IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/bea/wpaper/0200.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Measuring the Cost of Open Source Software Innovation on GitHub

Author

Listed:
  • J Bayoán Santiago Calderón
  • Carol Robbins
  • Ledia Guci
  • Gizem Korkmaz
  • Brandon L. Kramer

    (Bureau of Economic Analysis)

Abstract

Open source software (OSS) is software that anyone can study, inspect, modify, and distribute freely under very limited restrictions, generally attribution. While OSS is vital to virtually all aspects of modern society, there is no standard methodology to satisfactorily measure the scope and impact of these intangible assets. Today, GitHub is the world’s largest forge with over 80 million users and 118 million public repositories. This study presents a framework based on GitHub’s administrative data to discover, profle, and measure the development of OSS. The data include over 7.75 million original, nondeprecated repositories with a machine detectable OSI-approved license. For each repository, we collect metadata such as commits, license, and information about contributors. Adopting a cost estimation model from software engineering and national accounting methods for measurement of software, we develop a methodology to generate estimates of investment in OSS that are consistent with measures of software investment in the U.S. national accounts. Our current estimates show that the U.S. investment in OSS in 2019 was $36.2 billion.

Suggested Citation

  • J Bayoán Santiago Calderón & Carol Robbins & Ledia Guci & Gizem Korkmaz & Brandon L. Kramer, 2022. "Measuring the Cost of Open Source Software Innovation on GitHub," BEA Working Papers 0200, Bureau of Economic Analysis.
    • Handle: RePEc:bea:wpaper:0200
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.bea.gov/system/files/papers/BEA-WP2022-10.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ben R. Martin, 2016. "Twenty challenges for innovation studies," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 43(3), pages 432-450.
    2. Dahlander, Linus & Magnusson, Mats G., 2005. "Relationships between open source software companies and communities: Observations from Nordic firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(4), pages 481-493, May.
    3. Greenstein, Shane & Nagle, Frank, 2014. "Digital dark matter and the economic contribution of Apache," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(4), pages 623-631.
    4. Leonard Nakamura & Jon Samuels & Rachel Soloveichik, 2017. "Measuring the Free Digital Economy within the GDP and Productivity Accounts," BEA Working Papers 0146, Bureau of Economic Analysis.
    5. Robert P. Parker & Bruce T. Grimm, 2000. "Recognition of Business and Government Expenditures for Software as Investment: Methodology and Quantitative Impacts, 1959-98," BEA Papers 0002, Bureau of Economic Analysis.
    6. Sallie Keller & Gizem Korkmaz & Carol Robbins & Stephanie Shipp, 2018. "Opportunities to observe and measure intangible inputs to innovation: Definitions, operationalization, and examples," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 115(50), pages 12638-12645, December.
    7. Peter ven de Ven & Anne Harrison & Barbara Fraumeni & Carol Corrado & Jonathan Haskel & Cecilia Jona-Lasinio, 2017. "Public Intangibles: The Public Sector and Economic Growth in the SNA," Review of Income and Wealth, International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, vol. 63, pages 355-380, December.
    8. Bockstael, Nancy E & McConnell, Kenneth E, 1983. "Welfare Measurement in the Household Production Framework," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 73(4), pages 806-814, September.
    9. Alfonso Gambardella & Bronwyn H. Hall, 2010. "Proprietary versus Public Domain Licensing of Software and Research Products," Chapters, in: Riccardo Viale & Henry Etzkowitz (ed.), The Capitalization of Knowledge, chapter 6, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    10. Gault, Fred, 2018. "Defining and measuring innovation in all sectors of the economy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(3), pages 617-622.
    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. Engelhardt, Sebastian v. & Freytag, Andreas, 2013. "Institutions, culture, and open source," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 90-110.
    2. Francesco Rullani & Lorenzo Zirulia, 2011. "A Supply Side Story for a Threshold Model: Endogenous Growth of the Free and Open Source Community," DRUID Working Papers 11-06, DRUID, Copenhagen Business School, Department of Industrial Economics and Strategy/Aalborg University, Department of Business Studies.
    3. Murciano-Goroff, Raviv & Zhuo, Ran & Greenstein, Shane, 2021. "Hidden software and veiled value creation: Illustrations from server software usage," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(9).
    4. Shaikh, Maha & Levina, Natalia, 2019. "Selecting an open innovation community as an alliance partner: Looking for healthy communities and ecosystems," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(8), pages 1-1.
    5. Christian Peukert & Margaritha Windisch, 2023. "The Economics of Copyright in the Digital Age," CESifo Working Paper Series 10687, CESifo.
    6. repec:nbr:nberch:14271 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Andrea Fosfuri & Marco S. Giarratana & Alessandra Luzzi, 2008. "The Penguin Has Entered the Building: The Commercialization of Open Source Software Products," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 19(2), pages 292-305, April.
    8. Klessova, Svetlana & Engell, Sebastian & Thomas, Catherine, 2022. "Assessment of the advancement of market-upstream innovations and of the performance of research and innovation projects," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    9. Matt Germonprez & Julie E. Kendall & Kenneth E. Kendall & Lars Mathiassen & Brett Young & Brian Warner, 2017. "A Theory of Responsive Design: A Field Study of Corporate Engagement with Open Source Communities," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 28(1), pages 64-83, March.
    10. Goldin, Ian & Koutroumpis, Pantelis & Lafond, François & Winkler, Julian, 2020. "Why is productivity slowing down?," MPRA Paper 99172, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Svetlana Klessova & Sebastian Engell & Catherine Thomas, 2022. "Assessment of the advancement of market-upstream innovations and of the performance of research and innovation projects," Post-Print hal-03636260, HAL.
    12. 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.
    13. Frank Nagle, 2018. "Learning by Contributing: Gaining Competitive Advantage Through Contribution to Crowdsourced Public Goods," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(4), pages 569-587, August.
    14. Bernard Sinclair-Desgagné, 2022. "Measuring innovation and innovativeness: a data-mining approach," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 56(4), pages 2415-2434, August.
    15. Feuerstein Patrick & Hanekop Heidemarie, 2017. "Koordination überbetrieblicher Wissensproduktion: Zum Spannungsverhältnis zwischen Unternehmen und Communities in Open-Source-Projekten mit Unternehmensbeteiligung," Arbeit, De Gruyter, vol. 26(1), pages 111-136, April.
    16. Suhada, Thontowi A. & Ford, Jerad A. & Verreynne, Martie-Louise & Indulska, Marta, 2021. "Motivating individuals to contribute to firms’ non-pecuniary open innovation goals," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    17. Steffen S. Bettin, 2020. "Electricity infrastructure and innovation in the next phase of energy transition—amendments to the technology innovation system framework," Review of Evolutionary Political Economy, Springer, vol. 1(3), pages 371-395, November.
    18. Bitzer, Jürgen & Geishecker, Ingo, 2010. "Who contributes voluntarily to OSS? An investigation among German IT employees," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 165-172, February.
    19. Petersen, Alexander M. & Rotolo, Daniele & Leydesdorff, Loet, 2016. "A triple helix model of medical innovation: Supply, demand, and technological capabilities in terms of Medical Subject Headings," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 666-681.
    20. Bowker, James Michael & Starbuck, C. Meghan & English, Donald B.K. & Bergstrom, John C. & Rosenberger, Randall S. & McCollum, Daniel W., 2009. "Estimating the Net Economic Value of National Forest Recreation: An Application of the National Visitor Use Monitoring Database," Faculty Series 59603, University of Georgia, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    21. Mendonça, Joana & Reis, Anabela, 2020. "Exploring the mechanisms of gender effects in user innovation," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 155(C).

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • C82 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Data Collection and Data Estimation Methodology; Computer Programs - - - Methodology for Collecting, Estimating, and Organizing Macroeconomic Data; Data Access
    • E22 - Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics - - Consumption, Saving, Production, Employment, and Investment - - - Investment; Capital; Intangible Capital; Capacity
    • H42 - Public Economics - - Publicly Provided Goods - - - Publicly Provided Private Goods
    • L17 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Open Source Products and Markets
    • O3 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights
    • O51 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economywide Country Studies - - - U.S.; Canada

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:bea:wpaper:0200. 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: Andrea Batch (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/beagvus.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.