IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cen/wpaper/16-15.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

An ‘Algorithmic Links with Probabilities’ Crosswalk for USPC and CPC Patent Classifications with an Application Towards Industrial Technology Composition

Author

Listed:
  • Nathan Goldschlag
  • Travis J. Lybbert
  • Nikolas J. Zolas

Abstract

Patents are a useful proxy for innovation, technological change, and diffusion. However, fully exploiting patent data for economic analyses requires patents be tied to measures of economic activity, which has proven to be difficult. Recently, Lybbert and Zolas (2014) have constructed an International Patent Classification (IPC) to industry classification crosswalk using an ‘Algorithmic Links with Probabilities’ approach. In this paper, we utilize a similar approach and apply it to new patent classification schemes, the U.S. Patent Classification (USPC) system and Cooperative Patent Classification (CPC) system. The resulting USPC-Industry and CPC-Industry concordances link both U.S. and global patents to multiple vintages of the North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS), International Standard Industrial Classification (ISIC), Harmonized System (HS) and Standard International Trade Classification (SITC). We then use the crosswalk to highlight changes to industrial technology composition over time. We find suggestive evidence of strong persistence in the association between technologies and industries over time.

Suggested Citation

  • Nathan Goldschlag & Travis J. Lybbert & Nikolas J. Zolas, 2016. "An ‘Algorithmic Links with Probabilities’ Crosswalk for USPC and CPC Patent Classifications with an Application Towards Industrial Technology Composition," Working Papers 16-15, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.
  • Handle: RePEc:cen:wpaper:16-15
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www2.census.gov/ces/wp/2016/CES-WP-16-15.pdf
    File Function: First version, 2016
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Aghion, Philippe & Howitt, Peter, 1992. "A Model of Growth through Creative Destruction," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 60(2), pages 323-351, March.
    2. Lybbert, Travis J. & Zolas, Nikolas J., 2014. "Getting patents and economic data to speak to each other: An ‘Algorithmic Links with Probabilities’ approach for joint analyses of patenting and economic activity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 530-542.
    3. Zvi Griliches, 1998. "R&D and Productivity: The Econometric Evidence," NBER Books, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, number gril98-1, January.
    4. Zvi Griliches, 1998. "Patent Statistics as Economic Indicators: A Survey," NBER Chapters, in: R&D and Productivity: The Econometric Evidence, pages 287-343, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. 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.
    6. Romer, Paul M, 1990. "Endogenous Technological Change," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 98(5), pages 71-102, October.
    7. Mansfield, Edwin & Schwartz, Mark & Wagner, Samuel, 1981. "Imitation Costs and Patents: An Empirical Study," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 91(364), pages 907-918, December.
    8. Richard C. Levin & Alvin K. Klevorick & Richard R. Nelson & Sidney G. Winter, 1987. "Appropriating the Returns from Industrial Research and Development," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, vol. 18(3, Specia), pages 783-832.
    9. Griliches, Zvi, 1998. "R&D and Productivity," National Bureau of Economic Research Books, University of Chicago Press, edition 1, number 9780226308869, January.
    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. Bryan Kelly & Dimitris Papanikolaou & Amit Seru & Matt Taddy, 2021. "Measuring Technological Innovation over the Long Run," American Economic Review: Insights, American Economic Association, vol. 3(3), pages 303-320, September.
    2. Marco Grazzi & Chiara Piccardo & Cecilia Vergari, 2020. "Concordance and complementarity in IP instruments," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 27(7), pages 756-788, August.
    3. M. Grazzi & C. Piccardo & C. Vergari, 2019. "Concordance and complementarity in Intellectual Property instruments," Working Papers wp1127, Dipartimento Scienze Economiche, Universita' di Bologna.
    4. Kim, Jinhwan & Valentine, Kristen, 2023. "Public firm disclosures and the market for innovation," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 76(1).
    5. Giovanni Dosi & Marco Grazzi & Daniele Moschella, 2017. "What do firms know? What do they produce? A new look at the relationship between patenting profiles and patterns of product diversification," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 48(2), pages 413-429, February.
    6. Kukharskyy, Bohdan, 2020. "A tale of two property rights: Knowledge, physical assets, and multinational firm boundaries," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 122(C).
    7. Diodato, Dario & Neffke, Frank & O’Clery, Neave, 2018. "Why do industries coagglomerate? How Marshallian externalities differ by industry and have evolved over time," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 1-26.

    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. Burcu Fazlıoğlu & Başak Dalgıç & Ahmet Burçin Yereli, 2019. "The effect of innovation on productivity: evidence from Turkish manufacturing firms," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(4), pages 439-460, April.
    2. Michele Cincera, 2005. "Firms' productivity growth and R&D spillovers: An analysis of alternative technological proximity measures," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(8), pages 657-682.
    3. Douglas Hanley, 2014. "Innovation, Technological Interdependence, and Economic Growth," Working Paper 533, Department of Economics, University of Pittsburgh, revised Jan 2014.
    4. Nathan Goldschlag & Elisabeth Perlman, 2017. "Business Dynamic Statistics of Innovative Firms," Working Papers 17-72, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.
    5. Viroj Jienwatcharamongkhol & Sam Tavassoli, 2015. "Closing the gap: empirical evidence on firms’ innovation, productivity and exports," Chapters, in: Charlie Karlsson & Urban Gråsjö & Sofia Wixe (ed.), Innovation and Entrepreneurship in the Global Economy, chapter 12, pages 281-309, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    6. Douglas Hanley, 2015. "Innovation, Technological Interdependence, and Economic Growth," 2015 Meeting Papers 1491, Society for Economic Dynamics.
    7. Gao, Wenlian & Chou, Julia, 2015. "Innovation efficiency, global diversification, and firm value," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 30(C), pages 278-298.
    8. Grafström, Jonas & Jaunky, Vishal, 2017. "Convergence of Incentive Capabilities within the European Union," Ratio Working Papers 301, The Ratio Institute.
    9. Bertoni, Fabio & Tykvová, Tereza, 2015. "Does governmental venture capital spur invention and innovation? Evidence from young European biotech companies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(4), pages 925-935.
    10. 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).
    11. Mauro Soto Rubio & Vicente Germán-Soto & Luis Gutiérrez Flores, 2023. "Patentes, tamaño de empresa y financiamiento público en México: análisis regional con modelos de datos de conteo," Remef - Revista Mexicana de Economía y Finanzas Nueva Época REMEF (The Mexican Journal of Economics and Finance), Instituto Mexicano de Ejecutivos de Finanzas, IMEF, vol. 18(1), pages 1-26, Enero - M.
    12. Bettina Becker, 2013. "The Determinants of R&D Investment: A Survey of the Empirical Research," Discussion Paper Series 2013_09, Department of Economics, Loughborough University, revised Sep 2013.
    13. Andreas Pollak, 2014. "Rising R&D Intensity And Economic Growth," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 52(4), pages 1427-1445, October.
    14. Jonas Grafström, 2018. "Divergence of renewable energy invention efforts in Europe: an econometric analysis based on patent counts," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 20(4), pages 829-859, October.
    15. 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.
    16. Samuel Kortum, 1994. "A Model of Research, Patenting, and Technological Change," NBER Working Papers 4646, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    17. Cohen, Wesley M., 2010. "Fifty Years of Empirical Studies of Innovative Activity and Performance," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 129-213, Elsevier.
    18. Kumar, Sanjesh & Singh, Baljeet, 2019. "Barriers to the international diffusion of technological innovations," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 74-86.
    19. Ramesh Chandra Das & Sujata Mukherjee, 2020. "Do Spending on R&D Influence Income? An Enquiry on the World’s Leading Economies and Groups," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 11(4), pages 1295-1315, December.
    20. Stavins, Robert & Jaffe, Adam & Newell, Richard, 2000. "Technological Change and the Environment," Working Paper Series rwp00-002, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.

    More about this item

    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:cen:wpaper:16-15. 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: Dawn Anderson (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cesgvus.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.