IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/iae/iaewps/wp2004n10.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Examining Biases in Measures of Firm Innovation

Author

Listed:
  • Paul H. Jensen

    (Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, The University of Melbourne)

  • Elizabeth Webster

    (Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, The University of Melbourne)

Abstract

A challenge for applied studies of innovation is to find quality-adjusted and unbiased measures for the extent and type of innovative activity in firms. This paper considers, in the light of the uses for these measures, how well we expect these common indicators quantify innovative services and how well they actually correlate using data from a sample of 641 companies. The results suggest that while the correlations between indicators are positive, they are quite small. In addition, our findings show that compared with survey measures, the accounting and administrative measures have different biases with respect to firm size, industry sector and innovation type. This should be born in mind when using these measures to depict trends in innovative activity and reveal relationships between firm activities.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:iae:iaewps:wp2004n10
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://melbourneinstitute.unimelb.edu.au/downloads/working_paper_series/wp2004n10.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. repec:fth:harver:1473 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Alfred Kleinknecht, 1996. "New Indicators and Determinants of Innovation: An Introduction," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: Alfred Kleinknecht (ed.), Determinants of Innovation, chapter 1, pages 1-11, Palgrave Macmillan.
    5. Carl Shapiro, 2001. "Navigating the Patent Thicket: Cross Licenses, Patent Pools, and Standard Setting," NBER Chapters, in: Innovation Policy and the Economy, Volume 1, pages 119-150, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. Henry G. Grabowksi & Dennis C. Mueller, 1978. "Industrial Research and Development, Intangible Capital Stocks, and Firm Profit Rates," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 9(2), pages 328-343, Autumn.
    7. Derek Bosworth & Mark Rogers, 2001. "Market Value, R&D and Intellectual Property: An Empirical Analysis of Large Australian Firms," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 77(239), pages 323-337, December.
    8. Jean O. Lanjouw & Ariel Pakes & Jonathan Putnam, 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.
    9. 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.
    10. Dietmar Harhoff & Francis Narin & F. M. Scherer & Katrin Vopel, 1999. "Citation Frequency And The Value Of Patented Inventions," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 81(3), pages 511-515, August.
    11. Erik Brouwer & Alfred Kleinknecht, 1996. "Determinants of Innovation: A Microeconometric Analysis of Three Alternative Innovation Output Indicators," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: Alfred Kleinknecht (ed.), Determinants of Innovation, chapter 4, pages 99-124, Palgrave Macmillan.
    12. Paul Geroski & John Reenen & Chris Walters, 2002. "Innovations, Patents and Cash Flow," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: Alfred Kleinknecht & Pierre Mohnen (ed.), Innovation and Firm Performance, chapter 2, pages 31-55, Palgrave Macmillan.
    13. Richard C. Levin & Alvin K. Klevorick & Richard R. Nelson & Sidney G. Winter, 1987. "Appropriating the Returns from Industrial Research and Development," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, vol. 18(3, Specia), pages 783-832.
    14. 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.
    15. Wesley M. Cohen & Richard C. Levin & David C. Mowery, 1987. "Firm Size and R&D Intensity: A Re-Examination," NBER Working Papers 2205, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    16. Alfred Kleinknecht, 1993. "Why Do We Need New Innovation Output Indicators? An Introduction," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: Alfred Kleinknecht & Donald Bain (ed.), New Concepts in Innovation Output Measurement, chapter 1, pages 1-9, Palgrave Macmillan.
    17. 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.
    18. 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.
    19. 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.
    20. Alfred Kleinknecht & Jeroen O. N. Reijnen & Wendy Smits, 1993. "Collecting Literature-based Innovation Output Indicators. The Experience in the Netherlands," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: Alfred Kleinknecht & Donald Bain (ed.), New Concepts in Innovation Output Measurement, chapter 3, pages 42-84, Palgrave Macmillan.
    21. 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.
    22. Jeroen Hinloopen, 2003. "Innovation performance across Europe," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(2), pages 145-161.
    23. Cohen, Wesley M & Levin, Richard C & Mowery, David C, 1987. "Firm Size and R&D Intensity: A Re-examination," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(4), pages 543-565, June.
    24. Heinz Hollenstein, 2002. "Determinants of the Adoption of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT)," WIFO Working Papers 183, WIFO.
    25. Levin, Richard C & Cohen, Wesley M & Mowery, David C, 1985. "R&D Appropriability, Opportunity, and Market Structure: New Evidence on Some Schumpeterian Hypotheses," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 75(2), pages 20-24, May.
    26. Bosworth, Derek & Rogers, Mark, 2001. "Market Value, R&D and Intellectual Property: An Empirical Analysis of Large Australian Firms," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 77(239), pages 323-337, December.
    27. 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.
    28. Alfred Kleinknecht & Pierre Mohnen (ed.), 2002. "Innovation and Firm Performance," Palgrave Macmillan Books, Palgrave Macmillan, number 978-0-230-59588-0, December.
    29. Richard Blundell & Rachel Griffith & John van Reenen, 1999. "Market Share, Market Value and Innovation in a Panel of British Manufacturing Firms," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 66(3), pages 529-554.
    30. Richard C. Levin & Alvin K. Klevorick & Richard R. Nelson & Sidney G. Winter, 1988. "Appropriating the Returns from Industrial R&D," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 862, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
    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. Gurkov, Igor, 2013. "Why some Russian industrial companies innovate regularly: Determinants of firms’ decisions to innovate and associated routines," Journal of East European Management Studies, Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG, vol. 18(1), pages 66-96.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Ucbasaran, Deniz & Westhead, Paul & Wright, Mike, 2009. "The extent and nature of opportunity identification by experienced entrepreneurs," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 99-115, March.
    7. Boly, Vincent & Morel, Laure & Assielou, N’Doli Guillaume & Camargo, Mauricio, 2014. "Evaluating innovative processes in french firms: Methodological proposition for firm innovation capacity evaluation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 608-622.
    8. Peneder, Michael & Rammer, Christian (ed.), 2018. "Measuring Competitiveness," ZEW Expertises, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research, number 181906.
    9. Paul H. Jensen & Elizabeth Webster, 2004. "SMEs and Their Use of Intellectual Property Rights in Australia," Melbourne Institute Working Paper Series wp2004n17, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, The University of Melbourne.
    10. Syeda Tamkeen Fatima, 2017. "Globalization and technology adoption: evidence from emerging economies," The Journal of International Trade & Economic Development, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(6), pages 724-758, August.
    11. Michael Peneder & Christian Rammer, 2018. "Measuring Competitiveness," WIFO Studies, WIFO, number 60838, Juni.
    12. Sam Tavassoli, 2011. "A Comparative Investigation of Firms' Innovative behaviors During Different Stages of the Cluster Life-Cycle (Cover study for PhD dissertation)," ERSA conference papers ersa10p1045, European Regional Science Association.
    13. Godinho, Manuel Mira & Ferreira, Vítor, 2012. "Analyzing the evidence of an IPR take-off in China and India," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 499-511.

    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. 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.
    2. William Griffiths & Elizabeth Webster, 2009. "What Governs Firm-Level R&D: Internal or External Factors?," Melbourne Institute Working Paper Series wp2009n13, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, The University of Melbourne.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Cohen, Wesley M., 2010. "Fifty Years of Empirical Studies of Innovative Activity and Performance," 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 129-213, Elsevier.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. Baten, Joerg & Bianchi, Nicola & Moser, Petra, 2017. "Compulsory licensing and innovation – Historical evidence from German patents after WWI," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 231-242.
    11. Paul H. Jensen & Elizabeth Webster, 2004. "SMEs and Their Use of Intellectual Property Rights in Australia," Melbourne Institute Working Paper Series wp2004n17, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, The University of Melbourne.
    12. Christine Greenhalgh & Padraig Dixon, 2002. "The Economics of Intellectual Property: A Review to Identify Themes for Future Research," Economics Series Working Papers 135, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
    13. Justus Baron & Henry Delcamp, 2012. "The private and social value of patents in discrete and cumulative innovation," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 90(2), pages 581-606, February.
    14. Bessen, James, 2009. "Estimates of patent rents from firm market value," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(10), pages 1604-1616, December.
    15. Elizabeth Webster & Paul H. Jensen, 2006. "Investment in Intangible Capital: An Enterprise Perspective," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 82(256), pages 82-96, March.
    16. Per Botolf Maurseth, 2005. "Lovely but dangerous: The impact of patent citations on patent renewal," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(5), pages 351-374.
    17. Dirk Czarnitzki & Katrin Hussinger & Bart Leten, 2020. "How Valuable are Patent Blocking Strategies?," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 56(3), pages 409-434, May.
    18. Joerg Baten & Nicola Bianchi & Petra Moser, 2015. "Does Compulsory Licensing Discourage Invention? Evidence From German Patents After WWI," NBER Working Papers 21442, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    19. Kathryn Rudie Harrigan & Maria Chiara DiGuardo, 2017. "Sustainability of patent-based competitive advantage in the U.S. communications services industry," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 42(6), pages 1334-1361, December.
    20. Alexandre Almeida & Aurora A.C. Teixeira, 2007. "Does Patenting negatively impact on R&D investment?An international panel data assessment," FEP Working Papers 255, Universidade do Porto, Faculdade de Economia do Porto.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:iae:iaewps:wp2004n10. 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: Sheri Carnegie (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/mimelau.html .

    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.