IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/eti/dpaper/09034.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Who Invents?: Evidence from the Japan-U.S. inventor survey

Author

Listed:
  • John P. WALSH
  • NAGAOKA Sadao

Abstract

Human resources are increasingly seen as a key to innovation competitiveness, and there is a need for detailed, systematic data on the demographics of inventors, their motivations, and their careers. To gain systematic data on who invents, we collected detailed information on a sample of inventors in the U.S. and Japan (the RIETI-Georgia Tech inventor survey). The data come from a unique set of matched surveys of U.S. and Japanese inventors of triadic patents, i.e., patents from patent families with granted patents in the U.S. and applications filed in Japan and in the EPO, with data from over 1900 responses from the U.S. and over 3600 responses from Japan. Based on these survey data, we compare the profiles, motivations, mobility and performance of inventors in the U.S. and Japan. Overall, we find some important similarities between inventors in the U.S. and Japan. The distribution across functional affiliations within the firm, by gender, by educational fields and their motivations, are all quite similar. In particular, in both countries we find inventors emphasizing task motivations over pecuniary motivations. Firm-centered motivation (e.g., generating value for my firm) is also an important reason for inventing and this reason is relatively more important in the U.S. than Japan. Their distribution across types of organizations is quite similar. The percent of university inventors is nearly the same in the two countries, and the distribution of these inventors across technology classes is also quite similar. However, the percent from very small firms is significantly higher in the U.S. There are a few important differences. American inventors are much more likely to have a Ph.D. American inventors are older (even controlling for differences in the share of the inventors with Ph.D.s). The modal Japanese inventor has his first invention in his 20s, while for the U.S., the mode is the early 30s, and we also find many more American inventors over age 55 at the time of their triadic patent invention. In both countries, older inventors tend to produce higher value patents. American inventors are also much more mobile (although Japanese inventors with Ph.D.s also have high rates of mobility, mainly in the form of secondments). In the U.S., mobility tends to decline with age, while in Japan, mobility is higher for older inventors (likely due to the differences in retirement ages in the two countries). In both countries, mobility is associated with greater access to outside information. Finally, we find that foreign-born inventors are very important in the U.S. (we did not collect data on country of origin for Japan). Overall, these results suggest that inventor characteristics may be important for firm performance, and that institutional differences may affect the profile of inventors in each country, although the inventors of the two countries are very similar in many respects. Future work will examine how these cross-national differences in inventor profiles affect innovation in each country.

Suggested Citation

  • John P. WALSH & NAGAOKA Sadao, 2009. "Who Invents?: Evidence from the Japan-U.S. inventor survey," Discussion papers 09034, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).
  • Handle: RePEc:eti:dpaper:09034
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.rieti.go.jp/jp/publications/dp/09e034.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. NAGAOKA Sadao & John P. WALSH, 2009. "Commercialization and Other Uses of Patents in Japan and the U.S.: Major findings from the RIETI-Georgia Tech inventor survey," Discussion papers 09011, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).
    2. Hall, B. & Jaffe, A. & Trajtenberg, M., 2001. "The NBER Patent Citations Data File: Lessons, Insights and Methodological Tools," Papers 2001-29, Tel Aviv.
    3. OWAN Hideo & NAGAOKA Sadao, 2011. "Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations of Inventors," Discussion papers 11022, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).
    4. Henry Sauermann & Wesley M. Cohen, 2008. "What Makes Them Tick? Employee Motives and Firm Innovation," NBER Working Papers 14443, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. Giuri, Paola & Mariani, Myriam & Brusoni, Stefano & Crespi, Gustavo & Francoz, Dominique & Gambardella, Alfonso & Garcia-Fontes, Walter & Geuna, Aldo & Gonzales, Raul & Harhoff, Dietmar & Hoisl, Karin, 2007. "Inventors and invention processes in Europe: Results from the PatVal-EU survey," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(8), pages 1107-1127, October.
    6. Paola Criscuolo, 2006. "The 'home advantage' effect and patent families. A comparison of OECD triadic patents, the USPTO and the EPO," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 66(1), pages 23-41, January.
    7. Sadao Nagaoka, 2005. "Determinants of the Introduction of Stock Options by Japanese Firms: Analysis from the Incentive and Selection Perspectives," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 78(6), pages 2289-2316, November.
    8. Hélène Dernis & Mosahid Khan, 2004. "Triadic Patent Families Methodology," OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers 2004/2, OECD Publishing.
    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. Karin Hoisl & Myriam Mariani, 2017. "It’s a Man’s Job: Income and the Gender Gap in Industrial Research," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(3), pages 766-790, March.
    2. Marcus Berliant & Masahisa Fujita, 2011. "The Dynamics of Knowledge Diversity and Economic Growth," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 77(4), pages 856-884, April.
    3. ONISHI Koichiro & NAGAOKA Sadao, 2012. "Life-cycle Productivity of Industrial Inventors: Education and other determinants," Discussion papers 12059, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).
    4. Frosch, Katharina & Harhoff, Dietmar & Hoisl, Karin & Steinle, Christian & Zwick, Thomas, 2015. "Individual determinants of inventor productivity: Report and preliminary results with evidence from linked human capital and patent data," ZEW Discussion Papers 15-001, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    5. Kong, Nancy & Dulleck, Uwe & Jaffe, Adam B. & Sun, Shupeng & Vajjala, Sowmya, 2023. "Linguistic metrics for patent disclosure: Evidence from university versus corporate patents," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(2).
    6. BHARADWAJ, Ashish & KANG, Byeongwoo, 2018. "How does innovation occur in India? Evidence from the JIRICO survey," IIR Working Paper 18-05, Institute of Innovation Research, Hitotsubashi University.
    7. Jung, Taehyun & Ejermo, Olof, 2014. "Demographic patterns and trends in patenting: Gender, age, and education of inventors," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 110-124.

    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. KURODA Sachiko & YAMAMOTO Isamu, 2009. "How are Hours Worked and Wages Affected by Labor Regulations?: The white-collar exemption and 'name-only managers' in Japan," Discussion papers 09031, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).
    2. 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.
    3. Guan-Can Yang & Gang Li & Chun-Ya Li & Yun-Hua Zhao & Jing Zhang & Tong Liu & Dar-Zen Chen & Mu-Hsuan Huang, 2015. "Using the comprehensive patent citation network (CPC) to evaluate patent value," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 105(3), pages 1319-1346, December.
    4. Alex Bell & Raj Chetty & Xavier Jaravel & Neviana Petkova & John Van Reenen, 2019. "Who Becomes an Inventor in America? The Importance of Exposure to Innovation," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 134(2), pages 647-713.
    5. Dirk Czarnitzki & Katrin Hussinger & Bart Leten, 2020. "How Valuable are Patent Blocking Strategies?," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 56(3), pages 409-434, May.
    6. Ufuk Akcigit & Salomé Baslandze & Stefanie Stantcheva, 2016. "Taxation and the International Mobility of Inventors," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 106(10), pages 2930-2981, October.
    7. Crescenzi, Riccardo & Nathan, Max & Rodríguez-Pose, Andrés, 2016. "Do inventors talk to strangers? On proximity and collaborative knowledge creation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 177-194.
    8. Goto, Akira & Motohashi, Kazuyuki, 2007. "Construction of a Japanese Patent Database and a first look at Japanese patenting activities," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(9), pages 1431-1442, November.
    9. Jing Huang & Linda Krull & Rosemarie Ziedonis, 2020. "R&D Investments and Tax Incentives: The Role of Intra‐Firm Cross‐Border Collaboration," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(4), pages 2523-2557, December.
    10. You-Na Lee & John P. Walsh, 2012. "Intra-organizational integration and innovation: organizational structure, environmental contingency and R&D performance," ICER Working Papers 20-2011, ICER - International Centre for Economic Research.
    11. Jiang, Lin & Clark, Brent B. & Turban, Daniel B., 2023. "Overcoming the challenge of exploration: How decompartmentalization of internal communication enhances the effect of exploration on employee inventive performance," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    12. Gianluca Baio & Laura Magazzini & Claudia Oglialoro & Fabio Pammolli & Massimo Riccaboni, 2005. "Medical Devices: Competitiveness and Impact on Public Health Expenditure," Working Papers CERM 05-2005, Competitività, Regole, Mercati (CERM).
    13. Paul H. Jensen & Alfons Palangkaraya & Elizabeth Webster, 2005. "Patent Application Outcomes across the Trilateral Patent Offices," Melbourne Institute Working Paper Series wp2005n05, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, The University of Melbourne.
    14. 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).
    15. Dechezlepretre, Antoine & Martin, Ralf & Mohnen, Myra, 2014. "Knowledge spillovers from clean and dirty technologies," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 60501, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    16. Emanuele Pugliese & Lorenzo Napolitano & Andrea Zaccaria & Luciano Pietronero, 2019. "Coherent diversification in corporate technological portfolios," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(10), pages 1-22, October.
    17. Albino, Vito & Ardito, Lorenzo & Dangelico, Rosa Maria & Messeni Petruzzelli, Antonio, 2014. "Understanding the development trends of low-carbon energy technologies: A patent analysis," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 836-854.
    18. Nicola Bianchi & Michela Giorcelli, 2020. "Scientific Education and Innovation: From Technical Diplomas to University Stem Degrees [The Social Origins and IQ of Inventors]," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 18(5), pages 2608-2646.
    19. Corinne Langinier & Stéphanie Lluis, 2021. "Departure And Promotion Of U.S. Patent Examiners: Do Patent Characteristics Matter?," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 39(2), pages 416-434, April.
    20. Fernández, Ana María & Ferrándiz, Esther & Medina, Jennifer, 2022. "The diffusion of energy technologies. Evidence from renewable, fossil, and nuclear energy patents," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).

    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:eti:dpaper:09034. 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: TANIMOTO, Toko (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/rietijp.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.