IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/pra/mprapa/5476.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Economic Growth and Patent Policy: Quantifying the Effects of Patent Length on R&D and Consumption

Author

Listed:
  • Chu, Angus C.

Abstract

Is the patent length an effective policy instrument in stimulating R&D? This paper develops a generalized variety-expanding growth model and then calibrates the model to the aggregate data of the US economy to analyze the effects of extending the patent length. The numerical exercise suggests that at the empirical range of patent-value depreciation rates, extending the patent length beyond 20 years leads to only a very small increase in R&D despite R&D underinvestment in the market economy. On the other hand, shortening the patent length can lead to a significant reduction in R&D and consumption. This paper also makes use of the dynamic general-equilibrium framework to examine the fraction of total factor productivity (TFP) growth that is driven by R&D, and the calibration exercise suggests that about 35% to 45% of the long-run TFP growth in the US is driven by R&D. Finally, this paper identifies and analytically derives a dynamic distortion of the patent length on saving and investment in physical capital that has been neglected by previous studies, which consequently underestimate the distortionary effects of patent protection.

Suggested Citation

  • Chu, Angus C., 2007. "Economic Growth and Patent Policy: Quantifying the Effects of Patent Length on R&D and Consumption," MPRA Paper 5476, University Library of Munich, Germany.
  • Handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:5476
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/5476/1/MPRA_paper_5476.pdf
    File Function: original version
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gene M. Grossman & Edwin L.-C. Lai, 2004. "International Protection of Intellectual Property," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 94(5), pages 1635-1653, December.
    2. Adam B. Jaffe & Josh Lerner, 2006. "Innovation and its Discontents," NBER Chapters,in: Innovation Policy and the Economy, Volume 6, pages 27-66 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Aghion, Philippe & Howitt, Peter, 1992. "A Model of Growth through Creative Destruction," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 60(2), pages 323-351, March.
    4. Charles I. Jones, 1999. "Growth: With or Without Scale Effects?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(2), pages 139-144, May.
    5. Charles I. Jones, 1995. "Time Series Tests of Endogenous Growth Models," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 110(2), pages 495-525.
    6. Jones, Charles I & Williams, John C, 2000. "Too Much of a Good Thing? The Economics of Investment in R&D," Journal of Economic Growth, Springer, vol. 5(1), pages 65-85, March.
    7. Gene M. Grossman & Elhanan Helpman, 1991. "Quality Ladders in the Theory of Growth," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 58(1), pages 43-61.
    8. Kwan, Yum K. & Lai, Edwin L. -C., 2003. "Intellectual property rights protection and endogenous economic growth," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 27(5), pages 853-873, March.
    9. Paul Klemperer, 1990. "How Broad Should the Scope of Patent Protection Be?," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 21(1), pages 113-130, Spring.
    10. Laitner, John & Stolyarov, Dmitriy, 2004. "Aggregate returns to scale and embodied technical change: theory and measurement using stock market data," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 51(1), pages 191-233, January.
    11. Ted O'Donoghue & Josef Zweimueller, 2004. "Patents in a Model of Endogenous Growth," Journal of Economic Growth, Springer, vol. 9(1), pages 81-123, March.
    12. Richard Gilbert & Carl Shapiro, 1990. "Optimal Patent Length and Breadth," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 21(1), pages 106-112, Spring.
    13. Pakes, Ariel S, 1986. "Patents as Options: Some Estimates of the Value of Holding European Patent Stocks," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 54(4), pages 755-784, July.
    14. Jaffe, Adam B., 2000. "The U.S. patent system in transition: policy innovation and the innovation process," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(4-5), pages 531-557, April.
    15. Romer, Paul M, 1990. "Endogenous Technological Change," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 98(5), pages 71-102, October.
    16. Tandon, Pankaj, 1982. "Optimal Patents with Compulsory Licensing," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 90(3), pages 470-486, June.
    17. Charles I. Jones & John C. Williams, 1998. "Measuring the Social Return to R&D," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 113(4), pages 1119-1135.
    18. Luis A. Rivera-Batiz & Paul M. Romer, 1991. "Economic Integration and Endogenous Growth," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 106(2), pages 531-555.
    19. Daron Acemoglu, 2007. "Introduction to Modern Economic Growth," Levine's Bibliography 122247000000001721, UCLA Department of Economics.
    20. Futagami, Koichi & Iwaisako, Tatsuro, 2007. "Dynamic analysis of patent policy in an endogenous growth model," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 132(1), pages 306-334, January.
    21. Diego Comin, 2004. "R&D: A Small Contribution to Productivity Growth," Journal of Economic Growth, Springer, vol. 9(4), pages 391-421, December.
    22. Rachel Ngai & Roberto Samaniego, 2011. "Accounting for Research and Productivity Growth Across Industries," Review of Economic Dynamics, Elsevier for the Society for Economic Dynamics, vol. 14(3), pages 475-495, July.
    23. Ai-Ting Goh & Jacques Olivier, 2002. "Optimal Patent Protection in a Two-Sector Economy," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 43(4), pages 1191-1214, November.
    24. Basu, Susanto & Fernald, John G, 1997. "Returns to Scale in U.S. Production: Estimates and Implications," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 105(2), pages 249-283, April.
    25. Bessen, James, 2008. "The value of U.S. patents by owner and patent characteristics," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 932-945, June.
    26. Jones, Charles I, 1995. "R&D-Based Models of Economic Growth," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 103(4), pages 759-784, August.
    27. repec:kap:jeczfn:v:78:y:2003:i:3:d:10.1007_s00712-002-0541-1 is not listed on IDEAS
    28. Li, Chol-Won, 2001. "On the Policy Implications of Endogenous Technological Progress," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 111(471), pages 164-179, May.
    29. Jean Olson Lanjouw, 1998. "Patent Protection in the Shadow of Infringement: Simulation Estimations of Patent Value," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 65(4), pages 671-710.
    30. Robert M. Hunt, 1999. "Nonobviousness and the incentive to innovate: an economic analysis of intellectual property reform," Working Papers 99-3, Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia.
    31. Nancy T. Gallini, 2002. "The Economics of Patents: Lessons from Recent U.S. Patent Reform," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 16(2), pages 131-154, Spring.
    32. Judd, Kenneth L, 1985. "On the Performance of Patents," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 53(3), pages 567-585, 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. Chu, Angus C. & Leung, Charles K.Y. & Tang, Edward, 2012. "Intellectual property rights, technical progress and the volatility of economic growth," Journal of Macroeconomics, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 749-756.
    2. Furukawa, Yuichi, 2010. "Intellectual property protection and innovation: an inverted-U relationship," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 109(2), pages 99-101, November.
    3. Lin, Hwan C., 2016. "The switch from patents to state-dependent prizes for technological innovation," Journal of Macroeconomics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 193-223.
    4. Chu, Angus C., 2011. "The welfare cost of one-size-fits-all patent protection," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 35(6), pages 876-890, June.
    5. Angus C. Chu, 2009. "Macroeconomic Effects of Intellectual Property Rights: A Survey," IEAS Working Paper : academic research 09-A007, Institute of Economics, Academia Sinica, Taipei, Taiwan.
    6. Shiyuan Pan & Heng-fu Zou & Tailong Li, 2010. "Patent Protection, Technological Change and Wage Inequality," CEMA Working Papers 437, China Economics and Management Academy, Central University of Finance and Economics.
    7. Niwa, Sumiko, 2016. "Patent claims and economic growth," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 377-381.
    8. Neto, António & Furukawa, Yuichi & Ribeiro, Ana Paula, 2017. "Can Trade Unions Increase Social Welfare? An R&D Model with Cash-in-Advance Constraints," MPRA Paper 77312, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. repec:eee:eecrev:v:98:y:2017:i:c:p:392-409 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Chu, Angus C. & Cozzi, Guido & Furukawa, Yuichi & Liao, Chih-Hsing, 2017. "Inflation and economic growth in a Schumpeterian model with endogenous entry of heterogeneous firms," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 392-409.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    endogenous growth; intellectual property rights; patent length; R&D;

    JEL classification:

    • O34 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Intellectual Property and Intellectual Capital
    • O31 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives

    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:pra:mprapa:5476. 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: (Joachim Winter). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/vfmunde.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.