IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ulb/ulbeco/2013-209409.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Essays on the globalization of innovation using patent-based indicators

Author

Listed:
  • Jérôme Danguy

Abstract

Compared to the globalized markets of goods and services, technology production has been often described as “far from globalized” and mainly concentrated in the home country of multinational enterprises. However, academics and international organizations recognize that research and development (R&D) activities are increasingly performed at the international level. In particular, the globalization of innovation is a major concern since it is at the crossroads of the rising importance of knowledge economy and the increasing international slicing of firms’ value chains. In this context, the main motivations of this thesis are to investigate the extent to which innovation takes place across national borders and to analyze the drivers of this phenomenon across countries and across industries. For this purpose, this dissertation provides new evidence on the globalization of innovation in four empirical essays using patent-based indicators. First, the relevance of patent statistics as indicators of innovation is evaluated by studying the relationship between expenditures in R&D activities and patenting efforts. Chapter 2 decomposes this relationship at the industry level to shed light on the origins of the worldwide surge in patent applications. The empirical investigation of the R&D-patent relationship relies on a unique panel dataset composed of 18 manufacturing industries in 19 countries covering the period from 1987 to 2005, for which five broad patent indicators are developed. This study shows that patent applications at the industry level reflect not only research productivity, but also two main components of the propensity to patent which are firms’ strategic considerations: the decision to protect an invention with a patent (the “appropriability strategy”) and the number of patents filed to protect an innovation (the “filing strategy”). The comparison between the results for various patent count indicators provides also interesting insights. While some industries (computers and communication technologies) and countries (South Korea, Spain, and Poland) have experienced a drastic increase in patent applications, the ratio of priority patent applications to R&D expenditures has been generally constant. This result suggests that there has been no spurt in innovation productivity. In contrast, regional applications (filings at the United States Patent and Trademark Office or at the European Patent Office) have been increasing since the early 1990s, suggesting that the patent explosion observed in large regional patent offices is due to the greater globalization of intellectual property rights rather than a surge in research productivity. Innovative firms are increasingly targeting global markets and hence have a higher tendency to seek protection in key markets worldwide. Chapter 3 introduces, firstly, aggregate patent-based indicators to measure the globalization of innovation production. Secondly, it describes the patterns in international technology production for a large panel dataset covering 21 industries in 29 countries from 1980 to 2005. A strong growth in the intensity of globalization of innovation is confirmed not only in terms of cross-border ownership of innovation, but also in terms of international technological collaborations. More interestingly, heterogeneity across countries and industries is observed. On the one hand, more innovative countries (or industries) do not present more globalized innovation footprint. On the other hand, the ownership of innovation is still strongly concentrated in a few countries, although its location is increasingly dispersed across the world. Thirdly, it investigates empirically two main opposing motives driving the internationalization of innovation: home-base augmenting and home-base exploiting strategies. The results show that the degree of internationalization of innovation is negatively related to the revealed technological advantage of countries across industries. Countries tend to be more technologically globalized in industrial sectors in which they are less technologically specialized. The empirical findings suggest also that countries with multidisciplinary technological knowledge are more likely to take part in international co-inventions of new technologies and to be attractive for foreign innovative firms. This aggregated patent-based analysis provides additional evidence that globalization of innovation is a means of acquiring competences abroad that are lacking at home, suggesting that home-base augmenting motives matter in the globalization of innovation production. By contrast, the internationalization of innovation does not seem to be purely market-driven since large economies are not the target of foreign innovative firms and international patenting is more related to international competitiveness of country-industry pairs than to the direction of trade flows. While the previous chapter studies the globalization of innovation of a country with the rest of world, Chapter 4 aims at explaining who collaborates with whom in the international production of technology. In particular, the impact of technological distance between partner’s economies is investigated for a panel dataset covering international co-inventions between 29 countries in 21 industries between 1988 and 2005. The descriptive analysis highlights that the overall growth in internationalization of innovation is due to both the increase in the number of international innovative actors and the rise of the average intensity of collaboration. The empirical findings then suggest that the two main arguments related to technological distance – ‘similarity versus diversity’ – can be reconciled by taking an industry approach. Indeed, the estimation results show that the impact of technological distance is twofold on the intensity of collaborative innovation at industry level. On the one hand, the more similar the industry-specific knowledge of two countries (low technological distance within the industry), the more easily they collaborate by sharing common industrial knowledge. On the other hand, the more different their non-industry-specific knowledge (high technological distance outside the scope of the industry), the more they collaborate to gain access to broad and interdisciplinary expertise. It suggests that the relative absorptive capacity between partner’s economies and the search for novel and complementary knowledge are key drivers of the globalization of innovation. Moreover, the results confirm the moderating effect of non-technological distance factors (spatial proximity, ease of communication, institutional proximity, and overall economic ties) in cross-border innovative relationships. The topic of Chapter 5 is the cost-benefit analysis of the creation of a new ‘globalized’ patent: the EU Patent (formerly known as Community Patent) which consists in a single patent covering the entire EU territory for both application procedure and legal enforcement after grant. The objective of this chapter is threefold: (i) simulate the budgetary consequences in terms of renewal fees’ income for the European and national patent offices; (ii) evaluate the implications for the business sector in terms of absolute and relative fees; (iii) assess the total economic impact for the most important actors of the European patent system. Based on an econometric model explaining the determinants of the maintenance rate of patents, the simulations suggest that – with a sound renewal fee structure – the EU patent could generate more income for nearly all patent offices than under the current status quo. It would, at the same time, substantially reduce the relative patenting costs for applicants. Finally, the loss of economic rents by patent attorneys, translators and lawyers, and the drop of controlling power by national patent offices elucidate further the persistence of a fragmented European patent system.

Suggested Citation

  • Jérôme Danguy, 2013. "Essays on the globalization of innovation using patent-based indicators," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/209409, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
  • Handle: RePEc:ulb:ulbeco:2013/209409
    Note: Degree: Doctorat en Sciences économiques et de gestion
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://dipot.ulb.ac.be/dspace/bitstream/2013/209409/1/6fe90935-56f5-4ed3-a5cc-e724369815f2.txt
    File Function: PhD_dissertation_J_Danguy_Sept2013
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://dipot.ulb.ac.be/dspace/bitstream/2013/209409/4/e8745426-876e-4ddb-ae83-bb826e90ce6f.txt
    File Function: Œuvre complète ou partie de l'œuvre
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bruno Pottelsberghe de la Potterie & Nicolas Zeebroeck, 2008. "A brief history of space and time: The scope-year index as a patent value indicator based on families and renewals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 75(2), pages 319-338, May.
    2. van Zeebroeck, Nicolas & van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, Bruno & Guellec, Dominique, 2009. "Claiming more: the Increased Voluminosity of Patent Applications and its Determinants," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(6), pages 1006-1020, July.
    3. David J. TEECE, 2008. "Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: The Transfer And Licensing Of Know-How And Intellectual Property Understanding the Multinational Enterprise in the Modern World, chapter 5, pages 67-87, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    4. Bruno van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie & Didier François, 2009. "The Cost Factor in Patent Systems," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 9(4), pages 329-355, December.
    5. Sirilli, Giorgio & Evangelista, Rinaldo, 1998. "Technological innovation in services and manufacturing: results from Italian surveys," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(9), pages 881-899, December.
    6. Wuyts, Stefan & Colombo, Massimo G. & Dutta, Shantanu & Nooteboom, Bart, 2005. "Empirical tests of optimal cognitive distance," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 277-302, October.
    7. Joakim Westerlund, 2007. "Testing for Error Correction in Panel Data," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 69(6), pages 709-748, December.
    8. Soete, Luc, 1987. "The impact of technological innovation on international trade patterns: The evidence reconsidered," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 16(2-4), pages 101-130, August.
    9. Bruno van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, 2011. "The quality factor in patent systems," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 20(6), pages 1755-1793, December.
    10. Bruno van Pottelsberghe, 2008. "The London Agreement and the cost of patenting in Europe," Working Papers 264, Bruegel.
    11. Nicolas van Zeebroeck & Bruno van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie & Wook Han, 2006. "Issues in measuring the degree of technological specialisation with patent data," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 66(3), pages 481-492, March.
    12. Suzanne Scotchmer, 1999. "On the Optimality of the Patent Renewal System," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 30(2), pages 181-196, Summer.
    13. von Graevenitz, Georg & Wagner, Stefan & Harhoff, Dietmar, 2011. "How to measure patent thickets--A novel approach," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 111(1), pages 6-9, April.
    14. Joachim Wagner, 2003. "Unobserved firm heterogeneity and the size-exports nexus: Evidence from German panel data," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 139(1), pages 161-172, March.
    15. Thomson, Russell, 2013. "National scientific capacity and R&D offshoring," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(2), pages 517-528.
    16. Nicolas van Zeebroeck, 2009. "From patent renewals to applications survival: do portfolio management strategies play a role in patent length?," Working Papers CEB 09-028.RS, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    17. Bruno van Pottelsberghe, . "Lost property- The European patent system and why it doesn't work," Blueprints, Bruegel, number 312, December.
    18. Michel Zitt & Elise Bassecoulard & Yoshiko Okubo, 2000. "Shadows of the Past in International Cooperation: Collaboration Profiles of the Top Five Producers of Science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 47(3), pages 627-657, March.
    19. Jasjit Singh, 2005. "Collaborative Networks as Determinants of Knowledge Diffusion Patterns," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 51(5), pages 756-770, May.
    20. Jaeyong Song & Jongtae Shin, 2008. "The paradox of technological capabilities: a study of knowledge sourcing from host countries of overseas R&D operations," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 39(2), pages 291-303, March.
    21. von Zedtwitz, Maximilian & Gassmann, Oliver, 2002. "Market versus technology drive in R&D internationalization: four different patterns of managing research and development," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(4), pages 569-588, May.
    22. Veugelers, Reinhilde, 1997. "Internal R & D expenditures and external technology sourcing," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 303-315, October.
    23. Yasuhiro Yamashita & Yoshiko Okubo, 2006. "Patterns of scientific collaboration between Japan and France: Inter-sectoral analysis using Probabilistic Partnership Index (PPI)," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 68(2), pages 303-324, August.
    24. Nicolas van Zeebroeck, 2011. "Long Live Patents: the Increasing Life Expectancy of Patent Applications and its Determinants," Review of Economics and Institutions, Università di Perugia, vol. 2(3).
    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. Jérôme Danguy, 2014. "Who collaborates with whom: the role of technological distance in international innovation," Working Papers TIMES² 2014-010, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    2. Bruno van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, 2011. "The quality factor in patent systems," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 20(6), pages 1755-1793, December.
    3. Danguy, Jérôme & van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, Bruno, 2011. "Cost-Benefit Analysis of the Community Patent," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 2(2), pages 1-43, April.
    4. Jérôme Danguy, 2017. "Globalization of innovation production: A patent-based industry analysis," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 44(1), pages 75-94.
    5. Nicolas van Zeebroeck & Bruno van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, 2011. "Filing strategies and patent value," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(6), pages 539-561, February.
    6. Jérôme Danguy & Gaetan de Rassenfosse & Bruno van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, 2014. "On the origins of the worldwide surge in patenting: an industry perspective on the R&D–patent relationship," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 23(2), pages 535-572.
    7. Gaétan de Rassenfosse, 2010. "Essays on the propensity to patent: measurement and determinants," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/210130, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    8. Jérôme Danguy & Bruno van Pottelsberghe, 2014. "The policy dilemma of the unitary patent," Working Papers 858, Bruegel.
    9. de Saint-Georges, Matthis & van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, Bruno, 2013. "A quality index for patent systems," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(3), pages 704-719.
    10. 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.
    11. Gaetan de Rassenfosse & Bruno van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, 2013. "The Role Of Fees In Patent Systems: Theory And Evidence," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(4), pages 696-716, September.
    12. Nicolas van Zeebroeck, 2011. "Long Live Patents: the Increasing Life Expectancy of Patent Applications and its Determinants," Review of Economics and Institutions, Università di Perugia, vol. 2(3).
    13. Danguy, Jérôme & de Rassenfosse, Gaétan & van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, Bruno, 2010. "The R&D-patent relationship: An industry perspective," EIB Papers 7/2009, European Investment Bank, Economics Department.
    14. Harhoff, Dietmar & van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, Bruno & Hoisl, Karin, 2009. "Languages, Fees and the International Scope of Patenting," CEPR Discussion Papers 7241, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    15. Andrew Eckert & Corinne Langinier, 2014. "A Survey Of The Economics Of Patent Systems And Procedures," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(5), pages 996-1015, December.
    16. Richard Harris & John Moffat, 2011. "R&D, Innovation and Exporting," SERC Discussion Papers 0073, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    17. repec:sol:wpaper:08-041 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. Harhoff, Dietmar & Hoisl, Karin & Reichl, Bettina & van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, Bruno, 2009. "Patent validation at the country level--The role of fees and translation costs," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(9), pages 1423-1437, November.
    19. Malwina Mejer & Bruno van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, 2012. "Economic incongruities in the European patent system," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 34(1), pages 215-234, August.
    20. de Rassenfosse, Gaetan & van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, Bruno, 2009. "A policy insight into the R&D-patent relationship," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(5), pages 779-792, June.
    21. Archontopoulos, Eugenio & Guellec, Dominique & Stevnsborg, Niels & van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, Bruno & van Zeebroeck, Nicolas, 2007. "When small is beautiful: Measuring the evolution and consequences of the voluminosity of patent applications at the EPO," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 19(2), pages 103-132, June.

    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:ulb:ulbeco:2013/209409. 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: Benoit Pauwels (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ecsulbe.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.