IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ehl/lserod/129440.html

The impact of novelty examination on the regional distribution of patenting activity in early 20th century Britain

Author

Listed:
  • Tate, Anya

Abstract

The late 19th-century reforms to the British patenting system reduced the cost of obtaining a patent from over £100 in 1851 to just £4 by 1883. While increasing accessibility, this cost reduction led to an increase of low-quality patents often replicating previous inventions, raising concerns about the system's effectiveness. As a result, the 1902 policy proposed novelty examination for the first time, increasing the cost by 25%. This paper examines whether the implementation of this policy in 1905 had a differential effect on patenting activity across British regions. Despite the significance of this policy, it has received extremely limited academic attention. This research aims to fill this gap and add to the literature on the regional impacts of patent system reforms in this period. This study employs panel regressions using data on every geocoded patent sealed between 1895-1915 in the PatentCity database with regional employment in 28 industries as controls. Results indicate no change in the regional distribution of patenting activity as a result of the novelty examination. These findings are consistent with those of Nicholas (2011) for the 1883 policy and have important implications for the geography of inventive activity and the distributional impacts of invention policies.

Suggested Citation

  • Tate, Anya, 2025. "The impact of novelty examination on the regional distribution of patenting activity in early 20th century Britain," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 129440, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    • Handle: RePEc:ehl:lserod:129440
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/129440/
    File Function: Open access version.
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nicholas Crafts, 2005. "Regional Gdp In Britain, 1871–1911: Some Estimates," Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Scottish Economic Society, vol. 52(1), pages 54-64, February.
    2. Josh Lerner, 2009. "The Empirical Impact of Intellectual Property Rights on Innovation: Puzzles and Clues," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 99(2), pages 343-348, May.
    3. Allen, Robert C., 1983. "Collective invention," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 4(1), pages 1-24, March.
    4. Romer, Paul M, 1990. "Endogenous Technological Change," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 98(5), pages 71-102, October.
    5. Hanlon, W. Walker & Miscio, Antonio, 2017. "Agglomeration: A long-run panel data approach," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 1-14.
    6. Gaétan de Rassenfosse & William E. Griffiths & Adam B. Jaffe & Elizabeth Webster, 2021. "Low-Quality Patents in the Eye of the Beholder: Evidence from Multiple Examiners," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 37(3), pages 607-636.
    7. Schmookler, Jacob, 1962. "Economic Sources of Inventive Activity," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 22(1), pages 1-20, March.
    8. Moser, Petra, 2011. "Do Patents Weaken the Localization of Innovations? Evidence from World's Fairs," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 71(2), pages 363-382, June.
    9. Arundel, Anthony & Kabla, Isabelle, 1998. "What percentage of innovations are patented? empirical estimates for European firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 127-141, June.
    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. James Bessen, 2010. "Communicating Technical Knowledge," Working Papers 1001, Research on Innovation.
    2. Sharma, Abhijit & Sousa, Cristina & Woodward, Richard, 2022. "Determinants of innovation outcomes: The role of institutional quality," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 118(C).
    3. Suominen, Arho & Deschryvere, Matthias & Narayan, Rumy, 2023. "Uncovering value through exploration of barriers - A perspective on intellectual property rights in a national innovation system," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 123(C).
    4. 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.
    5. Barge-Gil, Andrés & López, Alberto, 2014. "R&D determinants: Accounting for the differences between research and development," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(9), pages 1634-1648.
    6. B. Zorina Khan, 2014. "Of Time and Space: Technological Spillovers among Patents and Unpatented Innovations during Early U.S. Industrialization," NBER Working Papers 20732, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. Hong, Junjie & Shi, Fangyuan & Zheng, Yuhan, 2023. "Does network infrastructure construction reduce energy intensity? Based on the “Broadband China” strategy," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 190(C).
    8. Hötte, Kerstin, 2023. "Demand-pull, technology-push, and the direction of technological change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(5).
    9. Hu, Mei-Chih & Mathews, John A., 2005. "National innovative capacity in East Asia," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(9), pages 1322-1349, November.
    10. Rebecca Williams & Les Oxley, 2016. "The Geography of Inventiveness in the Primary Sector: Some Initial Results for New Zealand, 1880–1895," Australian Economic History Review, Economic History Society of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 56(2), pages 151-173, July.
    11. Breuer, Matthias & Leuz, Christian & Vanhaverbeke, Steven, 2025. "Reporting regulation and corporate innovation," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 80(1).
    12. Taalbi, Josef, 2017. "What drives innovation? Evidence from economic history," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(8), pages 1437-1453.
    13. Crass, Dirk & Schwiebacher, Franz, 2013. "Do trademarks diminish the substitutability of products in innovative knowledge-intensive services?," ZEW Discussion Papers 13-061, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    14. Pier Patrucco, 2008. "The economics of collective knowledge and technological communication," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 33(6), pages 579-599, December.
    15. Malte Mosel, 2009. "Competition, imitation, and R&D productivity in agrowth model with sector-specific patent protection," Working Papers 084, Bavarian Graduate Program in Economics (BGPE).
    16. Su, Zhongfeng & Wang, Chenfeng & Peng, Mike W., 2022. "Intellectual property rights protection and total factor productivity," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 31(3).
    17. Xavier Vives, 2008. "Innovation And Competitive Pressure," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 56(3), pages 419-469, December.
    18. Yindan Ye & Kevin De Moortel & Thomas Crispeels, 2020. "Network dynamics of Chinese university knowledge transfer," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 45(4), pages 1228-1254, August.
    19. de Rassenfosse, Gaetan & van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, Bruno, 2009. "A policy insight into the R&D-patent relationship," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(5), pages 779-792, June.
    20. Choi, Mincheol & Lee, Chang-Yang, 2021. "Technological diversification and R&D productivity: The moderating effects of knowledge spillovers and core-technology competence," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • O30 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - General
    • R10 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General Regional Economics - - - General

    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:ehl:lserod:129440. 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: LSERO Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/lsepsuk.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.