Patent Policy and Relationship Between Innovation and Monopoly Power: Evidence from Indian High and Medium Technology Industries
- 243 Downloads
India strengthened its patent policy by complying with the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights. These changes in the policy influence firms’ incentive to engage in innovation activities and concomitantly the competition in the market. This study analyzes the impact of patent policy change on a two-way relationship between innovation and monopoly power by utilizing firm-level panel data of 686 high and medium technology firms over 1995–2015. Findings suggest that there is a nonlinear impact (inverted U-shaped) of monopoly power on patenting in the post-TRIPs regime. Further, as expected, patenting positively influences the firms’ monopoly power in both pre- and post-TRIPs regime. While investigating the nonlinear impact of patenting on monopoly power, we also found the inverted U-shaped relationship during the transition phase of policy change (1995–2005). We conclude that the patent policy change has a significant impact on the innovation and monopoly power relationship in Indian firms.
KeywordsPatent policy change Patenting Monopoly power High and medium technology industries
JEL classificationL10 L11 L12 L60 O30
We would like to thank Prof. N. S. Siddharthan, Prof. K. Narayanan and Prof. B. N. Goldar for their helpful comments on earlier draft of this paper.
- Aghion, P., Bloom, N., Blundell, R., Griffith, R., & Howitt, P. (2005). Competition and innovation: An inverted-U relationship. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 120(2), 701–728.Google Scholar
- Arrow, K. (1962). Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for invention. In The rate and direction of inventive activity: Economic and social factors (pp. 609–626). Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- Bain, J. S. (1968). Industrial organization. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
- Dhanora, M., Sharma, R., & Jose, M. (2019). Two-way relationship between innovation and market structure: Evidence from Indian high and medium technology firms. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/10438599.2019.1596575.
- Evenson, R. E., & Joseph, K. J. (1999). Foreign technology licensing in Indian Industry: An econometric analysis of the choice of partners, terms of contract and the effect on licensees’ performance. Economic and Political Weekly, 34(27), 1801–1809.Google Scholar
- Gilbert, R. J., & Newbery, D. M. (1982). Preemptive patenting and the persistence of monopoly. The American Economic Review, 72(3), 514–526.Google Scholar
- Grossman, G. M., & Helpman, E. (1993). Innovation and growth in the global economy. MIT press.Google Scholar
- Hausmann, R., Hidalgo, C. A., Bustos, S., Coscia, M., Simoes, A., & Yildirim, M. A. (2014). The atlas of economic complexity: Mapping paths to prosperity. MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Kathuria, V. (2008). The impact of FDI inflows on R&D investment by medium-and high-tech firms in India in the post-reform period. Transnational Corporations, 17(2), 45.Google Scholar
- Kortum, S., & Lerner, J. (1998, June). Stronger protection or technological revolution: what is behind the recent surge in patenting? In Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy (Vol. 48, pp. 247–304). North-Holland.Google Scholar
- Nelson, R., & Winter, S. (1982). An evolutionary theory of economic change. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- North, D. C. (2012). Understanding the process of economic change. In Worlds of Capitalism (pp. 107–120). Routledge.Google Scholar
- Pisano, G. P. (1990). The R&D boundaries of the firm: An empirical analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 153–176.Google Scholar
- Saraswathy, B. (2018). Innovation–consolidation Nexus: Evidence from India’s Manufacturing Sector. In Globalisation of Technology (pp. 183–201). Singapore: Springer.Google Scholar
- Schumpeter, J. A. (1942). Capitalism, socialism, and democracy. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
- Strickland, A. D., & Weiss, L. W. (1976). Advertising, concentration, and price-cost margins. Journal of Political Economy, 84(5), 1109–1121.Google Scholar