IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/respol/v48y2019i94.html

The effect of technological imitation on corporate innovation: Evidence from US patent data

Author

Listed:
  • Im, Hyun Joong
  • Shon, Janghoon

Abstract

Technological imitation may play a crucial role in motivating firms to innovate. However, theoretical predictions and empirical findings on the role of imitation have not yet reached a consensus. One major gap in the previous studies is that the empirical tests are based on samples consisting of only one industry over a short period of time. This study uses a novel measure of industry-level technological imitation proxied by quick citations by competitors to examine the relationship between imitation and innovation. Using US patent data for the period 1977–2005, we find that there are inverted U-shaped relationships between the degree of industry-level technological imitation and industry-level innovation activities and between the degree of industry-level technological imitation and the value of firm-level innovation. Our results suggest that positive externalities from the interactions among firms during the innovation process outweigh the negative effects of free-riding concerns on firms’ innovation activities and incentives to innovate up to a high degree of technological imitation, while free-riding concerns outweigh the positive externalities when the level of technological imitation is extremely high. The sector-by-sector analyses show that the relationship between technological imitation and the quantity and market value of innovation are not very different across Pavitt sectors. A comparative analysis on the role of imitation between agglomerated and non-agglomerated industries suggests that the positive effect of a moderate level of imitation and the negative effect of an excessive level of imitation are more pronounced for agglomerated industries. The results suggest that creating innovation clusters, such as Silicon Valley in the United States and Shenzhen City in China, and allowing different innovators to cooperate, imitate and compete with each other would be very effective in promoting corporate innovation. However, an excessively high level of technological imitation is more detrimental for firms in innovation clusters because it lowers those firms’ incentives to innovate more radically.

Suggested Citation

  • Im, Hyun Joong & Shon, Janghoon, 2019. "The effect of technological imitation on corporate innovation: Evidence from US patent data," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(9), pages 1-1.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:48:y:2019:i:9:4
    DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2019.05.011
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733319301222
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.respol.2019.05.011?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

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bhattacharya, Utpal & Hsu, Po-Hsuan & Tian, Xuan & Xu, Yan, 2017. "What Affects Innovation More: Policy or Policy Uncertainty?," Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 52(5), pages 1869-1901, October.
    2. Julian Atanassov, 2013. "Do Hostile Takeovers Stifle Innovation? Evidence from Antitakeover Legislation and Corporate Patenting," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 68(3), pages 1097-1131, June.
    3. Jean Tirole, 1988. "The Theory of Industrial Organization," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262200716, December.
    4. James D. Adams & Adam B. Jaffe, 1996. "Bounding the Effects of R&D: An Investigation Using Matched Establishment-Firm Data," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 27(4), pages 700-721, Winter.
    5. Philippe Aghion & Nick Bloom & Richard Blundell & Rachel Griffith & Peter Howitt, 2005. "Competition and Innovation: an Inverted-U Relationship," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 120(2), pages 701-728.
    6. Bronwyn H. Hall & Adam B. Jaffe & Manuel Trajtenberg, 2001. "The NBER Patent Citation Data File: Lessons, Insights and Methodological Tools," NBER Working Papers 8498, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. 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.
    8. Vivian W. Fang & Xuan Tian & Sheri Tice, 2014. "Does Stock Liquidity Enhance or Impede Firm Innovation?," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 69(5), pages 2085-2125, October.
    9. Im, Hyun Joong & Park, Young Joon & Shon, Janghoon, 2015. "Product market competition and the value of innovation: Evidence from US patent data," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 78-82.
    10. Hugo Hopenhayn & Gerard Llobet & Matthew Mitchell, 2006. "Rewarding Sequential Innovators: Prizes, Patents, and Buyouts," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 114(6), pages 1041-1068, December.
    11. Aaron Chatterji & Edward Glaeser & William Kerr, 2014. "Clusters of Entrepreneurship and Innovation," Innovation Policy and the Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 14(1), pages 129-166.
    12. Ellison, Glenn & Glaeser, Edward L, 1997. "Geographic Concentration in U.S. Manufacturing Industries: A Dartboard Approach," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 105(5), pages 889-927, October.
    13. Michael Faulkender & Rong Wang, 2006. "Corporate Financial Policy and the Value of Cash," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 61(4), pages 1957-1990, August.
    14. 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.
    15. repec:bof:bofrdp:urn:nbn:fi:bof-201512111472 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Philippe Aghion & Christopher Harris & Peter Howitt & John Vickers, 2001. "Competition, Imitation and Growth with Step-by-Step Innovation," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 68(3), pages 467-492.
    17. Hong Hwang & Jollene Z. Wu & Eden S. H. Yu, 2016. "Innovation, Imitation and Intellectual Property Rights in Developing Countries," Review of Development Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(1), pages 138-151, February.
    18. Dobson, Wendy & Safarian, A.E., 2008. "The transition from imitation to innovation: An enquiry into China's evolving institutions and firm capabilities," Journal of Asian Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(4), pages 301-311, August.
    19. Adam B. Jaffe & Manuel Trajtenberg & Rebecca Henderson, 1993. "Geographic Localization of Knowledge Spillovers as Evidenced by Patent Citations," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 108(3), pages 577-598.
    20. Jan W. Rivkin, 2000. "Imitation of Complex Strategies," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 46(6), pages 824-844, June.
    21. Pavitt, Keith, 1984. "Sectoral patterns of technical change: Towards a taxonomy and a theory," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 13(6), pages 343-373, December.
    22. Aghion, Philippe & Howitt, Peter, 1992. "A Model of Growth through Creative Destruction," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 60(2), pages 323-351, March.
    23. Roper, Stephen & Vahter, Priit & Love, James H., 2013. "Externalities of openness in innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(9), pages 1544-1554.
    24. Manuel Trajtenberg & Adam B. Jaffe & Michael S. Fogarty, 2000. "Knowledge Spillovers and Patent Citations: Evidence from a Survey of Inventors," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 90(2), pages 215-218, May.
    25. Carlino, Gerald & Kerr, William R., 2015. "Agglomeration and Innovation," Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics, in: Gilles Duranton & J. V. Henderson & William C. Strange (ed.), Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics, edition 1, volume 5, chapter 0, pages 349-404, Elsevier.
    26. Amara, Nabil & Landry, Réjean & Traoré, Namatié, 2008. "Managing the protection of innovations in knowledge-intensive business services," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(9), pages 1530-1547, October.
    27. Moretti, Enrico, 2004. "Human capital externalities in cities," Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics, in: J. V. Henderson & J. F. Thisse (ed.), Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics, edition 1, volume 4, chapter 51, pages 2243-2291, Elsevier.
    28. Sendil K. Ethiraj & Daniel Levinthal & Rishi R. Roy, 2008. "The Dual Role of Modularity: Innovation and Imitation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(5), pages 939-955, May.
    29. Jo Thori Lind & Halvor Mehlum, 2010. "With or Without U? The Appropriate Test for a U‐Shaped Relationship," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 72(1), pages 109-118, February.
    30. James Bessen & Eric Maskin, 2009. "Sequential innovation, patents, and imitation," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 40(4), pages 611-635, December.
    31. Huang, Jikun & Rozelle, Scott, 1996. "Technological change: Rediscovering the engine of productivity growth in China's rural economy," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(2), pages 337-369, May.
    32. Carlino, Gerald & Kerr, William R., 2015. "Agglomeration and Innovation," Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics, in: Gilles Duranton & J. V. Henderson & William C. Strange (ed.), Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics, edition 1, volume 5, chapter 0, pages 349-404, Elsevier.
    33. Conley Timothy G. & Flyer Fredrick & Tsiang Grace R, 2003. "Spillovers from Local Market Human Capital and the Spatial Distribution of Productivity in Malaysia," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 3(1), pages 1-47, December.
    34. Dittmar, Amy & Mahrt-Smith, Jan, 2007. "Corporate governance and the value of cash holdings," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(3), pages 599-634, March.
    35. Peter Thompson, 2006. "Patent Citations and the Geography of Knowledge Spillovers: Evidence from Inventor- and Examiner-added Citations," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 88(2), pages 383-388, May.
    36. Charles J. Hadlock & Joshua R. Pierce, 2010. "New Evidence on Measuring Financial Constraints: Moving Beyond the KZ Index," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 23(5), pages 1909-1940.
    37. Todtling, Franz & Trippl, Michaela, 2005. "One size fits all?: Towards a differentiated regional innovation policy approach," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(8), pages 1203-1219, October.
    38. Baptista, Rui & Swann, Peter, 1998. "Do firms in clusters innovate more?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(5), pages 525-540, September.
    39. Richard F. J. Haans & Constant Pieters & Zi-Lin He, 2016. "Thinking about U: Theorizing and testing U- and inverted U-shaped relationships in strategy research," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(7), pages 1177-1195, July.
    40. Mukherjee, Abhiroop & Singh, Manpreet & Žaldokas, Alminas, 2017. "Do corporate taxes hinder innovation?," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 124(1), pages 195-221.
    41. Zeng, Jinli, 2001. "Innovative vs. imitative R&D and economic growth," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 499-528, April.
    42. Kim,Linsu & Nelson,Richard R. (ed.), 2000. "Technology, Learning, and Innovation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521770033, Enero-Abr.
    43. Steven N. Kaplan & Luigi Zingales, 1997. "Do Investment-Cash Flow Sensitivities Provide Useful Measures of Financing Constraints?," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 112(1), pages 169-215.
    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. Carlino, Gerald & Kerr, William R., 2015. "Agglomeration and Innovation," Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics, in: Gilles Duranton & J. V. Henderson & William C. Strange (ed.), Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics, edition 1, volume 5, chapter 0, pages 349-404, Elsevier.
    2. repec:bof:bofrdp:urn:nbn:fi:bof-201512111472 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Carlino, Gerald & Kerr, William R., 2015. "Agglomeration and Innovation," Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics, in: Gilles Duranton & J. V. Henderson & William C. Strange (ed.), Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics, edition 1, volume 5, chapter 0, pages 349-404, Elsevier.
    4. Xu, Zhaoxia, 2020. "Economic policy uncertainty, cost of capital, and corporate innovation," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    5. Fich, Eliezer M. & Nguyen, Tung & Petmezas, Dimitris, 2023. "The effects of terrorist attacks on inventor productivity and mobility," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(1).
    6. Lili Dai & Rui Shen & Bohui Zhang, 2021. "Does the media spotlight burn or spur innovation?," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 26(1), pages 343-390, March.
    7. Mathers, Ani Manakyan & Shank, Corey Allen, 2025. "Local vibrancy and innovation spillover," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    8. Guo, Bing & Pérez-Castrillo, David & Toldrà-Simats, Anna, 2019. "Firms’ innovation strategy under the shadow of analyst coverage," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(2), pages 456-483.
    9. Mukherjee, Abhiroop & Singh, Manpreet & Žaldokas, Alminas, 2017. "Do corporate taxes hinder innovation?," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 124(1), pages 195-221.
    10. Ina Ganguli & Jeffrey Lin & Nicholas Reynolds, 2017. "The Paper Trail of Knowledge Spillovers: Evidence from Patent Interferences [REVISED]," Working Papers 17-44, Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia.
    11. Ufuk Akcigit & William R. Kerr, 2018. "Growth through Heterogeneous Innovations," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 126(4), pages 1374-1443.
    12. Chang, Xin & Fu, Kangkang & Low, Angie & Zhang, Wenrui, 2015. "Non-executive employee stock options and corporate innovation," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 115(1), pages 168-188.
    13. Im, Hyun Joong & Park, Young Joon & Shon, Janghoon, 2015. "Product market competition and the value of innovation: Evidence from US patent data," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 78-82.
    14. Ufuk Akcigit & William R. Kerr, 2018. "Growth through Heterogeneous Innovations," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 126(4), pages 1374-1443.
    15. Hyuk-Soo Kwon & Jihong Lee & Sokbae Lee & Ryungha Oh, 2022. "Knowledge spillovers and patent citations: trends in geographic localization, 1976–2015," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 31(3), pages 123-147, April.
    16. Pardy, Martina, 2025. "Multinationals and intra-regional innovation concentration," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 127983, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    17. Kong, Dongmin & Zhang, Bohui & Zhang, Jian, 2022. "Higher education and corporate innovation," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 72(C).
    18. Do, Trung K., 2024. "Asset redeployability and green innovation," Journal of Financial Stability, Elsevier, vol. 72(C).
    19. Francis, Bill B. & Kim, Incheol & Wang, Bin & Zhang, Zhengyi, 2018. "Labor law and innovation revisited," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 1-15.
    20. Fernández, Ana María & Ferrándiz, Esther & Medina, Jennifer, 2022. "The diffusion of energy technologies. Evidence from renewable, fossil, and nuclear energy patents," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).
    21. Diemer, Andreas & Regan, Tanner, 2022. "No inventor is an island: Social connectedness and the geography of knowledge flows in the US," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(2).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:48:y:2019:i:9:4. 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.