The impact of efficiency parameters on firms' innovative activities: Evidence from Korean firm-level data
Seong-Sang Lee
Korea Institute of Intellectual Property, KIPS Center, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, Republic of Korea
Yeonbae Kim
Technology Management, Economics and Policy Program (TEMEP), College of Engineering, Seoul National University, Gwanak-gu, Seoul, Republic of Korea
PP: 283 - 297
Abstract
This paper extends the research on the R&D-patent relationship by distinguishing the factors affecting R&D productivity (which is defined as 'efficiency parameters') from the factors associated with the propensity of firms to patent, and estimates the impacts of the factors on innovative output.
A data set from 1255 firms with nonzero R&D expenditures in Korea was studied, and the results show that efficiency parameters such as in-depth patent searches and revenue splitting policy for employee-inventors influence firm's innovative output through 'R&D productivity' effect. These results mean that we can improve firm's innovation output by changing efficiency parameters through a firm's investment or government support in a relatively short period.
Keywords
R&D–patent relationship; R&D productivity; propensity to patent; incentive for employee-inventor; IP manager; preliminary patent search
References
Acs Z, Anselin L and Varga A (2002) Patents and innovation counts as measures of regional production of new knowledge, Research Policy 31: 1069-1085.
Acs Z and Audretsch D (1989) Patents as a measure of innovative activity, Kyklos 42: 171-180.
Arora A, Ceccagnoli M and Cohen WM (2008) R&D and the patent premium, International Journal of Industrial Organization 26: 1153-1179.
Arundel A and Kabla I (1998) What percentage of innovations are patented? Empirical estimates for European firms, Research Policy 27: 127-141.
Baum JAC, Calabrese T and Silverman BS (2000) Don't go it alone: Alliance network composition and startups' performance in Canadian biotechnology, Strategic Management Journal 21: 267-294.
Belezon S and Schankerman M (2009) University knowledge transfer: Private ownership, incentives, and local development objectives, Journal of Law and Economics 52: 111-144.
Beneito P (2006) The innovative performance of in-house and contracted R&D in terms of patents and utility models, Research Policy 35: 502-517.
Berger Consultants (1994) The use of patent protection in Europe: A representative survey committed by the European Patent Office, EPO-script, München.
Bound J, Cummings C, Griliches Z, Hall BH and Jaffe AB (1984) Who does R and D and who patents? In Griliches, Z. (Ed.), R and D, Patents, and Productivity, pp. 21-54, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Brouwer E and Kleinknecht A (1999) Innovative output and a firm's propensity to patent: An exploration of CIS micro data, Research Policy 28: 615-624.
Cameron AC and Trivedi PK (1986) Econometric models based on count data: Comparisons and applications of some estimators and tests, Journal of Applied Econometrics 1: 29-54.
Chabchoub N and Niosi J (2005) Explaining the propensity to patent computer software, Technovation 25, 971-978.
Chang C, Mccall BP and Wang Y (2003) Incentive contracting versus ownership reforms: Evidence from China's ownership and village enterprises, Journal of Comparative Economics 31: 414-428.
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: 265-280.
Cohen WM and Klepper S (1996) Firm size and the nature of innovation within industries: The case of process and product R&D, Review of Economics and Statistics 78: 232-243.
Cohen WM, Nelson RR and Walsh JP (1998) Appropriability conditions and why firms patent and why they do not in the American manufacturing sector, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh.
Davila A (2003) Short-term economic incentives in new product development, Research Policy 32: 1397-1420.
de Rassenfosse G and van Pottelsberghe B (2009) A policy insight into the R&D-patent relationship, Research Policy 38: 779-792.
Eaton J and Kortum S (1999) International technology diffusion, theory and measurement, International Economic Review 40: 537-570.
Garcia-Vega M (2006) Does technological diversification promote innovation? An empirical analysis for European firms, Research Policy 35: 230-246.
Granstrand O (2000) Corporate management of intellectual property in Japan, International Journal of Technology Management 19: 121-148.
Griliches Z (1990) Patent statistics as economic indicators: A survey, Journal of Economic Literature 28: 1661-1707.
Griliches Z (1981) Market value, R&D, and patents, Economics Letters 7: 183-187.
Hagedoorn J and Cloodt M (2003) Measuring innovative performance: Is there an advantage in using multiple indicators?, Research Policy 32: 1365-1379.
Hall BH and Ziedonis RH (2001) The patent paradox revisited: An empirical study of patenting in the US semiconductor industry, 1979- 1995, RAND Journal of Economics 32: 101-128.
Hall BH, Griliches Z and Hausman JA (1986) Patents and R&D: Is there a lag? International Economic Review 27: 265-283.
Han YJ and Lee WY (2007) The effects of the characteristics of Korean firms on the patent production function, Economics of Innovation and New Technology 16: 293-301.
Harhoff D and Hoisl K (2007) Institutionalized incentives for ingenuity-patent value and the German employees' inventions act, Research Policy 36: 1143-1162.
Hashimoto A and Haneda S (2008) Measuring the change in R&D efficiency of the Japanese pharmaceutical industry, Research Policy 37: 1829-1836.
Hausman JA, Hall BH and Griliches Z (1984) Econometric models for count data with an application to the patent-R&D relationship, Econometrica 52: 909-938.
Honig-Haftel S and Martin LR (1993) The effectiveness of reward systems on innovative output: An empirical analysis, Small Business Economics 5: 261-269.
Jaffe AB (1986) Technological opportunity and spillovers of R&D: Evidence from firms' patents, profits, and market value, American Economic Review 76: 984-1001.
Jozefowicz J (1999) Estimating the patent-R&D relationship with count panel data, Doctoral dissertation, State University of New York.
Ke B, Petroni K and Safieddine A (1999) Ownership concentration and sensitive of executive pay to accounting performance measures: Evidence from publicly and privately held insurance companies, Journal of Accounting and Economics 28: 185-209.
Kim JY, Lee SJ and Marschke G (2009) Relation of firm size to R&D productivity, International Journal of Business and Economics 8: 7-19.
Kondo M (1999) R&D dynamics of creating patents in the Japanese industry, Research Policy 28: 587-600.
Kortum S and Lerner J (2000) Assessing the contribution of venture capital to innovation, RAND Journal of Economics 31: 674-692.
Lerner J and Wulf J (2007) Innovation and incentives: evidence from corporate R&D, Review of Economics and Statistics 89: 634-644.
Lichtenberg FR and Siegel D (1991) The impact of R&D investment on productivity: New evidence using linked R&D-LRD Data, Economic Inquiry 29: 203-229.
Lichtenthaler E (2005) The choice of technology intelligence methods in multinationals: Towards a contingency approach, International Journal of Technology Management 32, 388-407.
Mansfield E (1986) Patents and innovation: An empirical study, Management Science 32: 173-181.
Mccullagh P and Nelder JA (1983) Generalized linear models, Chapman & Hall, London.
Meurer MJ and Bessen JE (2005) Lessons for patent policy from empirical research on patent litigation, Lewis & Clark Law Review 9: 1-27.
National Computerization Agency [KNCA] (2002) Performance measurement of informatization in patent administration system [translated from Korean], Seoul.
Pakes A (1985) Patents, R&D, and the stock market rate of return, Journal of Political Economy 93: 390-409.
Pakes A and Griliches Z (1980) Patents and R&D at the firm level: A first look, Economics Letters: 377-381.
Panzar JC and Willig RD (1981) Economies of scope, American Economic Review 71: 268-272.
Ryu TK (2005) Three essays on licensing contract: Mechanism design on incentive, adverse selection, and risk sharing in public-to-private technology transfer, Doctoral dissertation, Seoul National University.
Scherer FM (1965) Firm size, market structure, opportunity, and the output of patented inventions, American Economic Review 55: 1097-1125.
Scherer FM (1983) The propensity to patent, International Journal of Industrial Organization 1: 107-128.
Scherer FM (1999) New perspectives on economic growth and technological innovation, Brookings, Washington.
Schmoolker J (1966) Invention and Economic Growth, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
Staudt E, Bock J, Mühlemeyer P and Kriegesmann B (1990) Anreizsysteme als Instrument des betrieblichen Innovations managements- Ergebnisse einer empirischen Untersuchung im F + E-Bereich, Zeitschrift für Betriebswirtschaft (ZfB) 60: 1183-1204.
Tsai KH (2005) R&D productivity and firm size: A nonlinear examination, Technovation 25: 795-803.
Vermeulen PAM, O'shaughnessy KC and De Jong JPJ (2003) Innovation in SMEs: An empirical investigation of the input-throughput-output performance model, EIM Business & Policy Research, Zoetermeer, The Netherlands.
Wang EC (2007) R&D efficiency and economic performance: A cross-country analysis using the stochastic frontier approach, Journal of Policy Modeling 29: 345-360.
Winter S (1989) Patents in complex contexts: Incentives and effectiveness, In Weil V, Snapper JW (Eds.), Owning scientific and technical information, pp. 41-60, Rutgers University Press, London.
World Intellectual Property Organization [WIPO] (2009) World intellectual property indicators, Geneva.
Xia T and Roper S (2008) From capability to connectivity - Absorptive capacity and exploratory alliances in biopharmaceutical firms: A US-Europe comparison, Technovation 28: 776-785.
eContent Home
