Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T09:55:46.708Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A PATENTABILITY REQUIREMENT AND INDUSTRY-TARGETED R&D

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 January 2018

Keiichi Kishi
Keiichi Kishi*
Affiliation:
Kansai University
*
Address correspondence to: Keiichi Kishi, Faculty of Economics, Kansai University, 3-3-35 Yamate, Suita, Osaka 564-8680, Japan; e-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

I introduce a minimum innovation size required for patents into a Schumpeterian growth model. We show that to satisfy the patentability requirement for minimum innovation size, each research and development (R&D) firm targets only industries in which the incumbent's technology is of sufficient obsolescence. This is because the technological gap between innovator and incumbent is greater in industries using older technologies. Although the increase in minimum innovation size reduces the number of industries targeted for R&D, it also increases the amount of R&D investment directed at those targeted industries. Consequently, introducing a minimum innovation size has a nonmonotonic (or negative) effect on the aggregate flow of innovations. Further, by deriving the endogenous long-run distribution of innovation size, we show that an increase in minimum innovation size reduces the mean innovation size. This implies that even if the patent office only grants patents for superior innovations, it causes innovators to produce generally inferior-quality innovations.

Keywords

InnovationsIntellectual Property RightsProductivity Distribution
Type
Articles
Information
Macroeconomic Dynamics , Volume 22 , Issue 4 , June 2018 , pp. 719 - 753
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

I am grateful to two anonymous referees for their very constructive comments and suggestions on an earlier version of this paper. I especially thank the associate editor for some excellent suggestions and encouragement in submitting a revision. Further, I also thank Tatsuro Iwaisako, Koichi Futagami, Tetsugen Haruyama, and Vincenzo Denicolò for their useful comments and encouragement. The author gratefully acknowledges the financial support of a Grant for Excellent Graduate Schools from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology, Japan. I also acknowledges the financial support from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) via Grant-in-Aid for JSPS Research Fellow Grant Number JP15J03874. The usual disclaimer applies.

References

REFERENCES

Aghion, Philippe and Howitt, Peter (1992) A model of growth through creative destruction. Econometrica 60 (2), 323–351.Google Scholar
Aghion, Philippe and Howitt, Peter (1998) Endogenous Growth Theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Benhabib, Jess, Perla, Jesse, and Tonetti, Christopher (2014) Catch-up and fall-back through innovation and imitation. Journal of Economic Growth 19 (1), 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caballero, Ricardo J. and Jaffe, Adam B. (1993) How high are the giants' shoulders: An empirical assessment of knowledge spillovers and creative destruction in a model of economic growth. In Blanchard, Olivier and Fischer, Stanley (eds.), NBER Macroeconomics Annual 1993, pp. 15–74. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chu, Angus C., Cozzi, Guido, and Galli, Silvia (2012a) Does intellectual monopoly stimulate or stifle innovation? European Economic Review 56 (4), 727–746.Google Scholar
Chu, Angus C. and Pan, Shiyuan (2013) The escape-infringement effect of blocking patents on innovation and economic growth. Macroeconomic Dynamics 17 (4), 955–969.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chu, Angus C., Pan, Shiyuan, and Sun, Minjuan (2012b) When does elastic labor supply cause an inverted-U effect of patents on innovation? Economics Letters 117 (1), 211–213.Google Scholar
Cozzi, Guido (2001) Inventing or spying? Implications for growth. Journal of Economic Growth 6 (1), 55–77.Google Scholar
Cozzi, Guido and Spinesi, Luca (2006) Intellectual appropriability, product differentiation, and growth. Macroeconomic Dynamics 10 (1), 39–55.Google Scholar
Davis, Lewis S. and Şener, Fuat (2012) Private patent protection in the theory of Schumpeterian growth. European Economic Review 56 (7), 1446–1460.Google Scholar
Di Matteo, T., Aste, T., and Gallegati, M. (2005) Innovation flow through social networks: Productivity distribution in France and Italy. European Physical Journal B 47 (3), 459–466.Google Scholar
Eicher, Theo and García-Peñalosa, Cecilia (2008) Endogenous strength of intellectual property rights: Implications for economic development and growth. European Economic Review 52 (2), 237–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Federal Trade Commission (2003) To Promote Innovation: A Proper Balance of Competition and Patent Law and Policy. Available at http://www.ftc.gov/reports/promote-innovation-proper-balance-competition-patent-law-policy.Google Scholar
Furukawa, Yuichi (2007) The protection of intellectual property rights and endogenous growth: Is stronger always better? Journal of Economic Dynamics & Control 31 (11), 3644–3670.Google Scholar
Furukawa, Yuichi (2010) Intellectual property protection and innovation: An inverted-U relationship. Economics Letters 109 (2), 99–101.Google Scholar
Futagami, Koichi and Iwaisako, Tatsuro (2007) Dynamic analysis of patent policy in an endogenous growth model. Journal of Economic Theory 132 (1), 306–334.Google Scholar
Gallini, Nancy T. (1992) Patent policy and costly imitation. Rand Journal of Economics 23 (1), 52–63.Google Scholar
Gangopadhyay, Kausik and Mondal, Debasis (2012) Does stronger protection of intellectual property stimulate innovation? Economics Letters 116 (1), 80–82.Google Scholar
Gilbert, Richard and Shapiro, Carl (1990) Optimal patent length and breadth. RAND Journal of Economics 21 (1), 106–112.Google Scholar
Ginarte, Juan C. and Park, Walter G. (1997) Determinants of patent rights: A cross-national study. Research Policy 26 (3), 283–301.Google Scholar
Grossman, Gene M. and Helpman, Elhanan (1991) Innovation and Growth in the Global Economy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Harhoff, Dietmar, Scherer, Frederic M., and Vopel, Katrin (2003) Exploring the tail of patented invention value distributions. In Grandstrand, Ove. (Ed.), Economics, Law, and Intellectual Property, pp. 279–309. Boston: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Horii, Ryo and Iwaisako, Tatsuro (2007) Economic growth with imperfect protection of intellectual property rights. Journal of Economics 90 (1), 45–85.Google Scholar
Howitt, Peter (1999) Steady endogenous growth with population and R&D inputs growing. Journal of Political Economy 107 (4), 715–730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howitt, Peter (2000) Endogenous growth and cross-country income differences. American Economic Review 90 (4), 829–846.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howitt, Peter and Aghion, Philippe (1998) Capital accumulation and innovation as complementary factors in long-run growth. Journal of Economic Growth 3 (2), 111–130.Google Scholar
Iwaisako, Tatsuro and Futagami, Koichi (2003) Patent policy in an endogenous growth model. Journal of Economics 78 (3), 239–258.Google Scholar
Iwaisako, Tatsuro and Futagami, Koichi (2013) Patent protection, capital accumulation, and economic growth. Economic Theory 52 (2), 631–668.Google Scholar
Jones, Charles I. and Williams, John C. (2000) Too much of a good thing? The economics of investment in R&D. Journal of Economic Growth 5 (1), 65–85.Google Scholar
Judd, Kenneth L. (1985) On the performance of patents. Econometrica 53 (3), 567–586.Google Scholar
Kishi, Keiichi (2015) Dynamic analysis of wage inequality and creative destruction. Journal of Economics 115 (1), 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koléda, Gilles (2008) Promoting innovation and competition with patent policy. Journal of Evolutionary Economics 18 (3–4), 433–453.Google Scholar
König, Michael D., Lorenz, Jan, and Zilibotti, Fabrizio (2016) Innovation vs. imitation and the evolution of productivity distributions. Theoretical Economics 11 (3), 1053–1102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kortum, Samuel (1993) Equilibrium R&D and the patent–R&D ratio: U.S. evidence. American Economic Review 83 (2), 450–457.Google Scholar
Lemley, Mark A. and Shapiro, Carl (2005) Probabilistic patents. Journal of Economic Perspectives 19 (2), 75–98.Google Scholar
Lerner, Josh (2009) The empirical impact of intellectual property rights on innovation: Puzzle and clues. American Economic Review 99 (2), 343–348.Google Scholar
Li, Chol-Won (2001) On the policy implications of endogenous technological progress. Economic Journal 111 (471), C164–C179.Google Scholar
Li, Chol-Won (2003) Endogenous growth without scale effects: Comment. American Economic Review 93 (3), 1009–1017.Google Scholar
Lucas, Robert E. Jr., and Moll, Benjamin (2014) Knowledge growth and the allocation of time. Journal of Political Economy 122 (1), 1–51.Google Scholar
Mankiw, N. Gregory, Romer, David, and Weil, David N. (1992) A contribution to empirics of economic growth. Quarterly Journal of Economics 107 (2), 407–437.Google Scholar
Minniti, Antonio, Parello, Carmelo P., and Segerstrom, Paul S. (2013) A Schumpeterian growth model with random quality improvements. Economic Theory 52 (2), 755–791.Google Scholar
National Academy of Science (2004) A Patent System for the 21st Century. Available at http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309089107.Google Scholar
O'Donoghue, Ted (1998) A patentability requirement for sequential innovation. Rand Journal of Economics 29 (4), 654–679.Google Scholar
O'Donoghue, Ted, Scotchmer, Suzanne, and Thisse, Jacques-François (1998) Patent breadth, patent life, and the pace of technological progress. Journal of Economics and Management Strategy 7 (1), 1–32.Google Scholar
O'Donoghue, Ted and Zweimüller, Josef (2004) Patents in a model of endogenous growth. Journal of Economic Growth 9 (1), 81–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palokangas, Taplo (2011) Optimal patent length and breadth in an economy with creative destruction and non-diversifiable risk. Journal of Economics 102 (1), 1–27.Google Scholar
Perla, Jesse and Tonetti, Christopher (2014) Equilibrium imitation and growth. Journal of Political Economy 122 (1), 52–76.Google Scholar
Qian, Yi (2007) Do national patent laws stimulate domestic innovation in a global patenting environment? A cross-country analysis of pharmaceutical patent protection 1978–2002. Review of Economics and Statistics 89 (3), 436–453.Google Scholar
Sakakibara, Mariko and Branstetter, Lee (2001) Do stronger patents induce more innovation? Evidence from the 1988 Japanese patent law reforms. Rand Journal of Economics 32 (1), 77–100.Google Scholar
Scherer, F.M. and Harhoff, Dietmar (2000) Technology policy for a world of skew-distributed outcomes. Research Policy 32 (8), 559–566.Google Scholar
Scherer, F.M., Harhoff, Dietmar, and Kukies, Jörg (2000) Uncertainty and the size distribution of rewards from innovation. Journal of Evolutionary Economics 10 (1), 175–200.Google Scholar
Scotchmer, Suzanne and Green, Jerry (1990) Novelty and disclosure in patent law. Rand Journal of Economics 21 (1), 131–146.Google Scholar
Silverberg, Gerald and Verspagen, Bart (2007) The size distribution of innovations revisited: An application of extreme value statistics to citation and value measures of patent significance. Journal of Econometrics 139 (2), 318–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suzuki, Keishun (2015) Economic growth under two forms of intellectual property rights protection: Patents and trade secrets. Journal of Economics 115 (1), 49–71.Google Scholar
Thompson, Peter (1996) Technological opportunity and the growth of knowledge: A Schumpeterian approach to measurement. Journal of Evolutionary Economics 6 (1), 77–97.Google Scholar