IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/32066.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Deadlines Versus Continuous Incentives: Evidence from the Patent Office

Author

Listed:
  • Michael D. Frakes
  • Melissa F. Wasserman

Abstract

A quota system with an associated deadline may retain the possibility of worker procrastination and related deadline behaviors. A performance appraisal system based on continuous temporal incentives, on the other hand, has the potential to alleviate deadline effects but may lose some of the quality-related benefits associated with the flexibility of a quota/deadline system. We explore these tradeoffs by observing patent examiner behavior and examination quality outcomes surrounding a 2011 reform at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office that built on its bi-weekly quota system by adding a set of bonuses tied to daily examination-pendency measures. We find a substantial reduction in deadline effects and near complete temporal smoothing in examiner behavior in connection with the reform, leading to large reductions in average examination pendency while resulting in no corresponding reductions in the accuracy of examinations.

Suggested Citation

  • Michael D. Frakes & Melissa F. Wasserman, 2024. "Deadlines Versus Continuous Incentives: Evidence from the Patent Office," NBER Working Papers 32066, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    • Handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:32066
    Note: LE PR
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w32066.pdf
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text is generally limited to series subscribers, however if the top level domain of the client browser is in a developing country or transition economy free access is provided. More information about subscriptions and free access is available at http://www.nber.org/wwphelp.html. Free access is also available to older working papers.
    ---><---

    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. Joan Farre‐Mensa & Deepak Hegde & Alexander Ljungqvist, 2020. "What Is a Patent Worth? Evidence from the U.S. Patent “Lottery”," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 75(2), pages 639-682, April.
    2. Esther Duflo & Michael Kremer & Jonathan Robinson, 2011. "Nudging Farmers to Use Fertilizer: Theory and Experimental Evidence from Kenya," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(6), pages 2350-2390, October.
    3. Doug J. Chung & Thomas Steenburgh & K. Sudhir, 2014. "Do Bonuses Enhance Sales Productivity? A Dynamic Structural Analysis of Bonus-Based Compensation Plans," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 33(2), pages 165-187, March.
    4. Paul Oyer, 1998. "Fiscal Year Ends and Nonlinear Incentive Contracts: The Effect on Business Seasonality," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 113(1), pages 149-185.
    5. Michael D. Frakes & Melissa F. Wasserman, 2017. "Is the Time Allocated to Review Patent Applications Inducing Examiners to Grant Invalid Patents? Evidence from Microlevel Application Data," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 99(3), pages 550-563, July.
    6. Holmstrom, Bengt & Milgrom, Paul, 1991. "Multitask Principal-Agent Analyses: Incentive Contracts, Asset Ownership, and Job Design," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 7(0), pages 24-52, Special I.
    7. Lei, Zhen & Wright, Brian D., 2017. "Why weak patents? Testing the examiner ignorance hypothesis," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 148(C), pages 43-56.
    8. Frakes, Michael D. & Wasserman, Melissa F., 2020. "Procrastination at the Patent Office?," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 183(C).
    9. Holmstrom, Bengt & Milgrom, Paul, 1987. "Aggregation and Linearity in the Provision of Intertemporal Incentives," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 55(2), pages 303-328, March.
    10. Ximena Cadena & Antoinette Schoar & Alexandra Cristea & Héber M. Delgado-Medrano, 2011. "Fighting Procrastination in the Workplace: An Experiment," NBER Working Papers 16944, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    11. Joshua S. Gans & David H. Hsu & Scott Stern, 2008. "The Impact of Uncertain Intellectual Property Rights on the Market for Ideas: Evidence from Patent Grant Delays," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(5), pages 982-997, May.
    12. Bhaven Sampat & Heidi L. Williams, 2019. "How Do Patents Affect Follow-On Innovation? Evidence from the Human Genome," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 109(1), pages 203-236, January.
    13. Youssef Benzarti, 2020. "How Taxing Is Tax Filing? Using Revealed Preferences to Estimate Compliance Costs," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 12(4), pages 38-57, November.
    14. Michael D. Frakes & Melissa F. Wasserman, 2023. "Investing in Ex Ante Regulation: Evidence from Pharmaceutical Patent Examination," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 15(3), pages 151-183, August.
    15. Olsen, Trond E & Torsvik, Gaute, 2000. "Discretion and Incentives in Organizations," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 18(3), pages 377-404, July.
    16. Oyer, Paul, 2000. "A Theory of Sales Quotas with Limited Liability and Rent Sharing," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 18(3), pages 405-426, July.
    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. Frakes, Michael D. & Wasserman, Melissa F., 2020. "Procrastination at the Patent Office?," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 183(C).
    2. deGrazia, Charles A.W. & Pairolero, Nicholas A. & Teodorescu, Mike H.M., 2021. "Examination incentives, learning, and patent office outcomes: The use of examiner’s amendments at the USPTO," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(10).
    3. Freilich, Janet & Shahshahani, Sepehr, 2023. "Measuring follow-on innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(9).
    4. Bloom, Nicholas & Van Reenen, John, 2011. "Human Resource Management and Productivity," Handbook of Labor Economics, in: O. Ashenfelter & D. Card (ed.), Handbook of Labor Economics, edition 1, volume 4, chapter 19, pages 1697-1767, Elsevier.
    5. Frakes, Michael D. & Wasserman, Melissa F., 2021. "Knowledge spillovers, peer effects, and telecommuting: Evidence from the U.S. Patent Office," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 198(C).
    6. Richard B. Freeman & Wei Huang & Teng Li, 2019. "Non-linear Incentives, Worker Productivity, and Firm Profits: Evidence from a Quasi-experiment," NBER Working Papers 25507, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. Doug J. Chung & Byungyeon Kim & Byoung G. Park, 2021. "The Comprehensive Effects of Sales Force Management: A Dynamic Structural Analysis of Selection, Compensation, and Training," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(11), pages 7046-7074, November.
    8. Oyer, Paul & Schaefer, Scott, 2011. "Personnel Economics: Hiring and Incentives," Handbook of Labor Economics, in: O. Ashenfelter & D. Card (ed.), Handbook of Labor Economics, edition 1, volume 4, chapter 20, pages 1769-1823, Elsevier.
    9. Inés Macho-Stadler & David Pérez-Castrillo, 2018. "Moral hazard: Base models and two extensions," Chapters, in: Luis C. Corchón & Marco A. Marini (ed.), Handbook of Game Theory and Industrial Organization, Volume I, chapter 16, pages 453-485, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    10. Victor Gonzalez-Jimenez & Patricio S. Dalton & Charles N. Noussair, 2019. "The Dark Side of Monetary Bonuses: Theory and Experimental Evidence," Vienna Economics Papers vie1909, University of Vienna, Department of Economics.
    11. John G. Sessions & John D. Skåtun, 2022. "Luck in a Flat Hierarchy: Wages, Bonuses and Noise," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 98(323), pages 373-391, December.
    12. repec:eee:labchp:v:3:y:1999:i:pb:p:2373-2437 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Balmaceda, Felipe & Balseiro, Santiago R. & Correa, José R. & Stier-Moses, Nicolás E., 2016. "Bounds on the welfare loss from moral hazard with limited liability," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 137-155.
    14. Daniel E. Ho & Lisa Larrimore Ouellette, 2020. "Improving Scientific Judgments in Law and Government: A Field Experiment of Patent Peer Review," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(2), pages 190-223, June.
    15. Kräkel, Matthias & Schöttner, Anja, 2016. "Optimal sales force compensation," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 126(PA), pages 179-195.
    16. Gaétan De Rassenfosse & Paul H. Jensen & T'Mir Julius & Alfons Palangkaraya & Elizabeth Webster, 2023. "Is the Patent System an Even Playing Field? The Effect of Patent Attorney Firms," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 71(1), pages 124-142, March.
    17. Stuart J.H. Graham & Alan C. Marco & Richard Miller, 2018. "The USPTO Patent Examination Research Dataset: A window on patent processing," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(3), pages 554-578, September.
    18. Quintero Jaramillo, Jose E., 2004. "Moral hazard in teams with limited punishments and multiple outputs," DEE - Working Papers. Business Economics. WB wb040705, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid. Departamento de Economía de la Empresa.
    19. Gambardella, Alfonso, 2023. "Private and social functions of patents: Innovation, markets, and new firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(7).
    20. Leon Yang Chu & David E.M. Sappington, 2009. "Implementing high‐powered contracts to motivate intertemporal effort supply," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 40(2), pages 296-316, June.
    21. Bengt Holmström, 2017. "Pay for Performance and Beyond," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 107(7), pages 1753-1777, July.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • D03 - Microeconomics - - General - - - Behavioral Microeconomics: Underlying Principles
    • J33 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Wages, Compensation, and Labor Costs - - - Compensation Packages; Payment Methods
    • K0 - Law and Economics - - General
    • O34 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Intellectual Property and Intellectual Capital

    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:nbr:nberwo:32066. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/nberrus.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.