IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/respol/v29y2000i9p1047-1060.html

Domestic patents and developing countries: arguments for their study and data from Brazil (1980-1995)

Author

Listed:
  • da Motta e Albuquerque, Eduardo

Abstract

This paper presents data from Brazilian Patent Office (Instituto Nacional de Propriedade Industrial, INPI) and compares them with data from the United States Patent Office (USPTO). Developing countries have technological activities that are important locally but not significant at international level (imitation, local learning, adaptation of foreign innovations). These activities might be patentable only at national level. Therefore, the study of domestic patents of developing countries provides a broader picture than USPTO patents. This paper compares 8,316 INPI patents with 475 USPTO patents (between 1980-1995). Domestic patent data show peculiarities in the Brazilian case, possibly shared with other countries in similar technological level: a) high share of individual patents; b) foreign-owned firms with important activities; c) low firm involvement in R&D activities. Some characteristics are shared with developed countries: a) domestic firms as the major patentees; b) according to firm size, there is a U-shaped distribution of patents; c) evidences of multi-technology large firms; d) a relatively small share of firms have more than one patent in the whole period. Putting together USPTO and national patenting shows different rankings according to ownership structure, leading firms, industrial sectors, and international patent classification. These differences highlight sources of international competitiveness and point to weaknesses in Brazilian innovative activities. This paper concludes evaluating the contributions (and weaknesses) of this database for the evaluation of the Brazilian National System of Innovation.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • da Motta e Albuquerque, Eduardo, 2000. "Domestic patents and developing countries: arguments for their study and data from Brazil (1980-1995)," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(9), pages 1047-1060, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:29:y:2000:i:9:p:1047-1060
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048-7333(99)00053-0
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or

    for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John Bound & Clint Cummins & Zvi Griliches & Bronwyn H. Hall & Adam B. Jaffe, 1984. "Who Does R&D and Who Patents?," NBER Chapters, in: R&D, Patents, and Productivity, pages 21-54, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Zvi Griliches, 1984. "R&D, Patents, and Productivity," NBER Books, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, number gril84-1, January.
    3. repec:fth:harver:1473 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Pavitt, Keith, 1984. "Sectoral patterns of technical change: Towards a taxonomy and a theory," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 13(6), pages 343-373, December.
    5. 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.
    6. Patel, Parimal & Pavitt, Keith, 1994. "The continuing, widespread (and neglected) importance of improvements in mechanical technologies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 23(5), pages 533-545, September.
    7. Cohen, Wesley M & Klepper, Steven, 1996. "A Reprise of Size and R&D," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 106(437), pages 925-951, July.
    8. Geroski, P. A. & Van Reenen, J. & Walters, C. F., 1997. "How persistently do firms innovate?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 33-48, March.
    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. Mounir Amdaoud & Christian Le Bas, 2020. "Firm Patenting and Types of innovation in Least Developed Countries. An Empirical Investigation on Patenting Determinants," Working Papers hal-03059466, HAL.
    2. Mani, Sunil, 2001. "Government, Innovation and Technology Policy, An Analysis of the Brazilian Experience during the 1990s," UNU-INTECH Discussion Paper Series 2001-11, United Nations University - INTECH.
    3. Anokhin, Sergey & Schulze, William S., 2009. "Entrepreneurship, innovation, and corruption," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 24(5), pages 465-476, September.
    4. Henrique M. Barros, 2011. "The Effects of Innovation Partnership, Foreign Ownership and Enhanced Management Practices on the Use of Patents in Brazilian Manufacturing," Business and Economics Working Papers 137, Unidade de Negocios e Economia, Insper.
    5. Pluvia Zuniga, 2011. "The State of Patenting at Research Institutions in Developing Countries: Policy Approaches and Practices," WIPO Economic Research Working Papers 04, World Intellectual Property Organization - Economics and Statistics Division, revised Dec 2011.
    6. Bittencourt, Pablo Felipe & Giglio, Ricardo, 2013. "An empirical analysis of technology absorption capacity of the Brazilian industry," Revista CEPAL, Naciones Unidas Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL), December.
    7. Barros, Henrique M., 2011. "The Effects of Innovation Partnership, Foreign Ownership and Enhanced Management Practices on the Use of Patents in Brazilian Manufacturing," Insper Working Papers wpe_255, Insper Working Paper, Insper Instituto de Ensino e Pesquisa.
    8. Török, Ádám, 2006. "Elmaradottság, felzárkózás és innováció az Európán kívüli, nem OECD országokban [Backwardness, catching up and innovation in the extra-European OECD countries]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(11), pages 1005-1022.
    9. Kuo-Feng Huang & Chwo-Ming Joseph Yu, 2012. "Cross-Regional Patenting," Management International Review, Springer, vol. 52(2), pages 213-231, April.
    10. Cano-Kollmann Marcelo & Mudambi Ram & Tavares-Lehmann Ana Teresa, 2022. "The geographical dispersion of inventor networks in peripheral economies," ZFW – Advances in Economic Geography, De Gruyter, vol. 66(1), pages 49-63, May.
    11. Yoruk, Esin & Radosevic, Slavo & Fischer, Bruno, 2023. "Technological profiles, upgrading and the dynamics of growth: Country-level patterns and trajectories across distinct stages of development," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(8).
    12. repec:hal:cepnwp:hal-03059466 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Bin, Guo, 2008. "Technology acquisition channels and industry performance: An industry-level analysis of Chinese large- and medium-size manufacturing enterprises," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 194-209, March.
    14. Roberto Mazzoleni & Luciano Martins Costa Póvoa, 2009. "Accumulation of Technological Capabilities and Economic Development: Did Brazil’s Regime of Intellectual Property Rights Matter?," Working papers - Textos para Discussao do Curso de Ciencias Economicas da UFG 002, Curso de Ciencias Economicas da Universidade Federal de Goias - FACE.
    15. Rita Pinheiro-Machado & P. L. Oliveira, 2004. "A comparative study of patenting activity in U.S. and Brazilian scientific institutions," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 61(3), pages 323-338, November.

    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. 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.
    2. Bannò, Mariasole, 2016. "Propensity to patent by family firms," Journal of Family Business Strategy, Elsevier, vol. 7(4), pages 238-248.
    3. Ufuk Akcigit, 2009. "Firm Size, Innovation Dynamics and Growth," 2009 Meeting Papers 1267, Society for Economic Dynamics.
    4. Westerberg, Hans Seerar, 2014. "The Return to R&D and Seller-buyer Interactions: A Quantile Regression Approach," Ratio Working Papers 231, The Ratio Institute.
    5. Haschka, Rouven E. & Herwartz, Helmut, 2020. "Innovation efficiency in European high-tech industries: Evidence from a Bayesian stochastic frontier approach," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(8).
    6. Minniti, Antonio, 2011. "Knowledge appropriability, firm size, and growth," Journal of Macroeconomics, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 438-454, September.
    7. 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).
    8. Choi, Jin-Uk & Lee, Chang-Yang, 2022. "The differential effects of basic research on firm R&D productivity: The conditioning role of technological diversification," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 118(C).
    9. Francesco Aiello & Paola Cardamone & Valeria Pupo, 2005. "Produttività e capitale tecnologico nel settore manifatturiero italiano," L'industria, Società editrice il Mulino, issue 1, pages 119-146.
    10. Coad, Alex, 2019. "Persistent heterogeneity of R&D intensities within sectors: Evidence and policy implications," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 37-50.
    11. Xulia González & Jordi Jaumandreu, "undated". "Threshold effects in product R&D decisions: theoretical framework and empirical analysis," Studies on the Spanish Economy 78, FEDEA.
    12. Burak Dindaroglu, 2011. "R&D Productivity and Firm Size in Semiconductors and Pharmaceuticals: Evidence from Citation Yields," Working Papers 1101, Izmir University of Economics.
    13. Stavins, Robert & Jaffe, Adam & Newell, Richard, 2000. "Technological Change and the Environment," Working Paper Series rwp00-002, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    14. Hans Lööf & Jacques Mairesse & Pierre Mohnen, 2017. "CDM 20 years after," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(1-2), pages 1-5, February.
    15. Chassagnon, Virgile & Haned, Naciba, 2015. "The relevance of innovation leadership for environmental benefits: A firm-level empirical analysis on French firms," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 194-207.
    16. Ernst, Holger, 1998. "Industrial research as a source of important patents," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 1-15, May.
    17. Gabriele Pellegrino & Mariacristina Piva & Marco Vivarelli, 2015. "How do new entrepreneurs innovate?," Economia e Politica Industriale: Journal of Industrial and Business Economics, Springer;Associazione Amici di Economia e Politica Industriale, vol. 42(3), pages 323-341, September.
    18. Kornelius Kraft & Jörg Stank & Ralf Dewenter, 2011. "Co-determination and innovation," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 35(1), pages 145-172.
    19. Anna Laura Baraldi & Claudia Cantabene & Giulio Perani, 2014. "Reverse causality in the R&D-patents relationship: an interpretation of the innovation persistence," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(3), pages 304-326, April.
    20. Peters, Bettina & Lööf, Hans & Janz, Norbert, 2003. "Firm Level Innovation and Productivity: Is there a Common Story Across Countries?," ZEW Discussion Papers 03-26, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.

    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:eee:respol:v:29:y:2000:i:9:p:1047-1060. 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.