IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/esx/essedp/2846.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

How Basic is (Patented) University Research? The Case of GM Crops

Author

Listed:
  • Conti, M
  • Régibeau, P
  • Rockett, K

Abstract

One of the main reasons for subsidising university research is the widespread belief that it generates proportionally more positive knowledge externalities than corporate research. Over the last two decades, however, this belief has been shaken by the increasingly aggressive patenting of university-based innovation. This perception was supported by Henderson, Jaffe and Trajtenberg (1998) who found both a sharp increase in university patenting and a decrease in the relative 'importance' of university innovation over the later part of their 1965-1992 sample. In this paper, we have compared the knowledge externalities generated by university and corporate patents related to GM crop research. Our main measure of knowledge externalities is the total number of third party cites generated by a patent. Our main result is that patented university research is not associated with greater knowledge externalities than corresponding corporate patents. If anything, corporate patents appear to generate greater numbers of net citations. This basic conclusion survives when we control for a number of variables that could affect citation counts (e.g. patent examiner effects) and when we break our sample into sub-periods. This does not imply that university patents are similar to corporate patents in every respect. We find two main differences. Firstly, there is some evidence that the shape of the distribution of citations is not identical for the two groups of patents as university patents appear to experience a more sluggish start than their corporate brethren. Secondly, even controlling quite narrowly for areas of specialisation, university patents receive a disproportionate number of cites from other university patents. These two results suggest that there are some fundamental differences in the types of knowledge flows generated by university and corporate patents.

Suggested Citation

  • Conti, M & Régibeau, P & Rockett, K, 2003. "How Basic is (Patented) University Research? The Case of GM Crops," Economics Discussion Papers 2846, University of Essex, Department of Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:esx:essedp:2846
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://repository.essex.ac.uk/2846/
    File Function: original version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Régibeau, P & Rockett, K, 2003. "Are More Important Patents Approved More Slowly and Should They Be?," Economics Discussion Papers 2850, University of Essex, Department of Economics.
    2. Rebecca Henderson & Adam B. Jaffe & Manuel Trajtenberg, 1998. "Universities As A Source Of Commercial Technology: A Detailed Analysis Of University Patenting, 1965-1988," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 80(1), pages 119-127, February.
    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. Kyriakos Drivas & Claire Economidou, 2013. "Government sponsorship and nature of patenting activity of US universities and corporations," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(8), pages 775-806, November.

    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. Zhang, Feng & Jiang, Guohua & Cantwell, John A., 2015. "Subsidiary exploration and the innovative performance of large multinational corporations," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 224-234.
    2. Saul Lach & Mark Schankerman, 2008. "Incentives and invention in universities," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 39(2), pages 403-433, June.
    3. Roberto Iorio & Sandrine Labory & Francesco Rentocchini, 2014. "Academics’ Motivations and Depth and Breadth of Knowledge Transfer Activities," Working Papers 1401, c.MET-05 - Centro Interuniversitario di Economia Applicata alle Politiche per L'industria, lo Sviluppo locale e l'Internazionalizzazione.
    4. Holger Patzelt & Dean A. Shepherd, 2009. "Strategic Entrepreneurship at Universities: Academic Entrepreneurs’ Assessment of Policy Programs," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 33(1), pages 319-340, January.
    5. Catalina MARTINEZ & Valerio STERZI, 2019. "The impact of the abolishment of the professor’s privilege on European university-owned patents," Cahiers du GREThA (2007-2019) 2019-15, Groupe de Recherche en Economie Théorique et Appliquée (GREThA).
    6. Beck, Mathias & Junge, Martin & Kaiser, Ulrich, 2017. "Public Funding and Corporate Innovation," IZA Discussion Papers 11196, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    7. Lawson, Cornelia, 2014. "Putting the Region first: Knowledge Transfer at Universities in Greater Manchester," Department of Economics and Statistics Cognetti de Martiis. Working Papers 201410, University of Turin.
    8. Paola Giuri & Federico Munari & Martina Pasquini, 2013. "What Determines University Patent Commercialization? Empirical Evidence on the Role of IPR Ownership," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(5), pages 488-502, July.
    9. Dejing Kong & Jianzhong Yang & Lingfeng Li, 2020. "Early identification of technological convergence in numerical control machine tool: a deep learning approach," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(3), pages 1983-2009, December.
    10. Paula Susana Figueiredo Moutinho & Margarida Fontes & Manuel Mira Godinho, 2007. "Do individual factors matter? A survey of scientists’ patenting in Portuguese public research organisations," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 70(2), pages 355-377, February.
    11. Lee Branstetter & Kwon Hyeog Ug, 2004. "The Restructuring Of Japanese Research And Development: The Increasing Impact Of Science On Japanese R&D," Discussion papers 04021, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).
    12. Michael Roach & Wesley M. Cohen, 2012. "Lens or Prism? Patent Citations as a Measure of Knowledge Flows from Public Research," NBER Working Papers 18292, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    13. Francesco Lissoni & Patrick Llerena & Maureen McKelvey & Bulat Sanditov, 2008. "Academic patenting in Europe: new evidence from the KEINS database," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 17(2), pages 87-102, June.
    14. Inchae Park & Yujin Jeong & Byungun Yoon, 2017. "Analyzing the value of technology based on the differences of patent citations between applicants and examiners," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(2), pages 665-691, May.
    15. Choe, Hochull & Lee, Duk Hee & Kim, Hee Dae & Seo, Il Won, 2016. "Structural properties and inter-organizational knowledge flows of patent citation network: The case of organic solar cells," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 361-370.
    16. Gnanaraj Chellaraj & Keith E. Maskus & Aaditya Mattoo, 2008. "The Contribution of International Graduate Students to US Innovation," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 16(3), pages 444-462, August.
    17. Dirk Czarnitzki & Katrin Hussinger & Cédric Schneider, 2015. "R&D Collaboration with Uncertain Intellectual Property Rights," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 46(2), pages 183-204, March.
    18. Gersbach, Hans & Sorger, Gerhard & Amon, Christian, 2018. "Hierarchical growth: Basic and applied research," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 434-459.
    19. Magerman, Tom & Looy, Bart Van & Debackere, Koenraad, 2015. "Does involvement in patenting jeopardize one’s academic footprint? An analysis of patent-paper pairs in biotechnology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(9), pages 1702-1713.
    20. Pontus Braunerhjelm & Ding Ding & Per Thulin, 2018. "The knowledge spillover theory of intrapreneurship," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 51(1), pages 1-30, June.

    More about this item

    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:esx:essedp:2846. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Essex Economics Web Manager). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/edessuk.html .

    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 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.