): ‘Technological regimes and Schumpeterian patterns of innovation’, Economic Journal, 110, 388-410.

Brouwer, E. and Kleinknecht, A. (1999),“Innovative Output and a Firm Propensity to Patent. An Exploration of CIS Micro Data”, Research Policy, 28, No. 6, pp. 615–624.

Castellacci, F. and Zheng, J. (2010), “Technological Regimes, Schumpeterian Patterns of Innovation and Firm Level Productivity Growth”, Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, 19, No. 6, pp. 1829–1865.

Cefis, E., 2003. “Is there persistence in innovative activities?” International Journal of Industrial Organization 21, 489–515.

Cefis, E. and Orsenigo, L. (2001), “The persistence of innovative activities; a cross country and cross-sectors comparative analysis”, Research Policy, 30, pp. 1139–1158.

Cincera, M. (1997),”Patents, R&D and Technological Spillovers at the Firm Level: Some Evidence from Econometric Count Models for Panel Data”, Journal of Applied Econometrics, 12, No. 3, pp. 265–280.

Clausen, T., Pohjola, M., Sapprasert K., Verspagen, B., 2012. “Innovation strategies as a source of persistent innovation”. Industrial and Corporate Change, vol. 21, pp. 553-585.

Cohen, W. M. and R. Levin (1989), “Empirical studies of innovation and market structure”, in R. Schmalensee and R.D. Willig (Eds.), Handbook of Industrial Organization, Volume II, North Holland.

Crepon, B., Duguet, E. and Mairesse, J. (1998), “Research, Innovation, and Productivity: An Econometric Analysis at the Firm Level, Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 7, No. 2, pp. 115–158.

Czarnitzki, D., Kraft, K. and Thorwarth, S. (2009),“The knowledge production of‘R and D’, Economics Letters, 105, No. 1, pp. 141–143.

de Rassenfosse, G. and van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, B. (2009),“A policy insight into the R&D-patent relationship”, Research Policy, 38, No. 5, pp. 779–792.

Denicolo, V. (1996), ‘‘Patent Races and Optimal Patent Breadth and Length’’, Journal of Industrial Economics, 44, pp. 249–265.

Dosi, G., Marengo, L. and Pasquali, C. (2006), “How much should society fuel the greed of innovators? On the relations between appropriability, opportunities and rates of innovation”, Research Policy, 35, No. 8, pp. 1110–1121.

Duguet, E. and Kabla, I. (1998),“Appropriation strategy and the motivations to use the patent system: An econometric analysis at the firm level in French manufacturing”, Annales d’Economie et de Statistique, 49/50, pp. 289–327.

Duguet, E., Monjon, S., 2004. “Is innovation persistent at the firm level? An econometric examination comparing the propensity score and regression methods”, Cahiers de la Maison des Sciences Economiques, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne.

Dumitrescu, E.I. and Hurlin, C. (2012). “Testing for Granger Non-causality in Heterogeneous Panels”. Economic Modelling, 29, No. 4, pp. 1450–1460.

Encaoua, D., Guellec, D. and Martínez, C., (2006), “Patent systems for encouraging innovation: lessons from economic analysis”, Research Policy, 35, pp. 1423–1440.

Gallini, N. (2002), “The Economics of Patents: Lessons from Recent US Patent Reform”, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 16, No. 2, pp. 131–154.

Geroski, P., Van Reenen, J., Walters, C., 1997. “How persistently do firms innovate?” Research Policy 26, 33–48. Granger, C.W.J. (1969), “Investigating causal relations by econometric models and cross-spectral methods”, Econometrica, 37, pp. 424–38.

Griliches, Z. (1988), “Productivity Puzzles and R&D: another nonexplanation”, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 2, issue 4, pp. 9–21.

Griliches, Z. (1990), “Patent statistics as economic indicators: a survey”, Journal of Economic Literature, 92, pp. 630–653.

Hall, B.H. and Ziedonis, R.M. (2001), “The patent paradox revisited: an empirical study of patenting in the US semiconductor industry 1979–1995”, The Rand Journal of Economics, 32, No. 1, pp. 101–128.

Hall, B.H., Griliches, Z. and Hausman, J.A. (1986), “Patents and R&D: is there a lag?”, International Economic Review, 27 No. 2, pp. 265–283.

Hausman, J.A., Hall, B.H. and Griliches, Z. (1984). “Econometric Models for Count Data with an Application to the Patents-R&D Relationship”, Econometrica, 52, No. 4, pp. 909–938.

Holtz-Eakin, D., Newey, W. and Rosen, H.S. (1988), “Estimating vector autoregressions with panel data”, Econometrica, 56, pp. 1371–96.

Hood, M.V. III, Kidd, Q. and Morris, I.L. (2008). “Two Sides of the Same Coin? Employing Granger Causality Tests in a Time Series Cross-Section Framework”, Political Analysis, 16, pp. 324–344.

Hsiao, C. (1986), “Analysis of panel data”, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hunt, R. M. (2006), “When do more Patents reduce R&D?”, American Economic Review, 96, issue 2, pp. 87–91.

Hurlin, C. (2005), “Testing for Granger causality in heterogeneous panel data models”, Revue Economique, 56, pp. 1–11.

Hurlin, C. and Venet, B. (2001), “Granger causality tests in panel data models with fixed coefficients”, Working Paper Eurisco 2001–09, University of Paris Dauphine.

Hurlin, C. and Venet, B. (2004), “Financial development and growth: A re-examination using a panel Granger test”, Working Paper, University of Orleans, University of Paris Dauphine.

Jaffe, A. (1986), “Technological Opportunity and Spillovers of R&D: Evidence from Firms’ Patents, Profits and Market Value”, American Economic Review, 76, issue 5, pp. 984–1001.

Kingston, W. (2001), “Innovation needs patents reform”, Research Policy, 30, 403–423.

Kortum, S. and Lerner, J. (1999), “What is behind the recent surge in patenting?”, Research Policy, 28, pp. 1–22.

Laursen, K. and Meliciani, V. (2002), “The relative importance of international vis-ý-vis national technological spillovers for market share dynamics”, Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, 11, No. 4, pp. 875-894.

Lee, K. and Lim, C. (2001), “The Technological regimes, catch-up and leapfrogging: findings from the Korean industries”, Research Policy, 30,No.3, pp. 459–483.

Levin, R., Klevorick, A., Nelson, R. and Winter, S. (1987), “Appropriating the returns from industrial research and development”, Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 3, pp. 783–831.

Malerba, F. (2002), “Sectoral systems of innovation and production”, Research Policy, 31, No. 2, pp. 247–264.

Malerba, F. (2005), “Sectoral Systems – How and why innovation differs across sectors”, in: Fagerberg, J.,

Mowery, D., Nelson, R. (2005) The Oxford Handbook of Innovation, Chapter 14, Oxford University Press.

Malerba, F. and Orsenigo, L. (1995), “Schumpeterian patterns of innovation”, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 19, pp. 47-65.

Malerba, F., Orsenigo, L. and Peretto, P., (1997), “Persistence of innovative activities, sectoral patterns of innovation and international technological specialisation”, The International Journal of Industrial Organisation, 15, No. 6, pp. 801–826.

Manez Castillejo, J. A., Rochina Barrachina, M. E., Sanchis Llopis, A. and Sanchis Llopis, J. (2004). “A Dynamic Approach to the Decision to Invest in R&D: The Role of Sunk Costs.” mimeo

Mowery, D. and Rosenberg, N. (1989), “Technology and The Pursuit of Economic Growth”, Cambridge University Press.

Mowery, D.C. (1983), “The relationship between intrafirm and contractual forms of industrial research in American manufacturing, 1900–1940”, Explorations in Economic History, 20, pp. 351–374.

Nelson, R.R. and Winter, S.G. (1982), An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change, Harvard University Press.

Nordhaus, W. (1969), “Invention, Growth, and Welfare; A Theoretical Treatment of Technological Change”, Cambridge, Mass. 1969, chapter 5.

O’Donoghue, T., Scotchmer, S. and Thisse, J., (1998), “Patent breadth, patent life and the pace of technological progress”, Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, 7, No. 1, pp. 1–32.

Pakes, A. and Griliches, Z. (1980). “Patents and R&D at the firm level: a first look”, in Griliches, ed., 1984, pp. 55–72.

Pakes, A. (1985), “On Patents, R&D, and the Stock Market Rate of Return," Journal of Political Economy 93, pp. 390-409.

Pavitt, K. (1984), “Sectoral patterns of technical change: towards a taxonomy and a theory”. Research Policy, 13, pp. 343–373.

Peters, B., 2009. “Persistence of innovation: stylized facts and panel data evidence”. The Journal of Technology Transfer 34, 226–243.

Raymond, W., Mohnen, P., Palm, F., Schim van der Loeff, S., 2010. “Persistence of innovation in dutch manufacturing: Is it spurious?” Review of Economics and Statistics 92, 495–504.

Reichstein, T. and Salter, A. (2006), “Investigating the sources of process innovation among UK manufacturing firms”, Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, 15, No. 4, pp. 653– 682.

Romer, P. (1990), “Endogenous technological change”, Journal of Political Economy, 98, No. 5, pp. S71– S101. Roper, S., Hewitt-Dundas, N., 2008. “Innovation persistence: survey and case-study evidence”. Research Policy 37, 149–162.

Sakakibara, M. and Branstetter, L. (2001), “Do stronger patents induce more innovation? Evidence from the 1988 Japanese patent law reforms”, Rand Journal of Economics, 32, No. 1, pp. 77–100.

Schmookler, J. (1966). “Invention and Economic Growth”, Cambridge, Mass.

Schumpeter, J. (1934), “The Theory of Economic Development”, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, USA.

Schumpeter, J. (1943), “Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy”, Harper, New York.

Shapiro, C. (2001), “Navigating the Patent Thicket: Cross Licenses, Patent Pools, and Standard-Setting,” in Adam B.

Jaffe, Josh Lerner, and Scott Stern, Eds., Innovation Policy and the Economy, Vol. I. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Sims, C. (1972), “Money, Income and Causality”, American Economic Review, 62, pp. 540–52.

Sutton, J. (1991). “Sunk Costs and Market Structure”, Cambridge, Mass.

Van Ophem, H., Brouwer, E., Kleinknecht, A. and Mohnen, P. (2002), “The Mutual Relation between Patents and R&D” in A. Kleinknecht and P. Mohnen, eds., Innovation and Firm Performance, Hampshire and New York: Palgrave, pp. 56–70.

Winter, S. G. (1984), “Schumpeterian Competition in Alternative Technological Regimes”, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 5, pp. 137–158.

Winter, S. G. (2006), “Toward a Neo-Schumpeterian theory of the Firm”, Industrial and Corporate Change, 15, No. 1, pp. 125-141.