IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/ausecp/v48y2009i3p252-269.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Another Look At The Relationship Between Innovation Proxies

Author

Listed:
  • PAUL H. JENSEN
  • ELIZABETH WEBSTER

Abstract

Shortcomings in the treatment of intangible investment in company accounts imply that there is no statistical collection for innovative activity which abides by the logic used for other economic activity data. As a consequence, analysts rely on innovation proxies derived from administrative and survey data. However, it is still unclear exactly how the different proxies are correlated, and whether the choice amongst different proxies matters. In the light of the innovation measurement, this paper takes another look at the relationship between different proxies of firm innovation. The results show that firm‐level correlations between survey‐based indicators and other proxies for innovation are highest for manufacturing firms and for product innovations.

Suggested Citation

  • Paul H. Jensen & Elizabeth Webster, 2009. "Another Look At The Relationship Between Innovation Proxies," Australian Economic Papers, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 48(3), pages 252-269, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:ausecp:v:48:y:2009:i:3:p:252-269
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8454.2009.00374.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8454.2009.00374.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1467-8454.2009.00374.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Adam B. Jaffe & Michael S. Fogarty & Bruce A. Banks, 1998. "Evidence from Patents and Patent Citations on the Impact of NASA and Other Federal Labs on Commercial Innovation," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(2), pages 183-205, June.
    2. Hollenstein, Heinz, 2004. "Determinants of the adoption of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT): An empirical analysis based on firm-level data for the Swiss business sector," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 15(3), pages 315-342, September.
    3. Zvi Griliches, 1998. "Productivity, R&D, and Basic Research at the Firm Level in the 1970s," NBER Chapters, in: R&D and Productivity: The Econometric Evidence, pages 82-99, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Zvi Griliches, 1984. "Market Value, R&D, and Patents," NBER Chapters, in: R&D, Patents, and Productivity, pages 249-252, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. repec:fth:harver:1473 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Zvi Griliches, 1998. "Patent Statistics as Economic Indicators: A Survey," NBER Chapters, in: R&D and Productivity: The Econometric Evidence, pages 287-343, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. Lanjouw, Jean O & Pakes, Ariel & Putnam, Jonathan, 1998. "How to Count Patents and Value Intellectual Property: The Uses of Patent Renewal and Application Data," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(4), pages 405-432, December.
    8. Greenhalgh, Christine & Longland, Mark, 2001. "Intellectual Property in UK Firms: Creating Intangible Assets and Distributing the Benefits via Wages and Jobs," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 63(0), pages 671-696, Special I.
    9. Hagedoorn, John & Cloodt, Myriam, 2003. "Measuring innovative performance: is there an advantage in using multiple indicators?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(8), pages 1365-1379, September.
    10. Wesley M. Cohen & Richard R. Nelson & John P. Walsh, 2000. "Protecting Their Intellectual Assets: Appropriability Conditions and Why U.S. Manufacturing Firms Patent (or Not)," NBER Working Papers 7552, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    11. Alfred Kleinknecht & Kees Van Montfort & Erik Brouwer, 2002. "The Non-Trivial Choice between Innovation Indicators," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(2), pages 109-121.
    12. Paul H. Jensen & Elizabeth Webster, 2006. "Firm Size and the Use of Intellectual Property Rights," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 82(256), pages 44-55, March.
    13. William Griffiths & Elizabeth Webster, 2004. "The determinants of research and development and intellectual property usage among Australian Companies, 1989 to 2002," Centre for International Economic Studies Working Papers 2004-15, University of Adelaide, Centre for International Economic Studies.
    14. Greenhalgh, Christine & Rogers, Mark, 2006. "The value of innovation: The interaction of competition, R&D and IP," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(4), pages 562-580, May.
    15. Elizabeth Webster, 1999. "The Economics of Intangible Investment," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 1530.
    16. Spyros Arvanitis, 2008. "Explaining Innovative Activity In Service Industries: Micro Data Evidence For Switzerland," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(3), pages 209-225.
    17. Laurie Hunter & Elizabeth Webster & Anne Wyatt, 2005. "Measuring Intangible Capital: A Review of Current Practice," Australian Accounting Review, CPA Australia, vol. 15(36), pages 4-21, July.
    18. Covin, Jeffrey G. & Slevin, Dennis P. & Heeley, Michael B., 2001. "Strategic decision making in an intuitive vs. technocratic mode: structural and environmental considerations," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 52(1), pages 51-67, April.
    19. Tony Abrahams & Baljit K. Sidhu, 1998. "The Role of R&D Capitalisations in Firm Valuation and Perfor Mance Measurement," Australian Journal of Management, Australian School of Business, vol. 23(2), pages 169-183, December.
    20. Arundel, Anthony & Kabla, Isabelle, 1998. "What percentage of innovations are patented? empirical estimates for European firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 127-141, June.
    21. Mark Dodgson & Sybille Hinze, 2000. "Indicators used to measure the innovation process: defects and possible remedies," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 9(2), pages 101-114, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Crown, Daniel & Faggian, Alessandra & Corcoran, Jonathan, 2020. "Foreign-Born graduates and innovation: Evidence from an Australian skilled visa program✰,✰✰,★,★★," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(9).
    2. Schubert, Torben & Jäger, Angela & Türkeli, Serdar & Visentin, Fabiana, 2020. "Addressing the productivity paradox with big data: A literature review and adaptation of the CDM econometric model," MERIT Working Papers 2020-050, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    3. Nathan, Max & Rosso, Anna, 2022. "Innovative events: product launches, innovation and firm performance," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(1).
    4. Max Nathan & Anna Rosso, 2017. "Innovative events," Development Working Papers 429, Centro Studi Luca d'Agliano, University of Milano, revised 08 Apr 2019.
    5. Drivas, Kyriakos & Gounopoulos, Dimitrios & Konstantios, Dimitrios & Tsiritakis, Emmanuel, 2018. "Trademarks, Firm Longevity and IPO Underpricing," MPRA Paper 89430, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Stefano Comino & Fabio Maria Manenti, 2015. "Intellectual Property and Innovation in Information and Communication Technology (ICT)," JRC Research Reports JRC97541, Joint Research Centre (Seville site).
    7. Acheampong, Alex O. & Dzator, Janet & Dzator, Michael & Salim, Ruhul, 2022. "Unveiling the effect of transport infrastructure and technological innovation on economic growth, energy consumption and CO2 emissions," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 182(C).
    8. Jörn Block & Christian Fisch & Kenta Ikeuchi & Masatoshi Kato, 2022. "Trademarks as an indicator of regional innovation: evidence from Japanese prefectures," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 56(2), pages 190-209, February.
    9. Francesca Pantaleone & Roberto Fazioli, 2022. "Lock-In Effects on the Energy Sector: Evidence from Hydrogen Patenting Activities," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(9), pages 1-15, April.
    10. Griffin, Paul A. & Hong, Hyun A. & Ryou, Ji Woo, 2018. "Corporate innovative efficiency: Evidence of effects on credit ratings," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 352-373.
    11. Crass, Dirk, 2020. "Which firms use trademarks? Firm-level evidence from Germany on the role of distance, product quality and innovation," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 27(7), pages 730-755.
    12. Stephen Petrie & Mitchell Adams & Ben Mitra‐Kahn & Matthew Johnson & Russell Thomson & Paul Jensen & Alfons Palangkaraya & Elizabeth Webster, 2020. "TM‐Link: An Internationally Linked Trademark Database," Australian Economic Review, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, vol. 53(2), pages 254-269, June.
    13. Flikkema, Meindert & Castaldi, Carolina & de Man, Ard-Pieter & Seip, Marcel, 2019. "Trademarks’ relatedness to product and service innovation: A branding strategy approach," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(6), pages 1340-1353.
    14. Víctor G. Alfaro García & Anna M. Gil-Lafuente & Gerardo G. Alfaro Calderón, 2015. "A Fuzzy Logic Approach Towards Innovation Measurement," Global Journal of Business Research, The Institute for Business and Finance Research, vol. 9(3), pages 53-71.
    15. Ardito, Lorenzo & Ernst, Holger & Messeni Petruzzelli, Antonio, 2020. "The interplay between technology characteristics, R&D internationalisation, and new product introduction: Empirical evidence from the energy conservation sector," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 96.
    16. Kim, Jungho & Kollmann, Trevor & Palangkaraya, Alfons & Webster, Elizabeth, 2022. "Does local technological specialisation, diversity and dynamic competition enhance firm creation?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(7).
    17. Philipp Schautschick & Christine Greenhalgh, 2016. "Empirical studies of trade marks -- The existing economic literature," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(4), pages 358-390, June.
    18. Simona Andreea Apostu & Elena Mirela Nichita & Cristina Lidia Manea & Alina Mihaela Irimescu & Marcel Vulpoi, 2023. "Exploring the Influence of Innovation and Technology on Climate Change," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(17), pages 1-13, September.
    19. Shu, Li & Wang, Wei, 2023. "Human capital and trademarks: Evidence from higher education expansion in China," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(10).
    20. da Ponte, Aureliano & Leon, Gonzalo & Alvarez, Isabel, 2023. "Technological sovereignty of the EU in advanced 5G mobile communications: An empirical approach," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(1).
    21. Crass, Dirk, 2014. "Which firms use trademarks - and why? Representative firm-level evidence from Germany," ZEW Discussion Papers 14-118, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    22. Simon Wakeman & Trinh Le, 2015. "Measuring the innovative activity of New Zealand firms," Working Papers 2015/02, New Zealand Productivity Commission.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Paul H. Jensen & Elizabeth Webster, 2004. "Examining Biases in Measures of Firm Innovation," Melbourne Institute Working Paper Series wp2004n10, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, The University of Melbourne.
    2. Nicolas van Zeebroeck, 2007. "Patents only live twice: a patent survival analysis in Europe," Working Papers CEB 07-028.RS, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    3. Dziallas, Marisa & Blind, Knut, 2019. "Innovation indicators throughout the innovation process: An extensive literature analysis," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 80, pages 3-29.
    4. Nicolas van Zeebroeck & Bruno van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, 2011. "Filing strategies and patent value," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(6), pages 539-561, February.
    5. Nicolas van Zeebroeck, 2011. "The puzzle of patent value indicators," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(1), pages 33-62.
    6. Vanessa Oltra & Rene Kemp & Frans P. De Vries, 2010. "Patents as a measure for eco-innovation," International Journal of Environmental Technology and Management, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 13(2), pages 130-148.
    7. Leten, Bart & Kelchtermans, Stijn & Belderbos, Ren, 2010. "Internal Basic Research, External Basic Research and the Technological Performance of Pharmaceutical Firms," Working Papers 2010/12, Hogeschool-Universiteit Brussel, Faculteit Economie en Management.
    8. Mohnen, Pierre, 2019. "R&D, innovation and productivity," MERIT Working Papers 2019-016, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    9. Elizabeth Webster, 2002. "Intangible and Intellectual Capital: A Review of the Literature," Melbourne Institute Working Paper Series wp2002n10, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, The University of Melbourne.
    10. Nagaoka, Sadao & Motohashi, Kazuyuki & Goto, Akira, 2010. "Patent Statistics as an Innovation Indicator," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 0, pages 1083-1127, Elsevier.
    11. Inchae Park & Yujin Jeong & Byungun Yoon, 2017. "Analyzing the value of technology based on the differences of patent citations between applicants and examiners," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(2), pages 665-691, May.
    12. Choi, Mincheol & Lee, Chang-Yang, 2021. "Technological diversification and R&D productivity: The moderating effects of knowledge spillovers and core-technology competence," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    13. Martin Kalthaus, 2020. "Knowledge recombination along the technology life cycle," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 30(3), pages 643-704, July.
    14. Matthias Siller & Christoph Hauser & Janette Walde & Gottfried Tappeiner, 2015. "Measuring regional innovation in one dimension: More lost than gained?," Working Papers 2015-14, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, Universität Innsbruck.
    15. Czarnitzki, Dirk & Kraft, Kornelius & Thorwarth, Susanne, 2009. "The knowledge production of 'R' and 'D'," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 105(1), pages 141-143, October.
    16. Junghee Han & Almas Heshmati, 2021. "Innovation and SMEs patent propensity in Korea," International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 42(1/2), pages 51-68.
    17. Bronwyn Hall & Christian Helmers & Mark Rogers & Vania Sena, 2014. "The Choice between Formal and Informal Intellectual Property: A Review," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 52(2), pages 375-423, June.
    18. Clò, Stefano & Frigerio, Marco & Vandone, Daniela, 2022. "Financial support to innovation: The role of European development financial institutions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(10).
    19. Nelson, Andrew J., 2009. "Measuring knowledge spillovers: What patents, licenses and publications reveal about innovation diffusion," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(6), pages 994-1005, July.
    20. William Griffiths & Elizabeth Webster, 2004. "The Determinants of Research and Development and Intellectual Property Usage among Australian Companies, 1989 to 2002," Melbourne Institute Working Paper Series wp2004n27, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, The University of Melbourne.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:ausecp:v:48:y:2009:i:3:p:252-269. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0004-900X .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.