IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/h/nbr/nberch/13893.html
   My bibliography  Save this book chapter

Measuring the Impact of Household Innovation Using Administrative Data

In: Measuring and Accounting for Innovation in the Twenty-First Century

Author

Listed:
  • Javier Miranda
  • Nikolas Zolas

Abstract

We link USPTO patent data to U.S. Census Bureau administrative records on individuals and firms. The combined dataset provides us with a directory of patenting household inventors as well as a time-series directory of self-employed businesses tied to household innovations. We describe the characteristics of household inventors by race, age, gender and U.S. origin, as well as the types of patented innovations pursued by these inventors. Business data allows us to highlight how patents shape the early life-cycle dynamics of nonemployer businesses. We find household innovators are disproportionately U.S. born, white and their age distribution has thicker tails relative to business innovators. Data shows there is a deficit of female and black inventors. Household inventors tend to work in consumer product areas compared to traditional business patents. While patented household innovations do not have the same impact of business innovations their uniqueness and impact remains surprisingly high. Back of the envelope calculations suggest patented household innovations granted between 2000 and 2011 might generate $5.0B in revenue (2000 dollars).
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:nbr:nberch:13893
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.nber.org/chapters/c13893.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Benjamin F. Jones, 2009. "The Burden of Knowledge and the "Death of the Renaissance Man": Is Innovation Getting Harder?," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 76(1), pages 283-317.
    2. Robert W. Fairlie & Javier Miranda, 2017. "Taking the Leap: The Determinants of Entrepreneurs Hiring Their First Employee," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(1), pages 3-34, February.
    3. von Hippel, Eric, 1976. "The dominant role of users in the scientific instrument innovation process," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 5(3), pages 212-239, July.
    4. Carlos J. Serrano, 2010. "The dynamics of the transfer and renewal of patents," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 41(4), pages 686-708, December.
    5. 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.
    6. Deborah Wagner & Mary Lane, 2014. "The Person Identification Validation System (PVS): Applying the Center for Administrative Records Research and Applications’ (CARRA) Record Linkage Software," CARRA Working Papers 2014-01, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.
    7. Arora, Ashish & Cohen, Wesley M. & Walsh, John P., 2016. "The acquisition and commercialization of invention in American manufacturing: Incidence and impact," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(6), pages 1113-1128.
    8. Franke, Nikolaus & Shah, Sonali, 2003. "How communities support innovative activities: an exploration of assistance and sharing among end-users," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 157-178, January.
    9. Bronwyn H. Hall & Manuel Trajtenberg, 2004. "Uncovering GPTS with Patent Data," NBER Working Papers 10901, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    10. Stuart J.H. Graham & Cheryl Grim & Tariqul Islam & Alan C. Marco & Javier Miranda, 2018. "Business dynamics of innovating firms: Linking U.S. patents with administrative data on workers and firms," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(3), pages 372-402, September.
    11. 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.
    12. Dahlin, Kristina B. & Behrens, Dean M., 2005. "When is an invention really radical?: Defining and measuring technological radicalness," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(5), pages 717-737, June.
    13. Kristina Dahlin & Deans M. Behrens, 2005. "When is an invention really radical? Defining and measuring technological radicalness," Post-Print hal-00480416, HAL.
    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. 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.
    2. Cornelius A. Rietveld & Pankaj C. Patel, 0. "Prescription opioids and new business establishments," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 0, pages 1-25.
    3. Cornelius A. Rietveld & Pankaj C. Patel, 2021. "Prescription opioids and new business establishments," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 57(3), pages 1175-1199, October.

    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. Barbieri, Nicolò & Marzucchi, Alberto & Rizzo, Ugo, 2020. "Knowledge sources and impacts on subsequent inventions: Do green technologies differ from non-green ones?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(2).
    2. Michele Cincera & Ela Ince, 2019. "Types of Innovation and Firm performance," Working Papers TIMES² 2019-032, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    3. Resch, Christian & Kock, Alexander, 2021. "The influence of information depth and information breadth on brokers’ idea newness in online maker communities," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(8).
    4. Carolina Castaldi & Bart Los, 2008. "The identification of important innovations using tail estimators," Innovation Studies Utrecht (ISU) working paper series 08-07, Utrecht University, Department of Innovation Studies, revised Feb 2008.
    5. Sarah Kaplan & Keyvan Vakili, 2015. "The double-edged sword of recombination in breakthrough innovation," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(10), pages 1435-1457, October.
    6. Wesley M. Cohen & You-Na Lee & John P. Walsh, 2019. "How Innovative Are Innovations? A Multidimensional, Survey-Based Approach," NBER Chapters, in: Measuring and Accounting for Innovation in the Twenty-First Century, pages 139-182, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. Jan M. Gerken & Martin G. Moehrle, 2012. "A new instrument for technology monitoring: novelty in patents measured by semantic patent analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 91(3), pages 645-670, June.
    8. Leone, Maria Isabella & Messeni Petruzzelli, Antonio & Natalicchio, Angelo, 2022. "Boundary spanning through external technology acquisition: The moderating role of star scientists and upstream alliances," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    9. Strumsky, Deborah & Lobo, José, 2015. "Identifying the sources of technological novelty in the process of invention," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(8), pages 1445-1461.
    10. Adam B. Jaffe & Gaétan de Rassenfosse, 2017. "Patent citation data in social science research: Overview and best practices," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 68(6), pages 1360-1374, June.
    11. Karen Ruckman & Ian McCarthy, 2017. "Why do some patents get licensed while others do not?," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 26(4), pages 667-688.
    12. 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.
    13. Trapido, Denis, 2015. "How novelty in knowledge earns recognition: The role of consistent identities," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(8), pages 1488-1500.
    14. Santamaría Sánchez, Luis & Nieto Sánchez, María Jesús, 2005. "Novelty of product innovation : the role of different networks," DEE - Working Papers. Business Economics. WB wb056516, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid. Departamento de Economía de la Empresa.
    15. Ron Boschma & Pierre-Alexandre Balland & Dieter Franz Kogler, 2015. "Relatedness and technological change in cities: the rise and fall of technological knowledge in US metropolitan areas from 1981 to 2010," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 24(1), pages 223-250.
    16. Nemet, Gregory F., 2012. "Inter-technology knowledge spillovers for energy technologies," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(5), pages 1259-1270.
    17. Svensson, Peter O. & Hartmann, Rasmus Koss, 2018. "Policies to promote user innovation: Makerspaces and clinician innovation in Swedish hospitals," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 277-288.
    18. Kathryn Rudie Harrigan & Maria Chiara Guardo & Elona Marku, 2018. "Patent value and the Tobin’s q ratio in media services," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 43(1), pages 1-19, February.
    19. Tamar C Weenen & Bahar Ramezanpour & Esther S Pronker & Harry Commandeur & Eric Claassen, 2013. "Food-Pharma Convergence in Medical Nutrition– Best of Both Worlds?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(12), pages 1-11, December.
    20. Lee, You-Na & Walsh, John P. & Wang, Jian, 2015. "Creativity in scientific teams: Unpacking novelty and impact," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(3), pages 684-697.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • O3 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights
    • O31 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives
    • O35 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Social Innovation

    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:nberch:13893. 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.