Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Geographical Labor Market Imbalances pp 219–236Cite as

Explaining the Patenting Propensity: A Regional Analysis Using EPO-OECD Data

  • Chapter

Part of the book series: AIEL Series in Labour Economics ((AIEL))

Abstract

The aim of this chapter is to conduct an empirical study of the patenting propensity at the European regional level using the OECD-REGPAT dataset. We use patent applications by inventor’s region as, in this case, linkage to the territory is stronger than using applicant’s region. Data analysis reveals the existence of a deep, uneven distribution of patent applications, R&D expenditure and human capital. Richer regions show higher levels of both private and public R&D expenditure as well as a consistent share of the total European patent applications. Starting from the analysis of these key variables, we proceed explaining the determinants of patenting propensity. The results substantially confirm the significant role of R&D expenditure on patenting activity: mainly the business enterprises, but also the government sector component. Human capital variables show similar positive effect, while average enterprise size seems not to play a determining role in patent applications.

JEL Classification O34, K29, O4, O53, K19

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Among others, Caballero and Jaffe (1993), Henderson et al. (2005), Jaffe et al. (2005) and Schettino (2007).

  2. 2.

    See Harhoff et al. (1999), Lanjouw and Schankerman (2004) and Hall et al. (2007).

  3. 3.

    EU27 + EFTA countries, NUTS 2 level.

  4. 4.

    OECD-REGPAT database, June 2012—includes patent applications to the EPO (derived from PATSTAT, April 2012) and international PCT (Patent Cooperation Treaty) patents (derived from the OECD patent database, including patents published up to May 2012). Note that the regional breakdown refers to the latest revision to NUTS. The dataset covers regional information for most OECD countries and the EU27, plus the BRICs. We thank Helene Dernis for providing the data.

  5. 5.

    Fractioned following Narin and Breizman (1995).

  6. 6.

    The choice of inventor rather than applicant is discussed in Sect. 10.3.

  7. 7.

    Selection made at the NUTS 2 level.

  8. 8.

    We refer to the case of an inventor commuting daily from region of residence to workplace region. This would lose the connection to the territory of the invention (workplace region), overestimating the region of residence only.

  9. 9.

    The test performed on Gini2000 and Gini2010 excludes a statistically significant difference between the indexes.

  10. 10.

    The number of observations fluctuates across the years (282–300) because although the number of regions per country is generally constant over time, the regional structures of eastern European countries have changed in recent years.

  11. 11.

    Both BERD and GOVERD have been calculated in PPS, 2,000 prices.

  12. 12.

    We apply Moran’s test to the whole sample (2000–2010) and to 1 year (2008). In both cases, the test confirms that we can accept the null hypothesis that there is zero spatial autocorrelation present in the variable considered (Moran I (2000–2010) = 0.011; Moran I (2008) = 0.004).

  13. 13.

    GMM estimations were performed by using the xtabond2 for Stata 10 (see also Roodman 2006).

  14. 14.

    See Hall et al. (2003).

References

  • Antonelli, C. (2010). Pecuniary externalities and the localized generation of technological knowledge. In R. Boschma & R. Martin (Eds.), The handbook of evolutionary economic geography. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arellano, M., & Bond, S. (1991). Some tests of specification for panel data: Monte Carlo evidence and an application to employment equations. The Review of Economic Studies, 58, 277–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boschma, R., & Frenken, K. (2009). Technological relatedness and regional branching. In H. Bathelt, M. Feldman, & D. Kloger (Eds.), Dynamic geographies of knowledge creation and innovation. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caballero, R. J., & Jaffe, A. (1993). How high are the giants’ shoulders: An empirical assessment of knowledge spillovers and creative destruction in a model of economic growth. In O. J. Blanchard & S. Fischer (Eds.), NBER macroeconomics annual 1993 (Vol. 8). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cantwell, J., & Iammarino, S. (2001). EU regions and multinational corporations: Change, stability and strengthening of technological comparative advantages. Industrial Corporate Change, 10, 1007–1039.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cincera, M. (2005, April). The link between firms’ R&D by type of activity and source of funding and the decision to patent (Working Paper DULBEA, Research Series, No. 05-10.RS).

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, C. W., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 128–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooke, P. (1992). Regional innovation systems: Competitive regulation in the New Europe. GeoForum, 23, 365–382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooke, P., Uranga, M. G., & Etxebarria, G. (1997). Regional innovation systems: Institutional and organizational dimensions. Research Policy, 26(4–5), 475–491.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cozza, C., Paci, D., & Perani, G. (2012). Ownership and execution of regional corporate R&D – methodological hints from the Italian case. Eurasian Business Review, 2(1), 47–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feldman, M. P. (1994). The geography of innovation. Economics of science, technology and innovation. Amsterdam: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griliches, Z. (1990). Patent statistics as economic indicators: A survey. Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, 28(4), 1661–1707.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, B., Toma, G., & Torrisi, S. (2007). The market value of patents and R&D: Evidence from European firms (NBER Working Paper 13426).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, B. H., & Ziedonis, R. H. (2001). The patent paradox revisited: An empirical study of patenting in the U.S. semiconductor industry, 1979–1995. RAND Journal of Economics, 32(1), 101–128 (Spring).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, B. H., Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2003). Universities as research partners. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 85(2), 485–491.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harhoff, D., Narin, F., Scherer, F. M., & Vopel, K. (1999). Citation frequency and the value of patented inventions. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 81, 511–515.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hausman, J., Jaffe, A., & Trajtenberg, M. (1984). Econometric models for count data with an application to the patents-R&D relationship. Econometrica, 52, 909–938.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hausman, J., Jaffe A., & Trajtenberg, M. (1986). Patents and R&D: Is there a lag? International Economic Review, 27, 265–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, R., Jaffe, A., & Trajtenberg, M. (2005). Patent citations and the geography of knowledge spillovers: A reassessment: Comment. American Economic Review, 95(1), 461–464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaffe, A., Trajtenberg, M., & Hall, B. H. (2005). Market value and patent citations: A first look (Economics Working Papers No. E00-277). Berkeley, CA: University of California.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krugman, P., & Venables, A. J. (1996). Integration, specialization, and adjustment. European Economic Review, 40, 959–967.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lanjouw, J. O., & Schankerman, M. (2004). Patent quality and research productivity: Measuring innovation with multiple indicators. Economic Journal, 114, 441–465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Montalvo, G. J. (1993). Patents and R&D at the firm level: A new look. Revista Espanola de Economia, 67, 81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Narin, F., & Breizman, A. (1995). Inventive productivity. Research Policy, 24(1995), 507–519.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patel, P., & Pavitt, K. (1991). Large firms in the production of the worlds technology – an important case of non-globalization. Journal of International Business Studies, 22(1), 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roodman, D. (2006). How to do xtabond2: An introduction to ‘Difference’ and ‘System’ GMM in stata (Working Paper No. 103). Center for Global Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schettino, F. (2007). US patent citations data and industrial knowledge spillovers. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 16(8), 595–633.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schettino, F., Sterlacchini, A., & Venturini F. (2013). Inventive productivity and patent quality: Evidence from Italian inventors. Journal of Policy Modeling, 35, 1043–1056. doi:10.1016/j.jpolmod.2013.02.008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Zeebroeck, N. (2011). The puzzle of patent value indicators. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 20, 1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Zeebroeck, N., & van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, B. (2011). The vulnerability of patent value determinants. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 20(3), 283–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Hippel, E. (1988). The sources of innovation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yueh, L. (2009). Patent laws and innovation in China. International Review of Law and Economics, 29(2009), 304–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We’d like to thank Michele Cincera and anonymous referees for helpful comments and suggestions. All remaining errors are the responsibility of the authors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Economics, Management, Mathematics and Statistics – “Bruno de Finetti”, University of Trieste, Trieste, Italy

    Claudio Cozza

  2. Department of Law, Second University of Naples, Naples, Italy

    Francesco Schettino

Authors
  1. Claudio Cozza
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Francesco Schettino
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Francesco Schettino .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Piacenza, Italy

    Chiara Mussida

  2. Department of Law, Seconda Università di Napoli, Santa Maria Capua Vetere, Italy

    Francesco Pastore

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Cozza, C., Schettino, F. (2015). Explaining the Patenting Propensity: A Regional Analysis Using EPO-OECD Data. In: Mussida, C., Pastore, F. (eds) Geographical Labor Market Imbalances. AIEL Series in Labour Economics. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-55203-8_10

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation