Advertisement

The Journal of Technology Transfer

, Volume 44, Issue 1, pp 155–166 | Cite as

Risk attitudes, patenting and invention disclosures by academic researchers

  • Rajeev K. GoelEmail author
  • Devrim Göktepe-Hultén
Article

Abstract

This paper examines the effect of risk attitudes on innovation behavior of academic researchers. Specifically, using two alternate measures of self-reported risk attitudes, we test the hypothesis that aversion to risk would negatively affect revelation of information in innovations. Results based on a sample of more than 2500 German researchers across both measures of risk aversion show that, consistent with intuition, risk aversion has a significant negative effect on invention disclosures, but not on patenting.

Keywords

Patents Invention disclosure Risk averse Academic research Germany 

JEL Classification

O33 O31 O52 

References

  1. Antonelli, C., & Link, A. N. (2015). Routledge handbook of the economics of knowledge. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  2. Arrow, K. J. (1976). Essays in the theory of risk-bearing. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
  3. Bradley, S. R., Hayter, C. S., & Link, A. N. (2013). Models and methods of university technology transfer. Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship, 9, 571–650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dekel, E., & Scotchmer, S. (1999). On the evolution of attitudes towards risk in winner-take-all games. Journal of Economic Theory, 87, 125–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Goel, R. K., & Göktepe-Hultén, D. (2013). Nascent entrepreneurship and inventive activity: A somewhat new perspective. Journal of Technology Transfer, 38, 471–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Goel, R. K., Göktepe-Hultén, D., & Ram, R. (2015). Academics’ entrepreneurship propensities and gender differences. Journal of Technology Transfer, 40, 161–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Goel, R. K., & Ram, R. (2001). Irreversibility of R&D investment and the adverse effect of uncertainty: Evidence from the OECD countries. Economics Letters, 71, 287–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Goel, R. K., & Rich, D. P. (2005). Organization of markets for science and technology. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, 161, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Göktepe-Hultén, D., & Mahagaonkar, P. (2010). Inventing and patenting activities of scientists: In the expectation of money or reputation? Journal of Technology Transfer, 35, 401–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Griliches, Z. (1990). Patent statistics as economic indicators: A survey. Journal of Economic Literature, 28, 1661–1707.Google Scholar
  11. Keller, L. R. (1985). An empirical investigation of relative risk aversion. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, SMC-15, 475–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lam, A. (2011). What motivates academic scientists to engage in research commercialization: ‘Gold’, ‘ribbon’ or ‘puzzle’? Research Policy, 40, 1354–1368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Levin, R. C., Klevorick, A. K., Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (1987). Appropriating the returns from industrial research and development. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 3, 783–820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Link, A. N., & Link, J. R. (1999). Women in science: An exploratory analysis of trends in the United States. Science and Public Policy, 26, 437–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Link, A. N., & Ruhm, C. J. (2011). Public knowledge, private knowledge: The intellectual capital of entrepreneurs. Small Business Economics, 36, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Machina, M. J. (1982). ‘Expected utility’ analysis without the independence axiom. Econometrica, 50, 277–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Machina, M. J. (1987). Choice under uncertainty: Problems solved and unsolved. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 1, 121–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Max Planck Society (2009). Max Planck Society: Annual report 2008. Available at https://www.mpg.de/7313642/Annual_Report_2009.pdf.
  19. Mazzoleni, R., & Nelson, R. R. (1998). The benefits and costs of strong patent protection: A contribution to the current debate. Research Policy, 27, 273–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Merton, R. K. (1973). The sociology of science. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  21. Pratt, J. W. (1964). Risk aversion in the small and in the large. Econometrica, 32, 122–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Reinganum, J. F. (1989). The timing of innovation: Research, development and diffusion. In R. Schmalensee, R. Willig (Eds.), The handbook of industrial organization (pp. 849–908). Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
  23. Rothaermal, F. T., Agung, S. D., & Jiang, L. (2007). University entrepreneurship: A taxonomy of the literature. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16, 691–791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Stephan, P. E., & El-Ganainy, A. (2007). The entrepreneurial puzzle: Explaining the gender gap. Journal of Technology Transfer, 32, 475–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Thursby, J. G., & Thursby, M. C. (2005). Gender patterns of research and licensing activity of science and engineering faculty. Journal of Technology Transfer, 30, 343–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Walter, S. G., Schmidt, A., & Walter, A. (2011). Do academic entrepreneurs patent their secrets? An empirical investigation of patent rationales. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, 31, 4.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York (outside the USA) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsIllinois State UniversityNormalUSA
  2. 2.Lund UniversityLundSweden

Personalised recommendations