IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/ejlwec/v39y2015i3p607-622.html

Intellectual property and economic development in Germany: empirical evidence for 1999–2009

Author

Listed:
  • Andreas Bielig

Abstract

The study analyses the relationship between the development of registered intellectual property and economic development in Germany. It shows a differing evidence for specific categories of intellectual property, indicating that not all intellectual property rights show a significant impact on the German Gross Domestic Product. Positive impacts have the stocks of patents, trademarks and designs. Applications for utility models surprisingly have a negative impact, what challenges developments of the economic theory. The empirical results delight also the specific structure of the technological and innovation system in the German economy, showing a national intellectual property profile with three key factors: product differentiation, complex technologies and design development. Copyright The Author(s) 2015

Suggested Citation

  • Andreas Bielig, 2015. "Intellectual property and economic development in Germany: empirical evidence for 1999–2009," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 39(3), pages 607-622, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:ejlwec:v:39:y:2015:i:3:p:607-622
    DOI: 10.1007/s10657-012-9324-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s10657-012-9324-5
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10657-012-9324-5?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. 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.
    2. Carl Shapiro, 1983. "Premiums for High Quality Products as Returns to Reputations," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 98(4), pages 659-679.
    3. Wipo, 2007. "WIPO PATENT REPORT, 2008 edition," WIPO Economics & Statistics Series, World Intellectual Property Organization - Economics and Statistics Division, number 2008:931, July.
    4. Edwin Mansfield, 1986. "Patents and Innovation: An Empirical Study," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(2), pages 173-181, February.
    5. Wipo, 2007. "WIPO PATENT REPORT, 2007 edition," WIPO Economics & Statistics Series, World Intellectual Property Organization - Economics and Statistics Division, number 2007:931, July.
    6. Mann, Ronald J. & Sager, Thomas W., 2007. "Patents, venture capital, and software start-ups," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 193-208, 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. Cristiano Antonelli, 2019. "A reappraisal of the Arrovian postulate and the intellectual property regime: user-specific patents," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 47(3), pages 377-388, June.
    2. Jamel Trabelsi & Arbia jihène Jebeniani & Sofiène Omri, 2024. "The dynamics of international patents production: A panel smooth transition regression approach," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 44(1), pages 466-489.
    3. Samuel Gyedu & Heng Tang & Michael Verner Menyah & George Duodu Kissi, 2024. "The Relationship Between Intellectual Property Rights, Innovation, and Economic Development in the G20 and Selected Developing Countries," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 15(4), pages 18223-18256, December.
    4. Neves, Pedro Cunha & Afonso, Oscar & Silva, Diana & Sochirca, Elena, 2021. "The link between intellectual property rights, innovation, and growth: A meta-analysis," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 196-209.
    5. Licheng Zheng & Delong Luo & Ruiqing Jiang & Xiaoyong Lu, 2025. "The Strategy of Speculative Innovation: the Result of Capital Misallocation and Defective Incentive Policy," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 16(3), pages 12317-12363, September.
    6. Sefa Awaworyi Churchill & Hoang M. Luong & Mehmet Ugur, 2022. "Does intellectual property protection deliver economic benefits? A multi‐outcome meta‐regression analysis of the evidence," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(5), pages 1477-1509, December.

    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. Mohd Shadab Danish & Pritam Ranjan & Ruchi Sharma, 2022. "Assessing the Impact of Patent Attributes on the Value of Discrete and Complex Innovations," Papers 2208.07222, arXiv.org.
    2. Patrick Gaulé, 2018. "Patents and the Success of Venture‐Capital Backed Startups: Using Examiner Assignment to Estimate Causal Effects," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 66(2), pages 350-376, June.
    3. Belleflamme,Paul & Peitz,Martin, 2015. "Industrial Organization," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107069978, Enero-Abr.
    4. repec:bla:scotjp:v:56:y:2009:i:s1:p:443-473 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Huang, Kenneth Guang-Lih & Huang, Can & Shen, Huijun & Mao, Hao, 2021. "Assessing the value of China's patented inventions," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).
    6. Andreas Reinstaller & Gerhard Schwarz, 2012. "Die wirtschafts- und forschungspolitische Bedeutung der Umsetzung der Biopatentrichtlinie im österreichischen Patentgesetz," WIFO Studies, WIFO, number 44635.
    7. Gaetan de Rassenfosse, 2025. "What Proportion of Knowledge is Patented?," Papers 2501.18043, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2025.
    8. Machado, H. B., 2007. "Understanding the Rationale to Patent in Pharmaceuticals," Insper Working Papers wpe_76, Insper Working Paper, Insper Instituto de Ensino e Pesquisa.
    9. Kate Odziemkowska & Yiying Zhu, 2025. "How Social Movements Catalyze Firm Innovation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(4), pages 1221-1241, July.
    10. Fontana, Roberto & Nuvolari, Alessandro & Shimizu, Hiroshi & Vezzulli, Andrea, 2013. "Reassessing patent propensity: Evidence from a dataset of R&D awards, 1977–2004," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(10), pages 1780-1792.
    11. Basir, Nada & Beyhaghi, Mehdi & Mohammadi, Ali, 2014. "The Fate Of Patents: An Exploratory Analysis Of Patents As Ipo Signals Of Reputational Advantage," Working Paper Series in Economics and Institutions of Innovation 348, Royal Institute of Technology, CESIS - Centre of Excellence for Science and Innovation Studies.
    12. Amy Kapczynski & Chan Park & Bhaven Sampat, 2012. "Polymorphs and Prodrugs and Salts (Oh My!): An Empirical Analysis of “Secondary” Pharmaceutical Patents," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(12), pages 1-9, December.
    13. Sternitzke, Christian, 2013. "An exploratory analysis of patent fencing in pharmaceuticals: The case of PDE5 inhibitors," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(2), pages 542-551.
    14. Illoong Kwon, 2008. "Patent Portfolio Race and Secrecy," Discussion Papers 08-05, University at Albany, SUNY, Department of Economics.
    15. Tammy L. Madsen & Michael J. Leiblein, 2015. "What Factors Affect the Persistence of an Innovation Advantage?," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 52(8), pages 1097-1127, December.
    16. Blind, Knut & Filipović, Ellen & Lazina, Luisa K., 2022. "Motives to Publish, to Patent and to Standardize: An Explorative Study Based on Individual Engineers’ Assessments," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    17. Penin, Julien, 2005. "Patents versus ex post rewards: A new look," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(5), pages 641-656, June.
    18. Duke, Richard & Williams, Robert & Payne, Adam, 2005. "Accelerating residential PV expansion: demand analysis for competitive electricity markets," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(15), pages 1912-1929, October.
    19. Bernhard Ganglmair & Imke Reimers, 2019. "Visibility of Technology and Cumulative Innovation: Evidence from Trade Secrets Laws," CRC TR 224 Discussion Paper Series crctr224_2019_119v1, University of Bonn and University of Mannheim, Germany.
    20. Eric Budish & Benjamin Roin & Heidi Williams, 2013. "Do fixed patent terms distort innovation? Evidence from cancer clinical trials," Discussion Papers 13-001, Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research.
    21. Ben Klemens, 2021. "Attributing Value to Patents and Trademarks in Complex Production Chains," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 12(2), pages 842-875, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • O11 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Development - - - Macroeconomic Analyses of Economic Development
    • O31 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives
    • O34 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Intellectual Property and Intellectual Capital
    • O52 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economywide Country Studies - - - Europe

    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:kap:ejlwec:v:39:y:2015:i:3:p:607-622. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.