Abstract
Based on the data of the first wave of the Mannheim Innovation panel, this paper explores the link between R&D expenditures and patents. Our data allow a detailed analysis of the firm size distribution of R&D and patent applications at different patent offices. It is shown that the share of R&D performing firms is stictly increasing win firm size. The share of firms applying for patents shows an even steeper increase with firm size. Moreover, large firms are more likely apply for patents in more than one country. The home patent office appears especially important for small firms. Using various count data models, the paper explores the relationship between R&D and patents at the firm level. We carefully test several distributional assumptions for count data models. A negative binomial hurdle model seems to be the most appropriate count data model for our data as the decision to patent inventions and the productivity of R&D are ruled by different mechanisms. Our estimates point towards significant returns to scale of R&D. Furthermore, the empirical results can be interpreted towards minor and insignificant spillover effects. Even after controlling for a variety of firm characteristics, firm size exhibits a large effect on the propensity to patent.
Detailed comments and suggestions by Heinz König, François Laisney and two anonymous referees are gratefully acknowledged. Participants at workshops at Strasbourg University, the OECD in Paris, as well as the Universities of Munich, Constance, Tübingen and Kiel Provided helpful comments and stimulating discussions. Any errors and omissions remain our own.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Bound, J., Cummings, C., Griliches, Z., Hall, B., Jaffe, A. (1984). — “Who Does R&D and Who Patents”, in: Griliches, Z., (Ed.), R&D, Patents, and Productivity, National Bureau of Economic Research, University of Chicago Press, 21–54.
Cameron, A. C., Trivedi, P. K. (1986). — “Econometric Models Based on Count Data: Compariosn and Applications of Some Estimators and Tests”, Journal of Applied Econometrics, 1, pp. 29–53.
Cameron, A. C., Trivedi, P. K. (1990). — “Regression-Based for Overdispersion in the Poisson Model”, Journal of Econometrics, 46, pp. 347–364.
Chernoff, H. (1954). — “On the Distribution of the Likelihood Ratio”, Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 25, pp. 573–578.
Cohen, W. M., Levin, R. C. (1989). — “Empirical Studies of Innovation and Market Structure”, in: R. Schmalensee and R. Willig (Eds.), Handbook of Industrial Organisation, North-Holland: Amsterdam.
Cohen, W. M., et al. (1997). — “Appropriability Conditions and Why Firms Patent and Why They Do Not in the American Manufacturing Sector”, Paper presented at the conference on “Economics and Economics of Innovation”, 3–6 Jun 1996, Strasbourg.
Crépon, B., Duguet, E. (1996). — “Innovation: Measurement, Returns and Competition”, INSEE Studies, No. 1, pp. 83–96.
Crépon, B., Duguet, E. (1997). — “Research and Development, Competition and Innovation. Pseudo Maximum Likelihood and Stimulated Maximum Likelihood Methods Applied to Count data Models with Heterogeneity”, Journal of Econometrics, 79, pp. 355–378.
Evenson, R. E. (1993). — “Patents, R&D, and Invention Potential: International Evidence”, AEA Papers and Proceedings, 83 No. 2, pp. 463–468.
Felder, J., Light, G., Nerlinger, E., Stahl, H. (1996). — “Factors Determining R&D and Innovation Expenditure in German Manufacturing Industries”, in: Kleinknecht, A., (1996), R&D and Innovation. Evidence from New Indicators, Macmillan Press: Basingstoke, pp. 125–154.
Giese, E., Stoutz, R. V. (1997). — “Indikatorfunktion von Patentanmeldung für regionalanalytische Zwecke in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland”, Studien zur Wirtschaftsgeographie, Universität Giessen.
Gourieroux, C., Monfort, A., Trognon, A. (1984). — “Pseudo Maximum Likelihood Methods: Application to Poisson Models”, Econometrica, 52, pp. 701–720.
Greene, W. H. (1994). — “Accounting for Excess Zeros and Sample Selection in Poisson and Negative Binomial Regression Models”, New York University Discussion Paper, EC-94–10.
Griliches, Z. (1990). — “Patent Statistics as Economic Indicators: a Survey”, Journal of Economic Literature, 28, pp. 1661–1707.
Harhoff, D. (1994). — “R&D and Productivity in German Manufacturing Firms”, ZEW-Discussion Paper 94–01, Mannheim.
Harhoff, D., Licht, G., Beise, M., Felder, J., Nerlinger, E., Stahl, H. (1996). — Innovationsaktivitäten kleiner and mittlerer Unternehmen. Ergebnisse des Mannheimer Innovationspanels, Nomos-Verlag: Baden-Baden.
Harter, J. F. R. (1993). — “The Propensity to Patent with Differentiated Products”, Southern Economic Journal, 61, pp. 195–201.
Hausman, J., Hall, B., Griliches, Z. (1984). — “Econometric Models for Count Data with an Application to the Patents-R&D Relationship”, Econometrica, 52, pp. 909–938.
Horstmann, I., Macdonald, G. M., Slivinski, A. (1985). — “Patents as Information Transfer Mechanisms: To Patent or (Maybe) Not to Patent”, Journal of Political Economy, 93, pp. 837–858.
Jaffe, A. B. (1989). — “Characterizing the ‘Technological Position’ of Firms, with Application to Quantifying Technological Opportunity and Research Spillovers”, Research Policy, 18, pp. 87–97.
Kabla, I. (1996). — “The Patent as Indicator of Innovation”, INSEE Studies, No. 1, pp. 57–72.
Kleinknecht, A., Reijnen, J. O. N. (1991). — “New Evidence on the Undercounting of Small Firm R&D”, Research Policy, 20, pp. 579–587.
König, H., Licht, G. (1995). — “Patents, R&D and Innovation. Evidence from the Mannheim Innovation Panel”, ifo-Studien, 41, pp. 521–545.
Lach, S. (1995). — “Patents and Productivity Growth at the Industry Level: A First Look”, Economics Letters, 49, pp. 101–108.
Lambert, D. (1992). — “Zero Inflated Poisson Regression with an Application to Defects in Manufacturing”, Technometrics, 34, pp. 1–14.
Lanjouw, J. O., Pakes, A., Putnam, J. (1996). — “How to Count Patents and Value Intellectual Property: Uses of Patent Renewal and Application Data”, Mimeo, Yale University, New Haven.
Lawless, J. F. (1987). — “Negative Binomial and Mixed Poisson Regression”, The Canadian Journal of Statistics, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp. 209–225.
Levin, R. C., Reiss, P. C. (1987). — “Cost-reducing and Demand-creating R&D with Spillovers”, RAND Journal of Economics, 19, pp. 538–556.
Levin, R. C., Klevorik, A. K., Nelson, R. R., Winter, S. G. (1987). — “Appropriating the Returns from Industrial Research and Development”, Brookings Papers on Economic Activity. Special Issue on Microeconomics, pp. 783–831.
Mccullagh, P., Nelder, J. A. (1989). — Generalized Linear Models, 2nd ed., Chapman and Hall: London.
Mullahy, J. (1986). — “Specification and Testing of Some Modified Count Data Models”, Journal of Econometrics, 33, pp. 341–365.
National Science Board (1996). — Science & Engineering Indicators 1996, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office 1996.
NIW, DIW, ISI, ZEW (1996). — Germany’s Technological Performance. Updated and expanded report, Hannover/Berlin/Karlsruhe/Mannheim.
OECD (1993). — Proposed Standard Practice For Surveys of Research and Experimental Development — Frascati Manual, Paris.
OECD (1994). — Using Patent Data as Science and Technology Indicators — Patent Manual, Paris.
OECD (1997). — OECD Proposed Guidelines For Collecting and Interpreting Technological Innovation Data — OSLO Manual, Second edition, Paris.
Pakes, A. (1985). — “Patents, R&D, and the Stock Market Rate of Return”, Journal of Political Economy, 93, pp. 390–409.
Pavitt, K. (1985). — “Patent Statistics as Indicators of Innovative Activities: Possibilities and Problems”, Scientometrics, 7, pp. 77–99.
Pohlmeier, W., Ulrich, V. (1995). — “An Econometric Model of the Two-Part Decision Process in the Demand for Health”, Journal of Human Resources, 30, pp. 339–361.
Scherer, F. M. (1983). — “The Propensity to Patent”, International Journal of Industrial Organisation, 1, pp. 107–128.
Sirilli, G. (1987). — “Patents and Inventors: An Empirical Study”, Research Policy, 16, pp. 157–174.
SV-Wissenschaftsstatistik (1994). — FuE-Info. Forschung und Entwicklung in der Wirtschaft. Ergebnisse 1992, 1993, Planung 1994, Essen.
Vuong, Q. H. (1989). — “Likelihood Ratio Tests for Model Selection and Non-Nested Hypotheses”, Econometrica, Vol. 57, pp. 307–333.
Winkelmann, R. (1994). — “Count Data Models: Econometnc Theory and an Application to Labour Mobility”, Springer: Heidelberg, Berlin, New York.
Winkelmann, R., Zimmermann, K. F. (1995). — “Recent Developments in Count Data Modelling: Theory and Application”, Journal of Economic Surveys, 9, pp. 1–24.
Zimmermann, K. F., Schwalbach, J. (1991). — “Determinanten der Patentaktivität”, ifo-Studien, 37, pp. 201–227.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2000 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Licht, G., Zoz, K. (2000). Patents and R&D An Econometric Investigation Using Applications for German, European and US Patents by German Companies. In: The Economics and Econometrics of Innovation. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-3194-1_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-3194-1_12
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-1-4419-4971-4
Online ISBN: 978-1-4757-3194-1
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive