nep-ino New Economics Papers
on Innovation
Issue of 2009‒11‒21
eight papers chosen by
Steffen Lippert
Massey University Department of Commerce

  1. Collective Rights Organizations and Upstream R&D Investment By Aoki, Reiko; Schiff, Aaron
  2. The determinants of university patenting: Do incentives matter? By Tomás del Barrio-Castro; José García-Quevedo
  3. What explains the evolution of productivity and competitiveness? The innovation link By Jaumandreu, Jordi
  4. Does State Street lead to Europe? The case of financial exchange innovations By Komulainen, Mari; Takalo, Tuomas
  5. User, and Open Collaborative Innovation: Ascendent Economic Models By Carliss Y. Baldwin; Eric von Hippel
  6. Tracing The Motivation To Innovate: A Study Of 'Grassroot' Innovators In India By Saradindu Bhaduri; Hemant Kumar
  7. The Agglomeration of US Ethnic Inventors By William Kerr
  8. Towards a framework for the evaluation of policies of cluster upgrading and innovation By Marco Bellandi; Annalisa Caloffi

  1. By: Aoki, Reiko; Schiff, Aaron
    Abstract: We examine the effect of collective rights organizations (CROs) on upstream innovation. CROs are established to facilitate downstream use, such as production and downstream innovation, of upstream intellectual property. We compare CROs with two alternative royalty redistribution rules, two different upstream innovation environments and two different anti-trust rules. Most CROs increase upstream R&D incentives by increasing licensing profit but this may lead to over-investment. We observe that when the market is ex-ante asymmetric (only one firm has ability to develop one of the technologies), unequal royalty distribution in favor of the one firm may be ex-post efficient but may result in under investment in the complementary technology. Thus in addition to balancing the trade-off between ex-ante (dynamic) efficiency and ex-post (static) efficiency as in the case of a single intellectual property, CROs must achieve the balance among members.
    Keywords: Intellectual property, patent licensing, collective rights organizations, anticommons, anti-trust, royalty
    JEL: L24 O31 O34
    Date: 2009–10
  2. By: Tomás del Barrio-Castro (University of the Balearic Islands); José García-Quevedo (IEB, Universitat de Barcelona)
    Abstract: In recent years various studies have examined the factors that may explain academic patents. Existing analyses have also underlined the substantial differences to be found in European countries in the institutional framework that defines property rights for academic patents. The objective of this study is to contribute to the empirical literature on the factors explaining academic patents and to determine whether the incentives that universities offer researchers contribute towards explaining the differences in academic patenting activity. The results of the econometric analysis for the Spanish universities point towards the conclusion that the principal factor determining the patents is funding of R&D while royalty incentives to researchers do not appear to be significant.
    Keywords: Patents, University, R&D
    Date: 2009–11
  3. By: Jaumandreu, Jordi (IESE Business School)
    Abstract: This paper addresses the recent evolution of productivity and competitiveness in Catalonia and their links with the innovation activity of firms. Firstly, it summarizes the evolution of productivity, competitiveness, firms' strategies and the state of innovation. A slowdown in productivity growth and increasing revealed difficulties in some world markets are real, and the weakness of innovation may be a reason. The paper then quantifies some of the links between innovation, productivity and competitiveness. Innovation has a positive impact on productivity and competitiveness. First of all, innovation expenditures induce cost advantages and these cost advantages are a significant explanation for firms' exports. Furthermore, product innovation helps exports, too. Moreover, R&D activities in Catalonia benefit from high spillovers, and productivity impact is even higher when firms develop R&D activities outside as well. Despite all this, the current level of innovation expenditure is comparatively low and shows signs of lack of dynamism. Firms need to switch from the current equilibrium to the requirements of the coming years.
    Keywords: Labor productivity; Competitiveness; innovation; cost;
    Date: 2009–07–17
  4. By: Komulainen, Mari (National Board of Patents and Registration of Finland); Takalo, Tuomas (Bank of Finland and University of Jyväskylä)
    Abstract: We study whether and to what extent financial exchange innovations are in practice patentable in Europe. We find that exchange-related applications initially increased significantly after the State Street decision but subsequently decreased. The clear majority (65%) of applications come from the U.S. investment banks and exchanges themselves being among the most active innovators. But patents were not easly granted in response to these applications (only 3% of them led to valid patent). The high post-grant opposition rate (41%) for granted patents indicated that competitors tightly monitored each other’s patents. The evidence, as augmented with clinical case studies, supports the notion that, for an invention to pass the inventive step requirement for obtaining a European patent, it should have technical features for solving a sufficiently challenging technical problem. Our evidence suggests that patentability standards for financial methods have not weakened in Europe in the aftermath of the State Street decision and that the inventive step requirement constitutes a major obstacle for applicants to overcome in order to obtain a financial exchange patent in Europe.
    Keywords: finance patents; financial innovation; business method patents; patent policy; management of intellectual property in financial services
    JEL: G24 G28 K29 O32 O34
    Date: 2009–09–22
  5. By: Carliss Y. Baldwin (Harvard Business School, Finance Unit); Eric von Hippel (Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
    Abstract: In this paper we assess the economic viability of innovation by producers relative to two increasingly important alternative models: innovations by single user individuals or firms, and open collaborative innovation projects. We analyze the design costs and architectures and communication costs associated with each model. We conclude that innovation by individual users and also open collaborative innovation increasingly compete with - and may displace -producer innovation in many parts of the economy. We argue that a transition from producer innovation to open single user and open collaborative innovation is desirable in terms of social welfare, and so worthy of support by policymakers.
    Date: 2009–11
  6. By: Saradindu Bhaduri; Hemant Kumar
    Abstract: Extrinsic motivations like intellectual property protections and fiscal incentives continue to occupy the centre stage in debates on innovation policies. Joseph Schumpeter had, however, argued that the motive to accumulate private property can only explain part of innovative activities. In his view, "the joy of creating, of getting things done" associated with the behavioural traits that "seek out difficulties…and takes delight in ventures" stand out as the most independent factor of behaviour in explaining the process of economic development, especially in early capitalist societies. Taking the case of 'grassroot' innovators in India, we re-examine the motivations behind innovative behaviour. We draw upon the literature on effectance motivation theory to construct operational indicators of extrinsic and intrinsic motivations. Interestingly, we find that pure extrinsic forms of motivation drive only a fraction of individual innovative behaviour. Also, importance of intrinsic motivation in guiding innovative behaviour is found to high when uncertainty is high. We accordingly draw a few policy implications.
    Keywords: Motivation, Grassroot Innovation, India Length 29 pages
    Date: 2009–11
  7. By: William Kerr
    Abstract: The ethnic composition of US inventors is undergoing a significant transformation, with deep impacts for the overall agglomeration of US innovation. This study applies an ethnic-name database to individual US patent records to explore these trends with greater detail. The contributions of Chinese and Indian scientists and engineers to US technology formation increase dramatically in the 1990s. At the same time, these ethnic inventors became more spatially concentrated across US cities. The combination of these two factors helps stop and reverse long-term declines in overall inventor agglomeration evident in the 1970s and 1980s. The heightened ethnic agglomeration is particularly evident in industry patents for high-tech sectors, and similar trends are not found in institutions constrained from agglomerating (e.g., universities, government).
    JEL: F15 F22 J44 J61 O31
    Date: 2009–11
  8. By: Marco Bellandi (Department of Economics, University of Florence); Annalisa Caloffi (Department of Economics, University of Florence)
    Abstract: In the current scenario, a large and growing number of policies for local development and cluster upgrading explicitly incorporate the idea of innovation as a systemic process, embedded in specific socio-cultural and institutional contexts and intermingled with international challenges, opportunities, and strategies. These policies bring new challenges to the activities of analysis and evaluation: despite the diffusion of a systemic approach both in innovation thinking and in innovation policies, a proper system-based framework for the analysis and evaluation of these policies is far from being achieved (Bellandi and Caloffi, 2010). Trying to advance our reflection on this field, we propose some exemplifications on a quite delimited set of contexts, i.e. those of industrial districts (Italian, in particular), characterized by SMEs clusters facing contemporary globalization challenges. Focusing on innovation policies aimed at supporting functional upgrading of districts and clusters soaked in changing international filières and value chains, the paper discusses the meaning of evaluation of industrial policies when a systemic perspective is considered. On such premises a couple of exemplifications are illustrate some features of appropriate evaluation methods. Finally, some methodological aspects concerning the design process of evaluation activities are discussed.
    Keywords: Evaluation of policies; systemic approaches to evaluation; innovation and cluster policies; industrial districts
    JEL: L59 O38 R58
    Date: 2009–11

This nep-ino issue is ©2009 by Steffen Lippert. It is provided as is without any express or implied warranty. It may be freely redistributed in whole or in part for any purpose. If distributed in part, please include this notice.
General information on the NEP project can be found at For comments please write to the director of NEP, Marco Novarese at <>. Put “NEP” in the subject, otherwise your mail may be rejected.
NEP’s infrastructure is sponsored by the School of Economics and Finance of Massey University in New Zealand.