IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/pra/mprapa/73482.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Patents vs R&D Subsidies on Income Inequality

Author

Listed:
  • Chu, Angus C.
  • Cozzi, Guido

Abstract

This study explores the effects of patent protection and R&D subsidies on economic growth and income inequality using a Schumpeterian growth model with heterogeneity in household asset holdings. We find that although strengthening patent protection and raising R&D subsidies have the same macroeconomic effect of stimulating economic growth, they have drastically different microeconomic implications on income inequality. Specifically, strengthening patent protection increases income inequality whereas raising R&D subsidies decreases (increases) it if the quality step size is sufficiently small (large). An empirically realistic quality step size is smaller than the threshold implying a negative effect of R&D subsidies on income inequality. We also calibrate the model to provide a quantitative analysis and find that strengthening patent protection causes a moderate increase in income inequality and a negligible increase in consumption inequality whereas raising R&D subsidies causes a significant decrease in both income inequality and consumption inequality.

Suggested Citation

  • Chu, Angus C. & Cozzi, Guido, 2016. "Patents vs R&D Subsidies on Income Inequality," MPRA Paper 73482, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    • Handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:73482
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/73482/1/MPRA_paper_73482.pdf
    File Function: original version
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/81540/1/MPRA_paper_81540.pdf
    File Function: revised version
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/83483/1/MPRA_paper_83483.pdf
    File Function: revised version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Cozzi, Guido & Giordani, Paolo E. & Zamparelli, Luca, 2007. "The refoundation of the symmetric equilibrium in Schumpeterian growth models," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 136(1), pages 788-797, September.
    2. Reto Foellmi & Josef Zweimuller, 2006. "Income Distribution and Demand-Induced Innovations," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 73(4), pages 941-960.
    3. Ryo Horii & Tatsuro Iwaisako, 2007. "Economic Growth with Imperfect Protection of Intellectual Property Rights," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 90(1), pages 45-85, January.
    4. Daniel Garcia‐Macia & Chang‐Tai Hsieh & Peter J. Klenow, 2019. "How Destructive Is Innovation?," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 87(5), pages 1507-1541, September.
    5. Deborah Reed & Maria Cancian, 2001. "Sources of Inequality: Measuring the Contributions of Income Sources to Rising Family Income Inequality," Review of Income and Wealth, International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, vol. 47(3), pages 321-333, September.
    6. Robert M. Solow, 1956. "A Contribution to the Theory of Economic Growth," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 70(1), pages 65-94.
    7. Philippe Aghion & Ufuk Akcigit & Antonin Bergeaud & Richard Blundell & David Hemous, 2019. "Innovation and Top Income Inequality," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 86(1), pages 1-45.
    8. Daron Acemoglu & Ufuk Akcigit, 2012. "Intellectual Property Rights Policy, Competition And Innovation," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 10(1), pages 1-42, February.
    9. Hwan C. Lin, 2002. "Shall the Northern Optimal R&D Subsidy Rate Inversely Respond to Southern Intellectual Property Protection?," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 69(2), pages 381-397, October.
    10. Belo, Frederico & Gala, Vito D. & Li, Jun, 2013. "Government spending, political cycles, and the cross section of stock returns," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(2), pages 305-324.
    11. Zeng, Jinli & Zhang, Jie, 2007. "Subsidies in an R&D growth model with elastic labor," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 861-886, March.
    12. 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.
    13. A. B. Atkinson, 2003. "Income Inequality in OECD Countries: Data and Explanations," CESifo Economic Studies, CESifo Group, vol. 49(4), pages 479-513.
    14. Kiedaisch, Christian, 2015. "Intellectual property rights in a quality-ladder model with persistent leadership," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 194-213.
    15. Gene M. Grossman & Elhanan Helpman, 1991. "Quality Ladders in the Theory of Growth," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 58(1), pages 43-61.
    16. Charles I. Jones & Jihee Kim, 2018. "A Schumpeterian Model of Top Income Inequality," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 126(5), pages 1785-1826.
    17. repec:bla:revinw:v:47:y:2001:i:3:p:321-33 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. Aghion, Philippe & Howitt, Peter, 1992. "A Model of Growth through Creative Destruction," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 60(2), pages 323-351, March.
    19. Venturini, Francesco, 2012. "Looking into the black box of Schumpeterian growth theories: An empirical assessment of R&D races," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 56(8), pages 1530-1545.
    20. Hwan C. Lin, 2015. "Creative Destruction and Optimal Patent Life in a Variety-Expanding Growth Model," Southern Economic Journal, Southern Economic Association, vol. 81(3), pages 803-828, January.
    21. Giammario Impullitti, 2010. "International Competition And U.S. R&D Subsidies: A Quantitative Welfare Analysis," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 51(4), pages 1127-1158, November.
    22. Atkinson Anthony B., 2000. "The Changing Distribution of Income: Evidence and Explanations," German Economic Review, De Gruyter, vol. 1(1), pages 3-18, February.
    23. Richard Gilbert & Carl Shapiro, 1990. "Optimal Patent Length and Breadth," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 21(1), pages 106-112, Spring.
    24. Francisco L. Rivera-Batiz & Luis A. Rivera-Batiz, 2018. "Economic Integration and Endogenous Growth," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Francisco L Rivera-Batiz & Luis A Rivera-Batiz (ed.), International Trade, Capital Flows and Economic Development, chapter 1, pages 3-32, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    25. Chu, Angus C. & Cozzi, Guido & Galli, Silvia, 2012. "Does intellectual monopoly stimulate or stifle innovation?," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 56(4), pages 727-746.
    26. repec:wly:soecon:v:81:3:y:2015:p:803-828 is not listed on IDEAS
    27. Daron Acemoglu, 1998. "Why Do New Technologies Complement Skills? Directed Technical Change and Wage Inequality," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 113(4), pages 1055-1089.
    28. Richard Blundell & Luigi Pistaferri & Ian Preston, 2008. "Consumption Inequality and Partial Insurance," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 98(5), pages 1887-1921, December.
    29. Angus Chu, 2009. "Effects of blocking patents on R&D: a quantitative DGE analysis," Journal of Economic Growth, Springer, vol. 14(1), pages 55-78, March.
    30. Hwan C. Lin, 2002. "Shall the Northern Optimal R&D Subsidy Rate Inversely Respond to Southern Intellectual Property Protection?," Southern Economic Journal, Southern Economic Association, vol. 69(2), pages 381-397, October.
    31. Diego Comin, 2004. "R&D: A Small Contribution to Productivity Growth," Journal of Economic Growth, Springer, vol. 9(4), pages 391-421, December.
    32. Dirk Krueger & Fabrizio Perri, 2006. "Does Income Inequality Lead to Consumption Inequality? Evidence and Theory -super-1," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 73(1), pages 163-193.
    33. Daron Acemoglu, 2002. "Directed Technical Change," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 69(4), pages 781-809.
    34. Guido Cozzi & Silvia Galli, 2014. "Sequential R&D and blocking patents in the dynamics of growth," Journal of Economic Growth, Springer, vol. 19(2), pages 183-219, June.
    35. Charles I. Jones & John C. Williams, 1998. "Measuring the Social Return to R&D," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 113(4), pages 1119-1135.
    36. Javier Diaz-Gimenez & Vincenzo Quadrini & José-Víctor Ríos-Rull & Santiago Budria Rodriguez, 2002. "Updated facts on the U.S. distributions of earnings, income, and wealth," Quarterly Review, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, vol. 26(Sum), pages 2-35.
    37. Tatsuro Iwaisako & Koichi Futagami, 2013. "Patent protection, capital accumulation, and economic growth," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 52(2), pages 631-668, March.
    38. Chou, Chien-Fu & Talmain, Gabriel, 1996. "Redistribution and Growth: Pareto Improvements," Journal of Economic Growth, Springer, vol. 1(4), pages 505-523, December.
    39. Angus C. Chu, 2010. "Effects of Patent Policy on Income and Consumption Inequality in a R&D Growth Model," Southern Economic Journal, Southern Economic Association, vol. 77(2), pages 336-350, October.
    40. Gene M. Grossman & Elhanan Helpman, 2018. "Growth, Trade, and Inequality," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 86(1), pages 37-83, January.
    41. Shiyuan Pan & Tailong Li & Heng-fu Zou, 2012. "Patent Protection, Technological Change and Wage Inequality: Theory," CEMA Working Papers 537, China Economics and Management Academy, Central University of Finance and Economics.
    42. Yibai Yang, 2018. "On the Optimality of IPR Protection with Blocking Patents," Review of Economic Dynamics, Elsevier for the Society for Economic Dynamics, vol. 27, pages 205-230, January.
    43. 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.
    44. Furukawa, Yuichi, 2007. "The protection of intellectual property rights and endogenous growth: Is stronger always better?," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 31(11), pages 3644-3670, November.
    45. A. Minniti & F. Venturini, 2014. "R&D Policy and Schumpeterian Growth: Theory and Evidence," Working Papers wp945, Dipartimento Scienze Economiche, Universita' di Bologna.
    46. Cecilia García-Peñalosa & Stephen Turnovsky, 2006. "Growth and income inequality: a canonical model," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 28(1), pages 25-49, May.
    47. Boldrin,Michele & Levine,David K., 2010. "Against Intellectual Monopoly," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521127264, December.
    48. Peretto, Pietro F, 1998. "Technological Change and Population Growth," Journal of Economic Growth, Springer, vol. 3(4), pages 283-311, December.
    49. Spinesi Luca, 2011. "Probabilistic Heterogeneous Patent Protection and Innovation Incentives," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 11(1), pages 1-44, August.
    50. Ginarte, Juan C. & Park, Walter G., 1997. "Determinants of patent rights: A cross-national study," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 283-301, October.
    51. Angus C. Chu, 2010. "Effects of Patent Policy on Income and Consumption Inequality in a R&D Growth Model," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 77(2), pages 336-350, October.
    52. Romer, Paul M, 1990. "Endogenous Technological Change," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 98(5), pages 71-102, October.
    53. Brown, James R. & Martinsson, Gustav & Petersen, Bruce C., 2017. "What promotes R&D? Comparative evidence from around the world," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(2), pages 447-462.
    54. 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.
    55. John Laitner & Dmitriy Stolyarov, 2013. "Derivative Ideas And The Value Of Intangible Assets," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 54(1), pages 59-95, February.
    56. Minniti, Antonio & Venturini, Francesco, 2017. "The long-run growth effects of R&D policy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 316-326.
    57. James Bessen & Michael J. Meurer, 2008. "Introduction to Patent Failure: How Judges, Bureaucrats, and Lawyers Put Innovators at Risk," Introductory Chapters, in: Patent Failure: How Judges, Bureaucrats, and Lawyers Put Innovators at Risk, Princeton University Press.
    58. Adams, Samuel, 2008. "Globalization and income inequality: Implications for intellectual property rights," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 30(5), pages 725-735.
    59. Christian Kiedaisch, 2021. "Growth and welfare effects of intellectual property rights when consumers differ in income," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 72(4), pages 1121-1170, November.
    60. Segerstrom, Paul S & Anant, T C A & Dinopoulos, Elias, 1990. "A Schumpeterian Model of the Product Life Cycle," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 80(5), pages 1077-1091, December.
    61. Cozzi Guido, 2007. "The Arrow Effect under Competitive R&D," The B.E. Journal of Macroeconomics, De Gruyter, vol. 7(1), pages 1-20, January.
    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. Angus C. Chu & Yuichi Furukawa & Sushanta Mallick & Pietro Peretto & Xilin Wang, 2021. "Dynamic effects of patent policy on innovation and inequality in a Schumpeterian economy," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 71(4), pages 1429-1465, June.
    2. Lu, You-Xun & Lai, Ching-Chong, 2021. "Effects of patent policy on growth and inequality: A perspective of exogenous and endogenous quality improvements," MPRA Paper 111183, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Angus C. Chu, 2022. "Patent policy and economic growth: A survey," Manchester School, University of Manchester, vol. 90(2), pages 237-254, March.
    4. Angus C. Chu, 2024. "Macroeconomic effects of intellectual property rights: an updated survey," Chapters, in: Walter G. Park (ed.), Handbook of Innovation and Intellectual Property Rights, chapter 2, pages 13-26, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    5. Angus C. Chu & Yuichi Furukawa & Lei Ji, 2016. "Patents, R&D subsidies, and endogenous market structure in a schumpeterian economy," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 82(3), pages 809-825, January.
    6. You-Xun Lu & Ching-Chong Lai & Po-Yang Yu, 2024. "Effects of patent policy on growth and inequality: exogenous versus endogenous quality improvements," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 141(1), pages 1-28, January.
    7. Angus C. Chu & Guido Cozzi & Haichao Fang & Yuichi Furukawa & Chih-Hsing Liao, 2019. "Innovation and Inequality in a Monetary Schumpeterian Model with Heterogeneous Households and Firms," Review of Economic Dynamics, Elsevier for the Society for Economic Dynamics, vol. 34, pages 141-164, October.
    8. Angus Chu & Guido Cozzi & Chih-Hsing Liao, 2013. "Endogenous fertility and human capital in a Schumpeterian growth model," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 26(1), pages 181-202, January.
    9. Hu, Ruiyang & Yang, Yibai & Zheng, Zhijie, 2023. "Patent protection and income inequality in a model with two growth engines," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 123(C).
    10. Guido Cozzi & Silvia Galli, 2014. "Sequential R&D and blocking patents in the dynamics of growth," Journal of Economic Growth, Springer, vol. 19(2), pages 183-219, June.
    11. 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.
    12. Chu, Angus C. & Cozzi, Guido & Galli, Silvia, 2012. "Does intellectual monopoly stimulate or stifle innovation?," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 56(4), pages 727-746.
    13. Chu, Angus C. & Cozzi, Guido & Galli, Silvia, 2012. "Does intellectual monopoly stimulate or stifle innovation?," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 56(4), pages 727-746.
    14. Chu, Angus C. & Liao, Chih-Hsing, 2025. "Optimal patent policy and wealth inequality in a Schumpeterian economy," Journal of Macroeconomics, Elsevier, vol. 83(C).
    15. Lu, You-Xun, 2022. "Interactive effects of monetary policy and patent protection: The role of endogenous innovation size," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 113(C).
    16. Ruiyang Hu & Yibai Yang & Zhijie Zheng, 2023. "Effects of subsidies on growth and welfare in a quality‐ladder model with elastic labor," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 25(5), pages 1096-1137, October.
    17. Yibai Yang, 2018. "On the Optimality of IPR Protection with Blocking Patents," Review of Economic Dynamics, Elsevier for the Society for Economic Dynamics, vol. 27, pages 205-230, January.
    18. Chu, Angus C. & Furukawa, Yuichi, 2012. "Patents versus R&D subsidies in a Schumpeterian growth model with endogenous market structure," MPRA Paper 40469, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. Guido Cozzi & Silvia Galli, 2009. "Upstream Innovation Protection: Common Law Evolution and the Dynamics of Wage Inequality," Working Papers 2009_20, Business School - Economics, University of Glasgow.
    20. Chu, Angus C. & Furukawa, Yuichi, 2011. "On the optimal mix of patent instruments," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 35(11), pages 1964-1975.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    R&D subsidies; patents; income inequality; economic growth;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D3 - Microeconomics - - Distribution
    • O3 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights
    • O4 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Growth and Aggregate Productivity

    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:73482. 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: Joachim Winter (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/vfmunde.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.