Advertisement

The Journal of Technology Transfer

, Volume 44, Issue 5, pp 1427–1450 | Cite as

The moderating role of IPR on the relationship between country-level R&D and individual-level entrepreneurial performance

  • André van Stel
  • Serhiy Lyalkov
  • Ana Millán
  • José María MillánEmail author
Article
  • 102 Downloads

Abstract

Using recent data drawn from the European Working Conditions Survey for 32 European countries, we explore the relationship between country-level expenditures on R&D, Intellectual Property Rights (IPR), and individual-level entrepreneurial performance as measured by earnings. Our results show that both R&D expenditures and IPR are positively associated with earnings (and hence the quality) of individual entrepreneurs. However, we also find an intriguing moderation effect in the sense that IPR reduces the positive relationship between country R&D and entrepreneurial earnings. This suggests that too strict IPR legislation may hamper the diffusion of knowledge created by R&D. Hence, governments need to carefully consider the level of IPR they want to install, especially in countries with high R&D expenditures.

Keywords

Expenditure on R&D Intellectual property rights Entrepreneurship Self-employment Earnings European Working Conditions Survey 

Notes

Acknowledgements

All authors contributed equally to the manuscript. The authors would like to thank Andrew Burke, the guest editors—Maribel Guerrero and David Urbano—, and two anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments that contributed substantially to the development of this paper. This paper is part of Serhiy Lyalkov’s doctoral dissertation, which has been written under the framework of the PhD Program in Economics, Business, Finance and Computer Science at the University of Huelva and the International University of Andalusia, Spain.

Funding

This work was supported by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad) under Grants number ECO2017-86305-C4-2-R and ECO2017-86402-C2-2-R; Regional Government of Andalusia (Junta de Andalucía) through Research Group SEJ-487 (Spanish Entrepreneurship Research Group—SERG); and University of Huelva through Research and Transfer Policy Strategy (Estrategia de Política de Investigación y Transferencia) 2018.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Acemoglu, D., Johnson, S., & Robinson, J. (2001). The colonial origins of comparative development: An empirical investigation. American Economic Review, 91(5), 1369–1401.  https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.91.5.1369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Acemoglu, D., Johnson, S., & Robinson, J. (2002). Reversal of fortune: Geography and institutions in the making of the modern world income distribution. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 117(4), 1231–1294.  https://doi.org/10.1162/003355302320935025.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Acs, Z. J. (2006). How is entrepreneurship good for economic growth? Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization, 1(1), 97–107.  https://doi.org/10.1162/itgg.2006.1.1.97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Acs, Z. J., Audretsch, D. B., & Lehmann, E. E. (2013). The knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 41(4), 757–774.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-013-9505-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Acs, Z. J., & Sanders, M. (2012). Patents, knowledge spillovers, and entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 39(4), 801–817.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-011-9322-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Aerts, K., & Schmidt, T. (2008). Two for the price of one? Additionality effects of R&D subsidies: A comparison between Flanders and Germany. Research Policy, 37(5), 806–822.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2008.01.011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Aghion, Ph, & Howitt, P. (1998). Endogenous growth theory. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  8. Audretsch, D. B., & Keilbach, M. (2004). Entrepreneurship capital and economic performance. Regional Studies, 38(8), 949–959.  https://doi.org/10.1080/0034340042000280956.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Autio, E., & Acs, Z. (2010). Intellectual property protection and the formation of entrepreneurial growth aspirations. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 4(3), 234–251.  https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Browne, C., Di Battista, A., Geiger, T., & Gutknecht, T. (2014). The executive opinion survey: The voice of the business community. In K. Schwab (Ed.), The global competitiveness report 2014–2015 (pp. 85–96). Geneva: World Economic Forum.Google Scholar
  11. Burke, A., & Fraser, S. (2012). Self-employment: the role of intellectual property right laws. Small Business Economics, 39(4), 819–833.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-011-9336-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Coe, D. T., & Helpman, E. (1995). International R&D spillovers. European Economic Review, 39(5), 859–887.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0014-2921(94)00100-E.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Colombelli, A., & Quatraro, F. (2018). New firm formation and regional knowledge production modes: Italian evidence. Research Policy, 47(1), 139–157.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.10.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. De Soto, H. (2000). The mystery of capital: why capitalism triumphs in the west and fails everywhere else. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  15. Deeds, D. L. (2001). The role of R&D intensity, technical development and absorptive capacity in creating entrepreneurial wealth in high technology start-ups. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 18(1), 29–47.  https://doi.org/10.1016/s0923-4748(00)00032-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Denicolo, V., & Franzoni, L. A. (2011). Weak intellectual property rights, research spillovers, and the incentive to innovate. American Law and Economics Review, 14(1), 111–140.  https://doi.org/10.1093/aler/ahr017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Easterly, W., & Levine, R. (1997). Africa’s growth tragedy: Policies and ethnic divisions. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112(4), 1203–1250.  https://doi.org/10.1162/003355300555466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Elschner, C., Ernst, C., Licht, G., & Spengel, C. (2011). What the design of an R&D tax incentive tells about its effectiveness: A simulation of R&D tax incentives in the European Union. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 36(3), 233–256.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-009-9146-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Erken, H., Donselaar, P., & Thurik, R. (2018). Total factor productivity and the role of entrepreneurship. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 43(6), 1493–1521.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-016-9504-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Eurofound (2012). Fifth European working conditions survey—overview report, publications office of the European Union, Luxembourg. https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/sites/default/files/ef_publication/field_ef_document/ef1182en.pdf. Accessed 1 Apr 2019.
  21. Eurofound (2016). Sixth European working conditions survey–overview report, publications office of the European union, Luxembourg. https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/sites/default/files/ef_publication/field_ef_document/ef1634en.pdf. Accessed 1 Apr 2019.
  22. Eurofound (2018). European working conditions survey integrated data file, 1991–2015. [data collection]. 7th edn. UK Data Service. SN: 7363. http://doi.org/10.5255/UKDA-SN-7363-7.
  23. European Commission (2017). The economic rationale for public R&I funding and its impact. Brussels: European Commission. https://ri-links2ua.eu/object/document/326/attach/KI0117050ENN_002.pdf. Accessed 1 Apr 2019.
  24. Falvey, R., Foster, N., & Greenaway, D. (2006). Intellectual property rights and economic growth. Review of Development Economics, 10(4), 700–719.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9361.2006.00343.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Furman, J. L., Porter, M. E., & Stern, S. (2002). The determinants of national innovative capacity. Research Policy, 31(6), 899–933.  https://doi.org/10.1016/s0048-7333(01)00152-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hall, B. H., Mairesse, J., & Mohnen, P. (2010). Measuring the returns to R&D. In B. H. Hall & N. Rosenberg (Eds.), Handbook of the economics of innovation (Vol. 2, Chapter 24, pp. 1033–1082).  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-7218(10)02008-3.
  27. Hamilton, R. T. (2000). Does entrepreneurship pay? An empirical analysis of the returns to self-employment. Journal of Political Economy, 108(3), 604–631.  https://doi.org/10.1086/262131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Henrekson, M., & Sanandaji, T. (2018). Schumpeterian entrepreneurship in Europe compared to other industrialized regions. International Review of Entrepreneurship, 16(2), 157–182.Google Scholar
  29. Kao, C., Chiang, M.-H., & Chen, B. (1999). International R&D spillovers: An application of estimation and inference in panel cointegration. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 61(4), 693–711.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0084.0610s1691.Google Scholar
  30. Kelly, R., & Kim, H. (2018). Venture capital as a catalyst for commercialization and high growth. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 43(6), 1466–1492.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-016-9540-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Krieger, B., Licht, G., & Pellens, M. (2018). New perspectives in European innovation policy. ZEW policy brief, No. 7/2018. Mannheim: Zentrum für Europäische Wirtschaftsforschung (ZEW). http://hdl.handle.net/10419/183222. Accessed 1 Apr 2019.
  32. Lehmann, E. E., & Menter, M. (2018). Public cluster policy and performance. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 43(3), 558–592.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-017-9626-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Millán, J. M., Congregado, E., Román, C., van Praag, M., & van Stel, A. (2014). The value of an educated population for an individual’s entrepreneurship success. Journal of Business Venturing, 29(5), 612–632.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2013.09.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mueller, P. (2007). Exploiting entrepreneurial opportunities: The impact of entrepreneurship on growth. Small Business Economics, 28(4), 355–356.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-006-9035-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. OECD. (2015). The Future of Productivity. Paris: OECD Publishing.  https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264248533-en.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. OECD (2018). Gross domestic spending on R&D (indicator). http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/d8b068b4-en. Accessed 1 Apr 2019.
  37. Park, W. G., & Ginarte, J. C. (1997). Intellectual property rights and economic growth. Contemporary Economic Policy, 15(3), 51–61.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-7287.1997.tb00477.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Parker, S. C. (2018). The Economics of Entrepreneurship. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316756706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Romer, P. M. (1986). Increasing returns and long-run growth. Journal of Political Economy, 94(5), 1002–1037.  https://doi.org/10.1086/261420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Romer, P. M. (1990). Endogenous technological change. Journal of Political Economy, 98(5, Part 2), S71–S102.  https://doi.org/10.1086/261725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Schmitz, J. A., Jr. (1989). Imitation, entrepreneurship, and long-run growth. Journal of Political Economy, 97(3), 721–739.  https://doi.org/10.1086/261624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Schneider, P. H. (2005). International trade, economic growth and intellectual property rights: A panel data study of developed and developing countries. Journal of Development Economics, 78(2), 529–547.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2004.09.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Shane, S. (2009). Why encouraging more people to become entrepreneurs is bad public policy. Small Business Economics, 33(2), 141–149.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-009-9215-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Takalo, T. (2012). Rationales and instruments for public innovation policies. Journal of Reviews on Global Economics, 1, 157–167.  https://doi.org/10.6000/1929-7092.2012.01.14.Google Scholar
  45. Takalo, T., & Tanayama, T. (2009). Adverse selection and financing of innovation: is there a need for R&D subsidies? The Journal of Technology Transfer, 35(1), 16–41.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-009-9112-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Thompson, M.A., & Rushing, F.W. (1996). An empirical analysis of the impact of patent protection on economic growth. Journal of Economic Development, 21(2), 61–77. http://jed.or.kr/full-text/21-2/4.pdf. Accessed 1 Apr 2019.
  47. Thompson, M.A., & Rushing, F.W. (1999). An empirical analysis of the impact of patent protection on economic growth: An Extension. Journal of Economic Development, 24(1), 67–76. http://jed.or.kr/full-text/24-1/thompson.PDF. Accessed 1 Apr 2019.
  48. Tobin, J. (1958). Estimation of relationships for limited dependent variables. Econometrica, 26(1), 24–36.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1907382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Van Praag, C. M. (2005). Successful Entrepreneurship: Confronting Economic Theory with Empirical Practice. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Van Stel, A., Millán, A., Millán, J. M., & Román, C. (2018). The relationship between start-up motive and earnings over the course of the entrepreneur’s business tenure. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 28(1), 103–123.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00191-017-0499-3.Google Scholar
  51. Van Stel, A., Millán, J. M., & Román, C. (2014). Investigating the impact of the technological environment on survival chances of employer entrepreneurs. Small Business Economics, 43(4), 839–855.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-014-9565-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Xu, B., & Chiang, E. P. (2005). Trade, patents and international technology diffusion. The Journal of International Trade & Economic Development, 14(1), 115–135.  https://doi.org/10.1080/0963819042000333270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Trinity Business SchoolTrinity College DublinDublinIreland
  2. 2.Center for EntrepreneurshipKozminski UniversityWarsawPoland
  3. 3.International University of AndalusiaHuelvaSpain
  4. 4.Department of Financial Economics and AccountingPablo de Olavide UniversitySevilleSpain
  5. 5.Department of EconomicsUniversity of HuelvaHuelvaSpain

Personalised recommendations