IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v44y2017i1p121-131..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Market failure in the diffusion of clinician-developed innovations: The case of off-label drug discoveries

Author

Listed:
  • Eric von Hippel
  • Harold DeMonaco
  • Jeroen P. J. de Jong

Abstract

Medical doctors occasionally discover potentially valuable new off-label uses for drugs during their clinical practice. They apply these to help their own patients, but often have minimal incentives to invest in diffusing them further. Thus, the benefits that other clinicians might obtain are to some extent an externality from the perspective of the discoverer. This represents a form of market failure: effort invested in diffusion could lower adoption costs for many, but few innovators will invest that effort and social welfare will be accordingly reduced. In this study we explore for empirical evidence for the market failure just described, and do find evidence for it. In a sample of US clinicians, diffusion efforts increase the diffusion of generally valuable discoveries, but innovating clinicians typically invest little to support diffusion. We conclude with a discussion of how such a market failure could be addressed.

Suggested Citation

  • Eric von Hippel & Harold DeMonaco & Jeroen P. J. de Jong, 2017. "Market failure in the diffusion of clinician-developed innovations: The case of off-label drug discoveries," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 44(1), pages 121-131.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:44:y:2017:i:1:p:121-131.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/scipol/scw042
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    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. Eric von Hippel & Jeroen P. J. de Jong & Stephen Flowers, 2012. "Comparing Business and Household Sector Innovation in Consumer Products: Findings from a Representative Study in the United Kingdom," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 58(9), pages 1669-1681, September.
    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. Bradonjic, Philip & Franke, Nikolaus & Lüthje, Christian, 2019. "Decision-makers’ underestimation of user innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(6), pages 1354-1361.
    2. Martie-Louise Verreynne & Rui Torres de Oliveira & John Steen & Marta Indulska & Jerad A. Ford, 2020. "What motivates ‘free’ revealing? Measuring outbound non-pecuniary openness, innovation types and expectations of future profit growth," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(1), pages 271-301, July.
    3. de Jong, Jeroen P.J. & Gillert, Nils Lennart & Stock, Ruth M., 2018. "First adoption of consumer innovations: Exploring market failure and alleviating factors," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(2), pages 487-497.
    4. Wu, Chia-huei & de Jong, Jeroen P.J. & Raasch, Christina & Poldervaart, Sabrine, 2020. "Work process-related lead userness as an antecedent of innovative behavior and user innovation in organizations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(6).
    5. von Hippel, Eric & Kaulartz, Sandro, 2021. "Next-generation consumer innovation search: Identifying early-stage need-solution pairs on the web," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(8).
    6. Globocnik, Dietfried & Faullant, Rita, 2021. "Do lead users cooperate with manufacturers in innovation? Investigating the missing link between lead userness and cooperation initiation with manufacturers," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    7. Mütterlein, Joschka & Kunz, Reinhard E. & Baier, Daniel, 2019. "Effects of lead-usership on the acceptance of media innovations: A mobile augmented reality case," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 113-124.
    8. Hartmann, Mia Rosa & Hartmann, Rasmus Koss, 2023. "Hiding practices in employee-user innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(4).
    9. Schweisfurth, Tim G. & Dharmawan, Magha P., 2019. "Does lead userness foster idea implementation and diffusion? A study of internal shopfloor users," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 289-297.

    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. Trischler, Jakob & Johnson, Mikael & Kristensson, Per, 2020. "A service ecosystem perspective on the diffusion of sustainability-oriented user innovations," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 552-560.
    2. Schweisfurth, Tim G. & Raasch, Christina, 2015. "Embedded lead users—The benefits of employing users for corporate innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 168-180.
    3. von Hippel, Christiana D. & Cann, Andrew B., 2021. "Behavioral innovation: Pilot study and new big data analysis approach in household sector user innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(8).
    4. de Jong, Jeroen P.J. & Gillert, Nils Lennart & Stock, Ruth M., 2018. "First adoption of consumer innovations: Exploring market failure and alleviating factors," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(2), pages 487-497.
    5. Fiedler, Jakob & Schorn, André & Herstatt, Cornelius, 2023. "The influence of risk classification and community affiliation on the acceptance of user-innovated medical devices," Working Papers 115, Hamburg University of Technology (TUHH), Institute for Technology and Innovation Management.
    6. von Hippel, Eric & Kaulartz, Sandro, 2021. "Next-generation consumer innovation search: Identifying early-stage need-solution pairs on the web," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(8).
    7. Franke, Nikolaus & Schirg, Florian & Reinsberger, Kathrin, 2016. "The frequency of end-user innovation: A re-estimation of extant findings," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(8), pages 1684-1689.
    8. Jeroen de Jong, 2014. "The Emperical Scope of User Innovation," Scales Research Reports H201403, EIM Business and Policy Research.
    9. Alfonso Gambardella & Christina Raasch & Eric von Hippel, 2017. "The User Innovation Paradigm: Impacts on Markets and Welfare," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(5), pages 1450-1468, May.
    10. Stock, Ruth Maria & von Hippel, Eric & Gillert, Nils Lennart, 2016. "Impacts of personality traits on consumer innovation success," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(4), pages 757-769.
    11. Pollok, Patrick & Amft, André & Diener, Kathleen & Lüttgens, Dirk & Piller, Frank T., 2021. "Knowledge diversity and team creativity: How hobbyists beat professional designers in creating novel board games," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(8).
    12. Fursov, Konstantin & Thurner, Thomas & Nefedova, Alena, 2017. "What user-innovators do that others don't: A study of daily practices," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 153-160.
    13. Wu, Chia-huei & de Jong, Jeroen P.J. & Raasch, Christina & Poldervaart, Sabrine, 2020. "Work process-related lead userness as an antecedent of innovative behavior and user innovation in organizations," Open Access Publications from Kiel Institute for the World Economy 228657, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    14. Javier Miranda & Nikolas Zolas, 2017. "Measuring the Impact of Household Innovation Using Administrative Data," NBER Chapters, in: Measuring and Accounting for Innovation in the Twenty-First Century, pages 61-102, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    15. Bengtsson, Lars & Edquist, Charles, 2020. "Towards a holistic user innovation policy," Papers in Innovation Studies 2020/11, Lund University, CIRCLE - Centre for Innovation Research.
    16. Wu, Chia-huei & de Jong, Jeroen P.J. & Raasch, Christina & Poldervaart, Sabrine, 2020. "Work process-related lead userness as an antecedent of innovative behavior and user innovation in organizations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(6).
    17. Schweisfurth, Tim G. & Raasch, Christina, 2018. "Absorptive Capacity for Need Knowledge: Antecedents and Effects for Employee Innovativeness," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 47(4), pages 687-699.
    18. Daniel Sichel & Eric von Hippel, 2019. "Household Innovation, R&D, and New Measures of Intangible Capital," NBER Working Papers 25599, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    19. Oo, Pyayt P. & Allison, Thomas H. & Sahaym, Arvin & Juasrikul, Sakdipon, 2019. "User entrepreneurs' multiple identities and crowdfunding performance: Effects through product innovativeness, perceived passion, and need similarity," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 34(5), pages 1-1.
    20. Chen, Jin & Su, Yu-Shan & de Jong, Jeroen P.J. & von Hippel, Eric, 2020. "Household sector innovation in China: Impacts of income and motivation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(4).

    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:oup:scippl:v:44:y:2017:i:1:p:121-131.. 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/spp .

    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.