Advertisement

Patents for evidence-based decision-making and smart specialisation

  • Bruno Brandão Fischer
  • Maxim Kotsemir
  • Dirk Meissner
  • Ekaterina StreltsovaEmail author
Article
  • 95 Downloads

Abstract

The article compares and contrasts different sets of patent-based indicators, traditionally used to assess countries’ technological capacities and specialisation. By doing that, we seek to determine how a chosen metric might affect the results of such an analysis, sometimes causing misleading conclusions on technological profiling. This goal is achieved with the statistical analysis of patent activity of the top-10 patenting economies. Findings indicate the need for policymakers to employ a complex of patent-related indicators when formulating technological specialisation strategies. Results also offer a taxonomy of technological capacities of the leading countries, which can further help understanding their current status and prospects for future progress. Thus, the paper might be of interest for researchers and analysts, which seek to offer methodological approaches and models to assess technological development of economies, as well as for policymakers governing the process.

Keywords

Technological development Technological specialization Patent statistics 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The article was prepared within the framework of the Basic Research Program at the National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE) and supported within the framework of a subsidy by the Russian Academic Excellence Project ‘5-100’.

References

  1. Aghion, P., Boulanger, J., & Cohen, E. (2011). Rethinking industrial policy. Bruegel Policy Brief,2011(04), 1–8.Google Scholar
  2. Archibugi, D., & Coco, A. (2004). A new indicator of technological capabilities for developed and developing countries (ArCo). World Development,32(4), 629–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Archibugi, D., & Pianta, M. (1992). Specialisation and size of technological activities in industrial countries: The analysis of patent data. Research Policy,21(1), 79–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bečić, E., & Švarc, J. (2015). Smart specialisation in Croatia: Between the cluster and technological specialisation. Journal of the Knowledge Economy,6(2), 270–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boschma, R., Balland, P., & Kogler, D. (2014). Relatedness and technological change in cities: The rise and fall of technological knowledge in US metropolitan areas from 1981 to 2010. Industrial and Corporate Change,24(1), 223–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Breschi, S., Lissoni, F., & Malerba, F. (2003). Knowledge-relatedness in firm technological diversification. Research Policy,32(1), 69–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Capello, R., & Kroll, H. (2016). From theory to practice in smart specialisation strategy: Emerging limits and possible future trajectories. European Planning Studies,24(8), 1393–1406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Capello, R., & Lenzi, C. (2016). Relevance and utility of European Union research, technological development and innovation policies for a smart growth. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy,34(1), 52–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carayannis, E. G., Grigoroudis, E., Campbell, D. F., Meissner, D., & Stamati, D. (2018). The ecosystem as helix: An exploratory theory-building study of regional co-opetitive entrepreneurial ecosystems as Quadruple/Quintuple Helix Innovation Models. R&D Management,48(1), 148–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cerulli, G., & Filippetti, A. (2012). The complementary nature of technological capabilities: Measurement and robustness issues. Technological Forecasting and Social Change,79, 875–887.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Correa, P. (2015). Public expenditure: Reviews in science, technology, and innovation. Washington: World Bank Group.Google Scholar
  12. Correa, P., & Güçeri I. (2016). Research and innovation for smart specialisation strategy. Policy Paper Series, Paper No. June 2006, Oxford University Centre for Business Taxation.Google Scholar
  13. Dosi, G. (1988). Sources, procedures and microeconomic effects of innovation. Journal of Economic Literature,26(3), 1120–1171.Google Scholar
  14. Fai, F., & Von Tunzelmann, N. (2001). Industry-specific competencies and converging technological systems: evidence from patents. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics,12(2), 141–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Filipetti, A., & Peyrache, A. (2011). The patterns of technological capabilities of countries: A dual approach using composite indicators and data analysis. World Development,39, 1108–1121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fischer, B., Kotsemir, M., Meissner, D., & Streltsova, E. (2018). Patents for evidence-based decision-making and smart specialization. No. WP BRP 86/STI/2018. National Research University Higher School of Economics.Google Scholar
  17. Fleming, L., & Sorenson, O. (2001). Technology as a complex adaptive system: Evidence from patent data. Research Policy,30(7), 1019–1039.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Foray, D. (2014). From smart specialisation to smart specialisation policy. European Journal of Innovation Management,17(4), 492–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Foray, D., & Goenaga, X. (2013). The goals of smart specialisation. JRC Scientific and Policy Reports, Paper No S3 Policy Brief Series 01/2013, European Commission.Google Scholar
  20. Freeman, C., & Soete, L. (2009). Developing science, technology and innovation indicators: What we can learn from the past. Research Policy,38, 583–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Frietsch, R., Neuhäusler, P., Jung, T., & Van Looy, B. (2014). Patent indicators for macroeconomic growth—The value of patents estimated by export volume. Technovation,34(9), 546–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Furman, J. L., Porter, M. E., & Stern, S. (2002). The determinants of national innovative capacity. Research Policy,31(6), 899–933.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gokhberg, L. M. (2003). Statistika nauki. [Statistics of Science]. Moscow: Teys(in Russian).Google Scholar
  24. Granstrand, O. (1998). Towards a theory of the technology-based firm. Research Policy,27(5), 465–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Griliches, Z. (1990). Patent statistics as economic indicators: a survey. Journal of Economic Literature,28(4), 1661–1707.Google Scholar
  26. Grillitsch, M. (2016). Institutions, smart specialisation dynamics and policy. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy,34(1), 22–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Grupp, H., & Mogee, M. E. (2004). Indicators for national science and technology policy: how robust are composite indicators? Research Policy,33(9), 1373–1384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Harhoff, D., Narin, F., Scherer, F. M., & Vopel, K. (1999). Citation frequency and the value of patented inventions. Review of Economics and Statistics,81(3), 511–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hausmann, R., & Rodrik, D. (2003). Economic development as self-discovery. Journal of Development Economics,72(2), 603–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Havas, A., Schartinger, D., & Weber, M. (2010). The impact of foresight on innovation policy-making: Recent experiences and future perspectives. Research Evaluation,19(2), 91–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Heimeriks, G., & Balland, P. (2016). How smart is specialisation? An analysis of specialisation patterns in knowledge production. Science and Public Policy,43(4), 562–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hidalgo, C., & Hausmann, R. (2009). The building blocks of economics complexity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,106(26), 10570–10575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Iacobucci, D. (2014). Designing and implementing a smart specialization strategy at regional level: Some open questions. Scienze Regionali,13(1), 107–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Jiang, J., Goel, R. K., & Zhang, X. (2019). Knowledge flows from business method software patents: influence of firms’ global social networks. The Journal of Technology Transfer,44(4), 1070–1096.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Khayyat, N. T., & Lee, J.-D. (2015). A measure of technological capabilities for developing countries. Technological Forecasting and Social Change,92, 210–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Khramova, E., Meissner, D., & Sagieva, G. (2013). Statistical patent analysis indicators as a means of determining country technological specialisation. NRU Higher School of Economics. Series WP BRP “Science, Technology and Innovation”, Paper No. 09/STI/2013.Google Scholar
  37. Komninos, N., Musyck, B., & Iain Reid, A. (2014). Smart specialisation strategies in south Europe during crisis. European Journal of Innovation Management,17(4), 448–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kopczynska, E., & Ferreira, J. J. (2018). Smart specialization as a new strategic framework: Innovative and competitive capacity in European context. Journal of the Knowledge Economy.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-018-0543-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kotnik, P., & Petrin, T. (2017). Implementing a smart specialisation strategy: An evidence-based approach. International Review of Administrative Sciences,83(1), 85–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Krüger, J. (2008). Productivity and structural change: A review of the literature. Journal of Economic Surveys,22(2), 330–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lee, K. (2013). Schumpeterian analysis of economic catch-up: Knowledge, path creation, and the middle-income trap. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lopes, J., Farinha, L., Ferreira, J., & Silveira, P. (2018). Smart specialization policies: Innovative performance models from European regions. European Planning Studies,26(11), 2114–2124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lopes, J., Ferreira, J., & Farinha, L. (2019). Innovation strategies for smart specialization (RIS3): Past, present and future research. Growth and Change,50(1), 38–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Mancusi, M. (2012). National externalities and path-dependence in technological change: An empirical test. Economica,79(314), 329–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. McCann, P., & Ortega-Argilés, R. (2015). Smart Specialisation, regional growth and applications to European Union Cohesion Policy. Regional Studies,49(8), 1291–1302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Meissner, D., Gokhberg, L., & Saritas, O. (2019). What do emerging technologies mean for economic development? In D. Meissner, L. Gokhberg, & O. Saritas (Eds.), Emerging technologies for economic development (pp. 1–10). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Meissner, D., Polt, W., & Vonortas, N. (2017). Towards a broad understanding of innovation and its importance for innovation policy. Journal of Technology Transfer,42(5), 1184–1211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Meissner, D., & Rudnik, P. (2017). Creating sustainable impact from foresight on STI policy. Foresight,19(5), 457–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Miles, I., Saritas, O., & Sokolov, A. (2016). Foresight for science, technology and innovation. Switzerland: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Mokyr, J., Vickers, C., & Zierbach, N. L. (2015). The history of technological anxiety and the future of economic growth: Is this time different? Journal of Economic Perspectives,29(3), 31–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Mowery, D. C., & Rosenberg, N. (1995). Technology and the pursuit of economic growth. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Neffke, F., Henning, M., & Boschma, R. (2011). How do regions diversify over time? Industry relatedness and the development of new growth paths in regions. Economic Geography,87(3), 237–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. OECD. (2009). Patent Statistics Manual. Paris: OECD.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. OECD. (2013). Innovation-driven growth in regions: the role of smart specialisation. Paris: OECD.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. OECD. (2018). Main Science and Technology Indicators (Vol. 1). Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  56. Ozawa, T. (2009). The rise of Asia, the ‘flying geese’ theory of tandem growth and regional agglomeration. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  57. Petralia, S., Balland, P., & Morrison, A. (2017). Climbing the ladder of technological development. Research Policy,46(5), 956–969.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Piirainen, K., Tanner, A., & Alkærsig, L. (2017). Regional foresight and dynamics of smart specialisation: A typology of regional diversification patterns. Technological Forecasting and Social Change,115, 289–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Porter, M. (1998). The competitive advantage of nations. Newyork, NY: The Free Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Radosevic, S., & Yoruk, E. (2014). Are there global shifts in the world science base? Analysing the catching up and falling behind of world regions. Scientometrics,101(3), 1897–1924.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Radosevic, S., & Yoruk, E. (2016). Why do we need a theory and metrics of technology upgrading? Asian Journal of Technology Innovation,24(1), 8–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Santini, C., Marinelli, E., Boden, M., Cavicchi, A., & Haegeman, K. (2016). Reducing the distance between thinkers and doers in the entrepreneurial discovery process: An exploratory study. Journal of Business Research,69(5), 1840–1844.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Schmoch, U. (2008). Concept of a technology classification for country comparisons. Final Report to the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research, Karlsruhe.Google Scholar
  64. Trajtenberg, M. (1990). A penny for your quotes: Patent citations and the value of innovations. The Rand Journal of Economics,21(1), 172–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Trappey, A. J., Trappey, C. V., Wu, C. Y., & Lin, C. W. (2012). A patent quality analysis for innovative technology and product development. Advanced Engineering Informatics,26(1), 26–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. UNDP. (2001). Human development report 2001. Making New technologies work for human development. United Nations Development Program.. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  67. Urraca-Ruiz, A. (2019). On the evolution of technological specialization patterns in emerging countries: Comparing Asia and Latin America. Economics of Innovation and New Technology,28(1), 100–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Wagner, C. S., Brahmakulam, I., Jackson, B., Wong, A., & Yoda, T. (2001). Science and technology collaboration: Building capability in developing countries (No. RAND/MR-1357.0-WB). RAND CORP SANTA MONICA CA.Google Scholar
  69. WIPO. (2015). World intellectual property report: Breakthrough innovation and economic growth. Geneva: WIPO.Google Scholar
  70. Zacharakis, A. L., Shepherd, D. A., & Coombs, J. E. (2003). The development of venture-capital-backed internet companies: An ecosystem perspective. Journal of Business Venturing,18(2), 217–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Applied SciencesUniversity of CampinasLimeiraBrazil
  2. 2.Institute for Statistical Studies and Economics of KnowledgeNational Research University Higher School of EconomicsMoscowRussian Federation

Personalised recommendations