IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/respol/v47y2018i2p399-412.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Innovation and government intervention: A comparison of Singapore and Hong Kong

Author

Listed:
  • Wang, Jue

Abstract

Government is one of the determinants for innovation capacity although its role and degree of involvement in innovation is debatable. Government intervention can be vital in supporting R&D and innovation as market alone cannot provide adequate incentives for knowledge production. Degrees of government intervention, however, vary in different economies and range from directive intervention by actively advising industrial policy and investing in selected areas, to facilitative intervention by creating positive environment and providing public goods for industry. This study uses Singapore and Hong Kong as two cases to explore the influence of government intervention on innovation performance. Singapore is known for strong government intervention while Hong Kong is famous for its positive non-intervention policy that minimizes the power of government in influencing the market. The comparison shows that innovation activities in Singapore are largely policy driven and dominated by big players, while in Hong Kong industry innovation is less active but the local industry has a dynamic innovation base contributed by small firms. Using a difference-in-differences analysis of USPTO patents filed by Singapore and Hong Kong, we find evidence for the effectiveness of government intervention on enhancing the technological significance and scope of innovation. The findings could shed light on the implication of government involvement in innovation.

Suggested Citation

  • Wang, Jue, 2018. "Innovation and government intervention: A comparison of Singapore and Hong Kong," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(2), pages 399-412.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:47:y:2018:i:2:p:399-412
    DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2017.12.008
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733317302147
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.respol.2017.12.008?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Daniel Chudnovsky & Andrés López & Martín Rossi & Diego Ubfal, 2006. "Evaluating a Program of Public Funding of Private Innovation Activities: An Econometric Study of FONTAR in Argentina," IDB Publications (Working Papers) 27158, Inter-American Development Bank.
    2. Manuel Trajtenberg, 1990. "A Penny for Your Quotes: Patent Citations and the Value of Innovations," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 21(1), pages 172-187, Spring.
    3. Bronwyn H. Hall & Adam Jaffe & Manuel Trajtenberg, 2005. "Market Value and Patent Citations," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 36(1), pages 16-38, Spring.
    4. Paul Klemperer, 1990. "How Broad Should the Scope of Patent Protection Be?," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 21(1), pages 113-130, Spring.
    5. Daniel Chudnovsky & Andrés López & Martín Rossi & Diego Ubfal, 2006. "Evaluating A Program of Public Funding of Private Innovation Activities. An Econometric Study of FONTAR in Argentina," OVE Working Papers 1606, Inter-American Development Bank, Office of Evaluation and Oversight (OVE).
    6. Jean O. Lanjouw & Mark Schankerman, 1997. "Stylized Facts of Patent Litigation: Value, Scope and Ownership," NBER Working Papers 6297, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. Richard Gilbert & Carl Shapiro, 1990. "Optimal Patent Length and Breadth," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 21(1), pages 106-112, Spring.
    8. Guellec, Dominique & Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, Bruno v., 2000. "Applications, grants and the value of patent," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 69(1), pages 109-114, October.
    9. Almus, Matthias & Czarnitzki, Dirk, 2003. "The Effects of Public R&D Subsidies on Firms' Innovation Activities: The Case of Eastern Germany," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 21(2), pages 226-236, April.
    10. David, Paul A. & Hall, Bronwyn H. & Toole, Andrew A., 2000. "Is public R&D a complement or substitute for private R&D? A review of the econometric evidence," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(4-5), pages 497-529, April.
    11. Martin, Stephen & Scott, John T., 2000. "The nature of innovation market failure and the design of public support for private innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(4-5), pages 437-447, April.
    12. Harhoff, Dietmar & Scherer, Frederic M. & Vopel, Katrin, 2003. "Citations, family size, opposition and the value of patent rights," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(8), pages 1343-1363, September.
    13. Scott Shane, 2001. "Technological Opportunities and New Firm Creation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(2), pages 205-220, February.
    14. Hall, Bronwyn & Van Reenen, John, 2000. "How effective are fiscal incentives for R&D? A review of the evidence," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(4-5), pages 449-469, April.
    15. Jasjit Singh & Lee Fleming, 2010. "Lone Inventors as Sources of Breakthroughs: Myth or Reality?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(1), pages 41-56, January.
    16. Richard Luedde-Neurath, 1988. "State Intervention and Export-oriented Development in South Korea," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: Gordon White (ed.), Developmental States in East Asia, chapter 3, pages 68-112, Palgrave Macmillan.
    17. Etzkowitz, Henry & Leydesdorff, Loet, 2000. "The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and "Mode 2" to a Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 109-123, February.
    18. Kenneth Arrow, 1962. "Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention," NBER Chapters, in: The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors, pages 609-626, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    19. Huang, Can & Sharif, Naubahar, 2009. "Manufacturing dynamics and spillovers: The case of Guangdong Province and Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan (HKMT)," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(5), pages 813-828, June.
    20. Jung, Hyun Ju & Lee, Jeongsik “Jay”, 2014. "The impacts of science and technology policy interventions on university research: Evidence from the U.S. National Nanotechnology Initiative," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 74-91.
    21. Richard R. Nelson, 1959. "The Simple Economics of Basic Scientific Research," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 67, pages 297-297.
    22. Alwyn Young, 1992. "A Tale of Two Cities: Factor Accumulation and Technical Change in Hong Kong and Singapore," NBER Chapters, in: NBER Macroeconomics Annual 1992, Volume 7, pages 13-64, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    23. Demsetz, Harold, 1969. "Information and Efficiency: Another Viewpoint," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 12(1), pages 1-22, April.
    24. Gordon White & Robert Wade, 1988. "Developmental States and Markets in East Asia: An Introduction," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: Gordon White (ed.), Developmental States in East Asia, chapter 1, pages 1-29, Palgrave Macmillan.
    25. Mariagrazia Squicciarini & Hélène Dernis & Chiara Criscuolo, 2013. "Measuring Patent Quality: Indicators of Technological and Economic Value," OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers 2013/3, OECD Publishing.
    26. Fischer, Timo & Leidinger, Jan, 2014. "Testing patent value indicators on directly observed patent value—An empirical analysis of Ocean Tomo patent auctions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 519-529.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Manuel Acosta & Daniel Coronado & Esther Ferrándiz & Manuel Jiménez, 2022. "Effects of knowledge spillovers between competitors on patent quality: what patent citations reveal about a global duopoly," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 47(5), pages 1451-1487, October.
    2. Novelli, Elena, 2015. "An examination of the antecedents and implications of patent scope," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(2), pages 493-507.
    3. Hsin-Ning Su & Carey Ming-Li Chen & Pei-Chun Lee, 2012. "Patent litigation precaution method: analyzing characteristics of US litigated and non-litigated patents from 1976 to 2010," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 92(1), pages 181-195, July.
    4. Chudnovsky, Daniel & López, Andrés & Rossi, Martín & Ubfal, Diego, 2006. "Evaluating a Program of Public Funding of Private Innovation Activities: An Econometric Study of FONTAR in Argentina," IDB Publications (Working Papers) 2829, Inter-American Development Bank.
    5. repec:idb:brikps:460 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Dirk Czarnitzki & Cindy Lopes-Bento, 2014. "Innovation Subsidies: Does the Funding Source Matter for Innovation Intensity and Performance? Empirical Evidence from Germany," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(5), pages 380-409, July.
    7. 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.
    8. Gamba, Simona, 2017. "The Effect of Intellectual Property Rights on Domestic Innovation in the Pharmaceutical Sector," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 15-27.
    9. Michele Cincera & Ela Ince, 2019. "Types of Innovation and Firm performance," Working Papers TIMES² 2019-032, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    10. Youngjae Choi & Sanghyun Park & Sungjoo Lee, 2021. "Identifying emerging technologies to envision a future innovation ecosystem: A machine learning approach to patent data," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(7), pages 5431-5476, July.
    11. Nicolas Carayol & Valerio Sterzi, 2021. "The transfer and value of academic inventions when the TTO is one option," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(2), pages 338-367, May.
    12. Wang, Yanbo & Li, Jizhen & Furman, Jeffrey L., 2017. "Firm performance and state innovation funding: Evidence from China’s innofund program," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(6), pages 1142-1161.
    13. 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.
    14. Appio, Francesco Paolo & Baglieri, Daniela & Cesaroni, Fabrizio & Spicuzza, Lucia & Donato, Alessia, 2022. "Patent design strategies: Empirical evidence from European patents," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 181(C).
    15. Beck, Mathias & Junge, Martin & Kaiser, Ulrich, 2017. "Public Funding and Corporate Innovation," IZA Discussion Papers 11196, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    16. Dimos, Christos & Pugh, Geoff & Hisarciklilar, Mehtap & Talam, Ema & Jackson, Ian, 2022. "The relative effectiveness of R&D tax credits and R&D subsidies: A comparative meta-regression analysis," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    17. Dechezlepretre, Antoine & Einiö, Elias & Martin, Ralf & Nguyen, Kieu-Trang & Reenen, John Van, 2016. "Do tax incentives for research increase firm innovation? An RD design for R&D, patents and spillovers," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 66428, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    18. Ivano D'Antonio & Alessandro De Iudicibus & Giuseppe Piroli & Francesco Savoia, 2014. "Ricerca e innovazione in campania: una valutazione controfattuale della politica di coesione," STUDI ECONOMICI, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2014(113), pages 61-87.
    19. Hall, Bronwyn H. & Lerner, Josh, 2010. "The Financing of R&D and Innovation," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 609-639, Elsevier.
    20. Cathrin Söllner & Dirk Fornahl, 2021. "Unleashing Inventive Power - Solving cognitive, social and geographic distance issues with cultural proximity," Bremen Papers on Economics & Innovation 2103, University of Bremen, Faculty of Business Studies and Economics.
    21. Jungpyo Lee & So Young Sohn, 2017. "What makes the first forward citation of a patent occur earlier?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(1), pages 279-298, October.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Government intervention; Innovation; Patent; Local industry; Singapore; Hong Kong;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • O32 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Management of Technological Innovation and R&D
    • O25 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Development Planning and Policy - - - Industrial Policy
    • L52 - Industrial Organization - - Regulation and Industrial Policy - - - Industrial Policy; Sectoral Planning Methods
    • L53 - Industrial Organization - - Regulation and Industrial Policy - - - Enterprise Policy

    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:eee:respol:v:47:y:2018:i:2:p:399-412. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/respol .

    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.