IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/23042.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Prestige and Profit: The Royal Society of Arts and Incentives for Innovation, 1750-1850

Author

Listed:
  • B. Zorina Khan

Abstract

Debates have long centered around the relative merits of prizes and other incentives for technological innovation. Some economists have cited the experience of the prestigious Royal Society of Arts (RSA), which offered honorary and cash awards, as proof of the efficacy of innovation prizes. The Society initially was averse to patents and prohibited the award of prizes for patented inventions. This study examines data on several thousand of these inducement prizes, matched with patent records and biographical information about the applicants. The empirical analysis shows that inventors of items that were valuable in the marketplace typically chose to obtain patents and to bypass the prize system. Owing to such adverse selection, prizes were negatively related to subsequent areas of important technological discovery. The RSA ultimately became disillusioned with the prize system, which they recognized had done little to promote technological progress and industrialization. The Society acknowledged that its efforts had been “futile” because of its hostility to patents, and switched from offering inducement prizes towards lobbying for reforms to strengthen the patent system. The findings suggest some skepticism is warranted about claims regarding the role that elites and nonmarket-oriented institutions played in generating technological innovation and long-term economic development.

Suggested Citation

  • B. Zorina Khan, 2017. "Prestige and Profit: The Royal Society of Arts and Incentives for Innovation, 1750-1850," NBER Working Papers 23042, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  • Handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:23042
    Note: DAE LE PR
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w23042.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Fehr, Ernst & Falk, Armin, 2002. "Psychological foundations of incentives," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 46(4-5), pages 687-724, May.
    2. Nancy Gallini & Suzanne Scotchmer, 2002. "Intellectual Property: When Is It the Best Incentive System?," NBER Chapters, in: Innovation Policy and the Economy, Volume 2, pages 51-78, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Jones, Charles I., 2005. "Growth and Ideas," Handbook of Economic Growth, in: Philippe Aghion & Steven Durlauf (ed.), Handbook of Economic Growth, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 16, pages 1063-1111, Elsevier.
    4. B. Zorina Khan, 2015. "Knowledge, Human Capital and Economic Development: Evidence from the British Industrial Revolution, 1750-1930," NBER Working Papers 20853, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. B. Zorina Khan, 2014. "Inventing in the Shadow of the Patent System: Evidence from 19th-Century Patents and Prizes for Technological Innovations," NBER Working Papers 20731, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. Khan, B. Zorina, 2015. "Inventing Prizes: A Historical Perspective on Innovation Awards and Technology Policy," Business History Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 89(4), pages 631-660, January.
    7. Shavell, Steven & van Ypersele, Tanguy, 2001. "Rewards versus Intellectual Property Rights," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 44(2), pages 525-547, October.
    8. Mara P. Squicciarini & Nico Voigtländer, 2015. "Human Capital and Industrialization: Evidence from the Age of Enlightenment," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 130(4), pages 1825-1883.
    9. Dora L. Costa & Naomi R. Lamoreaux, 2011. "Understanding Long-Run Economic Growth: Geography, Institutions, and the Knowledge Economy," NBER Books, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, number cost10-1.
    10. Alessandro Nuvolari, 2004. "Collective invention during the British Industrial Revolution: the case of the Cornish pumping engine," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 28(3), pages 347-363, May.
    11. B. Zorina Khan, 2013. "Going for Gold. Industrial Fairs and Innovation in the Nineteenth-Century United States," Revue économique, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 64(1), pages 89-113.
    12. Griffiths, Trevor & Hunt, Philip A. & O'Brien, Patrick K., 1992. "Inventive Activity in the British Textile Industry, 1700–1800," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 52(4), pages 881-906, December.
    13. Bruno S. Frey & Reto Jegen, 2001. "Motivation Crowding Theory," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(5), pages 589-611, December.
    14. N. F. R. Crafts & C. K. Harley, 1992. "Output growth and the British industrial revolution: a restatement of the Crafts-Harley view," Economic History Review, Economic History Society, vol. 45(4), pages 703-730, November.
    15. Liam Brunt & Josh Lerner & Tom Nicholas, 2012. "Inducement Prizes and Innovation," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(4), pages 657-696, December.
    16. Costa, Dora L. & Lamoreaux, Naomi R. (ed.), 2011. "Understanding Long-Run Economic Growth," National Bureau of Economic Research Books, University of Chicago Press, number 9780226116341, September.
    17. Khan, B. Zorina, 1996. "Married Women's Property Laws and Female Commercial Activity: Evidence from United States Patent Records, 1790–1895," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 56(2), pages 356-388, June.
    18. Murray, Fiona & Stern, Scott & Campbell, Georgina & MacCormack, Alan, 2012. "Grand Innovation Prizes: A theoretical, normative, and empirical evaluation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(10), pages 1779-1792.
    19. B. Zorina Khan, 2015. "Inventing Prizes: A Historical Perspective on Innovation Awards and Technology Policy," NBER Working Papers 21375, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    20. Wright, Brian Davern, 1983. "The Economics of Invention Incentives: Patents, Prizes, and Research Contracts," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 73(4), pages 691-707, September.
    21. Robert C. Allen, 1999. "Tracking the agricultural revolution in England," Economic History Review, Economic History Society, vol. 52(2), pages 209-235, May.
    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. Billington, Stephen D. & Hanna, Alan J., 2018. "That's classified! Inventing a new patent taxonomy," QUCEH Working Paper Series 2018-06, Queen's University Belfast, Queen's University Centre for Economic History.
    2. B. Zorina Khan, 2024. "‘A new way by her invented’: Women inventors and technological innovation in Britain, 1800–1930," Economic History Review, Economic History Society, vol. 77(3), pages 928-952, August.

    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. 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.
    2. B. Zorina Khan, 2017. "Designing Women: Consumer Goods Innovations in Britain, France and the United States, 1750-1900," NBER Working Papers 23086, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. B. Zorina Khan, 2018. "Human capital, knowledge and economic development: evidence from the British Industrial Revolution, 1750–1930," Cliometrica, Springer;Cliometric Society (Association Francaise de Cliométrie), vol. 12(2), pages 313-341, May.
    4. Galasso, Alberto, 2020. "Rewards versus intellectual property rights when commitment is limited," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 169(C), pages 397-411.
    5. Brueggemann, Julia & Meub, Lukas, 2015. "Experimental evidence on the effects of innovation contests," University of Göttingen Working Papers in Economics 251, University of Goettingen, Department of Economics.
    6. Liotard, Isabelle & Revest, Valérie, 2018. "Contests as innovation policy instruments: Lessons from the US federal agencies' experience," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 57-69.
    7. Rockett, Katharine, 2010. "Property Rights and Invention," 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 315-380, Elsevier.
    8. Domini, Giacomo, 2022. "Patterns of specialization and economic complexity through the lens of universal exhibitions, 1855-1900," Explorations in Economic History, Elsevier, vol. 83(C).
    9. Justice A. Tambo, 2018. "Recognizing farmer-generated innovations through contests: insights from four African countries," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 10(5), pages 1237-1250, October.
    10. Giacomo Domini, 2019. "Exhibitions, patents, and innovation in the early twentieth century: evidence from the Turin 1911 International Exhibition," LEM Papers Series 2019/04, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.
    11. Danzer, Alexander M. & Danzer, Natalia & Feuerbaum, Carsten, 2023. "Military Spending and Innovation: Learning from 19th Century World Fair Exhibition Data," IZA Discussion Papers 16034, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    12. Murray, Fiona & Stern, Scott & Campbell, Georgina & MacCormack, Alan, 2012. "Grand Innovation Prizes: A theoretical, normative, and empirical evaluation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(10), pages 1779-1792.
    13. Billington, Stephen D. & Hanna, Alan J., 2018. "That's classified! Inventing a new patent taxonomy," QUCEH Working Paper Series 2018-06, Queen's University Belfast, Queen's University Centre for Economic History.
    14. Nancy Gallini, 2011. "Private agreements for coordinating patent rights: the case of patent pools," ECONOMIA E POLITICA INDUSTRIALE, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2011(3), pages 5-30.
    15. Englmaier, Florian & Grimm, Stefan & Grothe, Dominik & Schindler, David & Schudy, Simeon, 2021. "The Efficacy of Tournaments for Non-Routine Team Tasks," CEPR Discussion Papers 16360, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    16. Encaoua, David & Guellec, Dominique & Martinez, Catalina, 2006. "Patent systems for encouraging innovation: Lessons from economic analysis," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(9), pages 1423-1440, November.
    17. Kim Weonseek & Koo Bonwoo, 2012. "A Patent System with a Contingent Delegation Fee under Asymmetric Information," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 12(1), pages 1-18, May.
    18. Stan J. Liebowitz & Richard Watt, 2006. "How To Best Ensure Remuneration For Creators In The Market For Music? Copyright And Its Alternatives," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(4), pages 513-545, September.
    19. Tom Nicholas, 2013. "Hybrid Innovation In Meiji, Japan," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 54(2), pages 575-600, May.
    20. Burton, M. Diane & Nicholas, Tom, 2017. "Prizes, patents and the search for longitude," Explorations in Economic History, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 21-36.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • D02 - Microeconomics - - General - - - Institutions: Design, Formation, Operations, and Impact
    • N13 - Economic History - - Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics; Industrial Structure; Growth; Fluctuations - - - Europe: Pre-1913
    • O31 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives
    • O33 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Technological Change: Choices and Consequences; Diffusion Processes
    • O34 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Intellectual Property and Intellectual Capital
    • O43 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Growth and Aggregate Productivity - - - Institutions and Growth

    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:nbr:nberwo:23042. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/nberrus.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.