The production of science

Andrea, Canidio (2010): The production of science.

Abstract

Empirical evidence shows that the average return on R&D spending in scientific research decreases with firm size. I provide an explanation to this fact by developing a model of science production where heterogeneous researchers are endogenously allocated to different firms. The main assumption is that firms invest in research to increase their absorptive capacity: the ability to use and understand scientific findings produced elsewhere. Firms create absorptive capacity by building labs and hiring researchers in a competitive market. Because of externalities, firms underinvest in labs. More interestingly, researchers and labs are substitutes in the revenue function, even though they are complements in the research production function. As a consequence, the greater the investment in science, the lower the productivity of the researcher working for the firm. This generates a novel form of inefficiency: for any given investment, the allocation of researchers to firms is non optimal.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: Productivity of Scientific Research, Organization of Scientific Research, Externality, Absorptive Capacity, Matching with Investment
• Subjects: D - Microeconomics > D2 - Production and Organizations > D21 - Firm Behavior: Theory; O - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth > O3 - Innovation ; Research and Development ; Technological Change ; Intellectual Property Rights > O38 - Government Policy; O - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth > O3 - Innovation ; Research and Development ; Technological Change ; Intellectual Property Rights > O32 - Management of Technological Innovation and R&D; L - Industrial Organization > L2 - Firm Objectives, Organization, and Behavior > L22 - Firm Organization and Market Structure; H - Public Economics > H2 - Taxation, Subsidies, and Revenue > H23 - Externalities ; Redistributive Effects ; Environmental Taxes and Subsidies; O - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth > O3 - Innovation ; Research and Development ; Technological Change ; Intellectual Property Rights > O31 - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives

References

Aghion, P., M. Dewatripont, and J. C. Stein (2008). Academic freedom, private-sector focus, and the process of innovation. RAND Journal of Economics 39 (3), 617–635.

Arora, A., P. David, and A. Gambardella (1998). Reputation and competence in publicly funded science: estimating the effects on research group productivity. Annales d’Economie et de Statistique, 163–198.

Arrow, K. (1962). Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention. NBER Chapters, 609–626.

Baumol, W. (1996). Entrepreneurship: Productive, unproductive, and destructive. Journal of Business Venturing 11 (1), 3–22.

Becker, G. (1973). A Theory of Marriage: Part I. Journal of Political Economy 81 (4), 813. 10

Bolton, P. and M. Dewatripont (1994). The firm as a communication network. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 809–839.

Cockburn, I. and R. Henderson (1998). Absorptive Capacity, Coauthoring Behavior, and the Organization of Research in Drug Discovery. Journal of Industrial Economics 46 (2), 157–182.

Cohen, W. M. and D. A. Levinthal (1989). Innovation and learning: The two faces of r&d. Economic Journal 99 (397), 569–96.

Cole, H., G. Mailath, and A. Postlewaite (2001). Efficient Non-Contractible Investments in Large Economies. Journal of Economic Theory 101 (2), 333–373.

Dasgupta, P. and P. David (1985). Information disclosure and the economics of science and technology. CEPR Discussion Papers.

David, P. A., B. H. Hall, and A. A. Toole (2000). Is public r&d a complement or substitute for private r&d? a review of the econometric evidence. Research Policy 29, 497–529.

Dewatripont, M. and J. Tirole (2005). Modes of communication. Journal of Political Econ- omy 113 (6), 1217–1238.

Gall, T., P. Legros, and A. Newman (2006). The Timing of Education. Journal of the European Economic Association 4, 427–435.

Gall, T., P. Legros, and A. Newman (2009). Mismatch, rematch and investment. Working Paper .

Gambardella, A. (1992). Competitive advantages from in-house scientific research: the US pharmaceutical industry in the 1980s. Research Policy 21 (5), 391–407.

Gittelman, M. and B. Kogut (2003). Does Good Science Lead to Valuable Knowledge? Biotechnology Firms and the Evolutionary Logic of Citation Patterns. Management Sci- ence 49 (4), 366.

Griffith, R., S. Redding, and J. Reenen (2004). Mapping the Two Faces of R&D: Productivity Growth in a Panel of OECD Industries. Review of Economics and Statistics 86 (4), 883– 895.

Hammerschmidt, A. (2006). A strategic investment game with endogenous absorptive capacity. Department of Economics Working Papers.

Hammond, P. (1995). Four Characterizations of Constrained Pareto Efficiency in Continuum Economies with Widespread Externalities. Japanese Economic Review 46 (2), 103–124.

Hammond, P., M. Kaneko, and M. Wooders (1989). Continuum economies with finite coalitions: Core, equilibria, and widespread externalities. Journal of Economic Theory 49, 113–134.

Kamecke, U. (1992). On the Uniqueness of the Solution to a Large Linear Assignement Problem. Journal of Mathematical Economics 21, 509–21.

Kamien, M. and I. Zang (2000). Meet me halfway: research joint ventures and absorptive capacity. International Journal of Industrial Organization 18 (7), 995–1012.

Kaneko, M. and M. Wooders (1996). The nonemptiness of the f-core of a game without side payments. International Journal of Game Theory 25 (2), 245–258.

Leahy, D. and J. Neary (2007). Absorptive capacity, R&D spillovers, and public policy. International Journal of Industrial Organization 25 (5), 1089–1108.

Legros, P. and A. F. Newman (2002). Monotone matching in perfect and imperfect worlds. Review of Economic Studies 69 (4), 925–42.

Legros, P. and A. F. Newman (2007). Beauty Is a Beast, Frog Is a Prince: Assortative Matching with Nontransferabilities. Econometrica 75 (4), 1073–1102.

Merton, R. (1957). Priorities in scientific discovery: a chapter in the sociology of science. American Sociological Review 22 (6), 635–659.

Merton, R. (1979). The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. University of Chicago Press.

Murphy, K., A. Shleifer, and R. Vishny (1991). The allocation of talent: implications for growth. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 106 (2), 503–530.

Nelson, R. (1959). The Simple Economics of Basic Scientific Research. The Journal of Political Economy 67 (3), 297.

Rosenberg, N. (1990). Why do firms do basic research (with their own money)? Research Policy 19 (2), 165–174.

Stern, S. (2004). Do scientists pay to be scientists? Management Science, 835–853.

Tilton, J. (1971). International Diffusion of Technology: The Case of Semiconductors. The Brookings Institution, Washington, DC .

Zucker, L., M. Darby, and M. Brewer (1998). Intellectual human capital and the birth of US biotechnology enterprises. The American Economic Review 88 (1), 290–306.