IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/wai/econwp/17-04.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

New Perspectives on Patenting Activity in New Zealand 1860-1899

Author

Listed:

Abstract

Existing research suggests that New Zealand was, on a per capita basis, the wealthiest and most prolific patenting nation during the late nineteenth century. By quantifying lapsed applications, patent renewals, and expenditure on patent fees, rather than just patent applications, we consider the real level of innovative activity. Our results show that while reductions in patent fees and required advertising in the early 1880s led to a sharp increase in applications by people living in New Zealand, overseas patent applications and total expenditure on New Zealand patents showed relatively steady growth between 1860 and 1899. Lower fees succeeded in increasing patenting by skilled New Zealand trades workers (although engineers still dominated), however, patenting by unskilled workers, such as labourers, remained low. People living in New Zealand made over sixty per cent of patent applications, but overseas patentees paid over half of patent fees because relatively fewer of their applications lapsed or were not renewed. Although women made greater use of the patent system over time, even in 1899 they accounted for only 2.5 per cent of patent applications.

Suggested Citation

  • Matthew Gibbons & Les Oxley, 2017. "New Perspectives on Patenting Activity in New Zealand 1860-1899," Working Papers in Economics 17/04, University of Waikato.
  • Handle: RePEc:wai:econwp:17/04
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://repec.its.waikato.ac.nz/wai/econwp/1704.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Petra Moser, 2005. "How Do Patent Laws Influence Innovation? Evidence from Nineteenth-Century World's Fairs," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(4), pages 1214-1236, September.
    2. Sullivan, Richard J., 1989. "England's Age of invention: The acceleration of patents and patentable invention during the industrial revolution," Explorations in Economic History, Elsevier, vol. 26(4), pages 424-452, October.
    3. Schankerman, Mark & Pakes, Ariel, 1986. "Estimates of the Value of Patent Rights in European Countries during the Post-1950 Period," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 96(384), pages 1052-1076, December.
    4. Nuvolari, Alessandro & Tartari, Valentina, 2011. "Bennet Woodcroft and the value of English patents, 1617-1841," Explorations in Economic History, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 97-115, January.
    5. Nicholas, Tom, 2011. "Cheaper patents," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(2), pages 325-339, March.
    6. Bottomley, Sean, 2014. "Patenting in England, Scotland and Ireland during the Industrial Revolution, 1700–1852," Explorations in Economic History, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 48-63.
    7. Greasley, David & Oxley, Les, 1998. "Causality and the First Industrial Revolution," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 7(1), pages 33-47, March.
    8. Alessandro Nuvolari, 2004. "Collective invention during the British Industrial Revolution: the case of the Cornish pumping engine," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 28(3), pages 347-363, May.
    9. Christine MacLeod & Jennifer Tann & James Andrew & Jeremy Stein, 2003. "Evaluating inventive activity: the cost of nineteenth‐century UK patents and the fallibility of renewal data," Economic History Review, Economic History Society, vol. 56(3), pages 537-562, August.
    10. David N. Weil & Oded Galor, 2000. "Population, Technology, and Growth: From Malthusian Stagnation to the Demographic Transition and Beyond," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 90(4), pages 806-828, September.
    11. Rebecca Williams & Les Oxley, 2016. "The Geography of Inventiveness in the Primary Sector: Some Initial Results for New Zealand, 1880–1895," Australian Economic History Review, Economic History Society of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 56(2), pages 151-173, July.
    12. Jochen Streb & Jörg Baten & Shuxi Yin, 2006. "Technological and geographical knowledge spillover in the German empire 1877–1918," Economic History Review, Economic History Society, vol. 59(2), pages 347-373, May.
    13. Khan, B. Zorina & Sokoloff, Kenneth L., 1993. "“Schemes of Practical Utility†: Entrepreneurship and Innovation Among “Great Inventors†in the United States, 1790–1865," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 53(2), pages 289-307, June.
    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. Nuvolari, Alessandro & Tartari, Valentina & Tranchero, Matteo, 2021. "Patterns of innovation during the Industrial Revolution: A reappraisal using a composite indicator of patent quality," Explorations in Economic History, Elsevier, vol. 82(C).
    2. Matthew Gibbons & Les Oxley, 2017. "The Relationship of Patenting Applications and Expenditure with Output and Real GDP in Nineteenth Century Colonial New Zealand," Working Papers in Economics 17/05, University of Waikato.
    3. Alessandro Nuvolari & Valentina Tartari, 2009. "Mr Woodcroft and the value of English patents of invention, 1617-1852," Working Papers 9015, Economic History Society.
    4. Billington, Stephen D., 2018. "Patent costs and the value of inventions: Explaining patenting behaviour between England, Ireland and Scotland, 1617-1852," QUCEH Working Paper Series 2018-10, Queen's University Belfast, Queen's University Centre for Economic History.
    5. Nuvolari, Alessandro & Tartari, Valentina, 2011. "Bennet Woodcroft and the value of English patents, 1617-1841," Explorations in Economic History, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 97-115, January.
    6. Alessandro Nuvolari & Michelangelo Vasta, 2015. "Independent invention in Italy during the Liberal Age, 1861–1913," Economic History Review, Economic History Society, vol. 68(3), pages 858-886, August.
    7. Nicholas, Tom, 2011. "Cheaper patents," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(2), pages 325-339, March.
    8. Billington, Stephen D., 2021. "What explains patenting behaviour during Britain’s Industrial Revolution?," Explorations in Economic History, Elsevier, vol. 82(C).
    9. Bottomley, Sean, 2014. "Patenting in England, Scotland and Ireland during the Industrial Revolution, 1700–1852," Explorations in Economic History, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 48-63.
    10. Alexander Donges & Felix Selgert, 2019. "Technology transfer via foreign patents in Germany, 1843–77," Economic History Review, Economic History Society, vol. 72(1), pages 182-208, February.
    11. Billington, Stephen D., 2018. ""War, what is it good for?": The industrial revolution!," QUCEH Working Paper Series 2018-12, Queen's University Belfast, Queen's University Centre for Economic History.
    12. 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.
    13. Fontana, Roberto & Nuvolari, Alessandro & Shimizu, Hiroshi & Vezzulli, Andrea, 2013. "Reassessing patent propensity: Evidence from a dataset of R&D awards, 1977–2004," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(10), pages 1780-1792.
    14. Rebecca Williams & Les Oxley, 2016. "The Geography of Inventiveness in the Primary Sector: Some Initial Results for New Zealand, 1880–1895," Australian Economic History Review, Economic History Society of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 56(2), pages 151-173, July.
    15. Richter, Ralf & Streb, Jochen, 2011. "Catching-Up and Falling Behind: Knowledge Spillover from American to German Machine Toolmakers," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 71(4), pages 1006-1031, December.
    16. , & Streb, Jochen, 2015. "The Berlin Stock Exchange in Imperial Germany ? a Market for New Technology?," CEPR Discussion Papers 10558, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    17. Grant Fleming & Frank Liu & David Merrett & Simon Ville, 2022. "Patents, Foreign Direct Investment and Economic Growth in Australia, 1860-2010," CEH Discussion Papers 08, Centre for Economic History, Research School of Economics, Australian National University.
    18. David Andersson & Thor Berger & Erik Prawitz, 2023. "Making a Market: Infrastructure, Integration, and the Rise of Innovation," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 105(2), pages 258-274, March.
    19. Liam Brunt & Josh Lerner & Tom Nicholas, 2012. "Inducement Prizes and Innovation," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(4), pages 657-696, December.
    20. Joel Mokyr, 2009. "Intellectual Property Rights, the Industrial Revolution, and the Beginnings of Modern Economic Growth," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 99(2), pages 349-355, May.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    bubbles; New Zealand patents; Granger causality; patent expenditure;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • O31 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives
    • N17 - Economic History - - Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics; Industrial Structure; Growth; Fluctuations - - - Africa; Oceania
    • N37 - Economic History - - Labor and Consumers, Demography, Education, Health, Welfare, Income, Wealth, Religion, and Philanthropy - - - Africa; Oceania

    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:wai:econwp:17/04. 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: Geua Boe-Gibson (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/dewaknz.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.