IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/wip/wpaper/31.html

Measuring creativity: Learning from innovation measurement

Author

Listed:
  • Stephane Lhuillery

    (ICN Business School & BETA-CNRS 7522, Nancy, France.)

  • Julio Raffo

    (Economics and Statistics Division, World Intellectual Property Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.)

  • Intan Hamdan-Livramento

    (Economics and Statistics Division, World Intellectual Property Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.)

Abstract

There is a growing interest in broadening the measurement scope of innovation and considering “creative†activities, meaning that the usual indicators of innovation satisfy neither scholars nor policy makers. Conceptually, there is not much difference between innovative and creative activity: but to what extent are current measures that capture innovation relevant for creativity? Can the new measures for creativity benefit from the experience accumulated through R&D and innovation? Our article provides insights and lessons learned from using measures of innovative activities for scholars who are interested in capturing creative activities. We underscore the difficulties faced when measuring innovation and draw some parallels of these difficulties with the efforts undertaken to measure creativity.

Suggested Citation

  • Stephane Lhuillery & Julio Raffo & Intan Hamdan-Livramento, 2016. "Measuring creativity: Learning from innovation measurement," WIPO Economic Research Working Papers 31, World Intellectual Property Organization - Economics and Statistics Division.
    • Handle: RePEc:wip:wpaper:31
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/wipo_pub_econstat_wp_31.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rebecca Henderson & Iain Cockburn, 1996. "Scale, Scope, and Spillovers: The Determinants of Research Productivity in Drug Discovery," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 27(1), pages 32-59, Spring.
    2. Mendonca, Sandro & Pereira, Tiago Santos & Godinho, Manuel Mira, 2004. "Trademarks as an indicator of innovation and industrial change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(9), pages 1385-1404, November.
    3. Stephen Roper & James Love & Priit Vahter, 2012. "The value of design strategies for new product development: Some econometric evidence," The Centre for Small and Medium Sized Enterprises Research Paper Series 114, Centre for Small and Medium Sized Enterprises, Warwick Business School, University of Warwick.
    4. Kortum, Samuel & Lerner, Josh, 1998. "Stronger protection or technological revolution: what is behind the recent surge in patenting?," Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 247-304, June.
    5. Crepon, B. & Duguet, E. & Mairesse, J., 1998. "Research Investment, Innovation and Productivity: An Econometric Analysis at the Firm Level," Papiers d'Economie Mathématique et Applications 98.15, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1).
    6. Kim, Yee Kyoung & Lee, Keun & Park, Walter G. & Choo, Kineung, 2012. "Appropriate intellectual property protection and economic growth in countries at different levels of development," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 358-375.
    7. Hagedoorn, John & Link, Albert N. & Vonortas, Nicholas S., 2000. "Research partnerships1," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(4-5), pages 567-586, April.
    8. Stuart J.H. Graham & Galen Hancock & Alan C. Marco & Amanda Fila Myers, 2013. "The USPTO Trademark Case Files Dataset: Descriptions, Lessons, and Insights," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(4), pages 669-705, December.
    9. Stoneman, Paul, 2011. "Soft Innovation: Economics, Product Aesthetics, and the Creative Industries," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199697021.
    10. 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.
    11. Geuna, Aldo & Kataishi, Rodrigo & Toselli, Manuel & Guzmán, Eduardo & Lawson, Cornelia & Fernandez-Zubieta, Ana & Barros, Beatriz, 2015. "SiSOB data extraction and codification: A tool to analyze scientific careers," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(9), pages 1645-1658.
    12. G. M.P. Swann, 2009. "The Economics of Innovation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 13211, March.
    13. Gabriele Pellegrino & Mariacristina Piva & Marco Vivarelli, 2009. "How do young innovative companies innovate?," Jena Economics Research Papers 2009-055, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    14. Emmanuel Duguet, 2006. "Innovation height, spillovers and tfp growth at the firm level: Evidence from French manufacturing," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(4-5), pages 415-442.
    15. Carol Corrado & Charles Hulten & Daniel Sichel, 2009. "Intangible Capital And U.S. Economic Growth," Review of Income and Wealth, International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, vol. 55(3), pages 661-685, September.
    16. repec:fth:harver:1473 is not listed on IDEAS
    17. Janusz A. Ordover, 1991. "A Patent System for Both Diffusion and Exclusion," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 5(1), pages 43-60, Winter.
    18. Lane, Julia I. & Owen-Smith, Jason & Rosen, Rebecca F. & Weinberg, Bruce A., 2015. "New linked data on research investments: Scientific workforce, productivity, and public value," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(9), pages 1659-1671.
    19. Bronwyn H. Hall & Albert N. Link & John T. Scott, 2003. "Universities as Research Partners," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 85(2), pages 485-491, 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. Robert J. W. Tijssen & Jos J. Winnink, 2018. "Capturing ‘R&D excellence’: indicators, international statistics, and innovative universities," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 114(2), pages 687-699, February.

    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. Cohen, Wesley M., 2010. "Fifty Years of Empirical Studies of Innovative Activity and Performance," 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 129-213, Elsevier.
    2. Schmiedeberg, Claudia, 2008. "Complementarities of innovation activities: An empirical analysis of the German manufacturing sector," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(9), pages 1492-1503, October.
    3. Mohnen, Pierre, 2019. "R&D, innovation and productivity," MERIT Working Papers 2019-016, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    4. Alessandra Scandura, 2019. "The role of scientific and market knowledge in the inventive process: evidence from a survey of industrial inventors," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 44(4), pages 1029-1069, August.
    5. Nagaoka, Sadao & Motohashi, Kazuyuki & Goto, Akira, 2010. "Patent Statistics as an Innovation Indicator," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 0, pages 1083-1127, Elsevier.
    6. Gaétan de Rassenfosse & Adam B. Jaffe, 2017. "Econometric Evidence on the R&D Depreciation Rate," NBER Working Papers 23072, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. Mairesse, Jacques & Mohnen, Pierre, 2010. "Using Innovation Surveys for Econometric Analysis," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 0, pages 1129-1155, Elsevier.
    8. Dziallas, Marisa & Blind, Knut, 2019. "Innovation indicators throughout the innovation process: An extensive literature analysis," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 80, pages 3-29.
    9. Tavassoli, Sam & Karlsson, Charlie, 2021. "The role of location on complexity of firms’ innovation outcome," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 162(C).
    10. Wesley M. Cohen & You-Na Lee & John P. Walsh, 2019. "How Innovative Are Innovations? A Multidimensional, Survey-Based Approach," NBER Chapters, in: Measuring and Accounting for Innovation in the Twenty-First Century, pages 139-182, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    11. Antoine Dechezleprêtre & Yann Ménière & Myra Mohnen, 2017. "International patent families: from application strategies to statistical indicators," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(2), pages 793-828, May.
    12. Christophe Pennetier & Karan Girotra & Jürgen Mihm, 2019. "R&D Spending: Dynamic or Persistent?," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 21(3), pages 636-657, July.
    13. Andrés Barge-Gil & Alberto López, 2015. "R versus D: estimating the differentiated effect of research and development on innovation results," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 24(1), pages 93-129.
    14. Bettina Peters & Rebecca Riley & Iulia Siedschlag & Priit Vahter & John McQuinn, 2018. "Internationalisation, innovation and productivity in services: evidence from Germany, Ireland and the United Kingdom," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 154(3), pages 585-615, August.
    15. Baumann, Julian & Kritikos, Alexander S., 2016. "The link between R&D, innovation and productivity: Are micro firms different?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(6), pages 1263-1274.
    16. Barirani, Ahmad & Beaudry, Catherine & Agard, Bruno, 2017. "Can universities profit from general purpose inventions? The case of Canadian nanotechnology patents," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 271-283.
    17. Pellegrino, Gabriele & Piva, Mariacristina & Vivarelli, Marco, 2012. "Young firms and innovation: A microeconometric analysis," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 23(4), pages 329-340.
    18. Czarnitzki, Dirk & Thorwarth, Susanne, 2009. "The design paradox: the contribution of in-house and external design activities on product market performance," ZEW Discussion Papers 09-068, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    19. Laursen, Keld & Salter, Ammon J., 2014. "The paradox of openness: Appropriability, external search and collaboration," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(5), pages 867-878.
    20. Behrens, Vanessa & Berger, Marius & Hud, Martin & Hünermund, Paul & Iferd, Younes & Peters, Bettina & Rammer, Christian & Schubert, Torben, 2017. "Innovation activities of firms in Germany - Results of the German CIS 2012 and 2014: Background report on the surveys of the Mannheim Innovation Panel Conducted in the Years 2013 to 2016," ZEW Dokumentationen 17-04, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.

    More about this item

    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
    • O32 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Management of Technological Innovation and R&D

    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:wip:wpaper:31. 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: Economics and Statistics Division (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ewipoch.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.