|
on Innovation |
| By: | Sunil Kanwar (Department of Economics, Delhi School of Economics, Delhi, India) |
| Abstract: | This paper investigates whether, in what direction, and to what extent one mode of technology transfer is influenced by the strength of intellectual property protection that host nations provide. Using data spanning the period 1977-1999, we find little support for the claim that strengthening intellectual property rights will have any sizable effect on the magnitude of overseas r&d investment by (US) multinationals. Any semblance of a positive relationship between these two variables vanishes the moment we introduce country fixed effects and time fixed effects into the regressions. One implication of our results is, that ceteris paribus, stronger intellectual property rights in the developing countries pursuant to the TRIPs agreement may not have any significant influence on technology transfer into these countries via overseas r&d. |
| Keywords: | intellectual property, technology transfer, overseas r&d |
| JEL: | O34 O31 |
| Date: | 2008–06 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:cde:cdewps:166&r=ino |
| By: | Lee, Lena; Wong, Poh Kam |
| Abstract: | While existing studies have provided many insightful discussions on the antecedents to innovative collaborations and the benefits of collaborative behavior, few studies have focused on the mediating role of innovative collaborations in enhancing the firm’s technological innovative performance. In this paper, we investigate the mediating role of the firm’s innovative collaborations in the relation between government innovation support and the firm’s product and process innovation intensities. As a mediating factor in the innovation process, innovative collaborations form part of the innovative inputs that contribute to the firm’s product and process innovation intensities. Using arguments derived from the resource-based theory, we found that while receipts of government innovation support help increase the firm’s level of innovative inputs as observed in its collaboration intensity, it is equally important for firms to internalize management practices that encourage maximum leverage of government innovation support for pursuits of innovative collaborations. In a similar vein, while innovative collaborations are necessary for realizing innovative outputs including product and process innovations, it is not a sufficient condition for achieving strong innovative performance. The firm’s internal capabilities as observed in its learning, R&D, resource allocation, manufacturing, marketing, organizing, and strategic planning abilities have a positive influence on the relationship between innovative collaborations and innovative outputs. |
| Keywords: | Innovative Performance; Innovative Collaboration; Firm’s Contextual Factors |
| JEL: | D23 M1 O32 |
| Date: | 2009–06–19 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:pra:mprapa:16193&r=ino |
| By: | Pierre Mohnen (University of Maastrich, UNU-MERIT and CIRANO); Boris Lokshin (University of Maastricht and UNU-MERIT) |
| Abstract: | We take a critical look at how to assess the effectiveness of R&D tax incentives. The net welfare gain is shown to be sensitive to a certain number of parameters. In particular, the deadweight loss associated with level-based tax incentives depends on the ex-ante R&D level. We report on the success of a past policy changes and simulate the effect of various parameter changes in the existing Dutch R&D tax incentive scheme. We show that this policy is more effective for small firms than for large firms. We end with a discussion of the pros and cons of volume-based versus incremental R&D tax incentives. |
| Keywords: | R&D tax credits; policy evaluation; cost-benefit analysis. |
| JEL: | O32 O38 H25 H50 |
| Date: | 2009 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:ieb:wpaper:2009/7/doc2009-9&r=ino |
| By: | John P. WALSH; NAGAOKA Sadao |
| Abstract: | Human resources are increasingly seen as a key to innovation competitiveness, and there is a need for detailed, systematic data on the demographics of inventors, their motivations, and their careers. To gain systematic data on who invents, we collected detailed information on a sample of inventors in the US and Japan (the RIETI-Georgia Tech inventor survey). The data come from a unique set of matched surveys of US and Japanese inventors of triadic patents, i.e., patents from patent families with granted patents in the US and applications filed in Japan and in the EPO, with data from over 1900 responses from the US and over 3600 responses from Japan. Based on these survey data, we compare the profiles, motivations, mobility and performance of inventors in the US and Japan. Overall, we find some important similarities between inventors in the US and Japan. The distribution across functional affiliations within the firm, by gender, by educational fields and their motivations, are all quite similar. In particular, in both countries we find inventors emphasizing task motivations over pecuniary motivations. Firm-centered motivation (e.g., generating value for my firm) is also an important reason for inventing and this reason is relatively more important in the US than Japan. Their distribution across types of organizations is quite similar. The percent of university inventors is nearly the same in the two countries, and the distribution of these inventors across technology classes is also quite similar. However, the percent from very small firms is significantly higher in the US There are a few important differences. American inventors are much more likely to have a Ph.D. American inventors are older (even controlling for differences in the share of the inventors with Ph.D.s). The modal Japanese inventor has his first invention in his 20s, while for the US, the mode is the early 30s, and we also find many more American inventors over age 55 at the time of their triadic patent invention. In both countries, older inventors tend to produce higher value patents. American inventors are also much more mobile (although Japanese inventors with Ph.D.s also have high rates of mobility, mainly in the form of secondments). In the US, mobility tends to decline with age, while in Japan, mobility is higher for older inventors (likely due to the differences in retirement ages in the two countries). In both countries, mobility is associated with greater access to outside information. Finally, we find that foreign-born inventors are very important in the US (we did not collect data on country of origin for Japan). Overall, these results suggest that inventor characteristics may be important for firm performance, and that institutional differences may affect the profile of inventors in each country, although the inventors of the two countries are very similar in many respects. Future work will examine how these cross-national differences in inventor profiles affect innovation in each country. |
| Date: | 2009–07 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:eti:dpaper:09031&r=ino |
| By: | Francesco Parisi (University of Minnesota and University of BolognaDepartment of Economics); Ram Singh (Department of Economics, Delhi School of Economics, Delhi, India) |
| Abstract: | Comparative causation is the only tort regime that allows parties to share an accident loss in equilibrium. The sharing of an accident loss between a nonnegligent injurer and his nonnegligent victim spreads activity level and R&D incentives between prospective tortfeasors and their victims. This is an effect that is never observed under the other negligence and strict liability based regimes. In spite of these interesting attributes, the existing literature left open the question as to whether loss sharing was able to maintain optimal care incentives for both parties. In this paper, we address this unresolved issue in the literature, considering the eciency of loss-sharing under comparative causation. |
| Date: | 2009–06 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:cde:cdewps:179&r=ino |