IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jcecon/v43y2015i4p1069-1084.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Employment growth heterogeneity under varying intellectual property rights regimes in European transition economies: Young vs. mature innovators

Author

Listed:
  • Balsmeier, Benjamin
  • Delanote, Julie

Abstract

Young innovative companies are supposed to be key drivers of sustainable economic growth. This study examines the employment growth of young, small innovative firms (denoted as innovative youngsters) and contrasts it with the employment growth of established ‘mature innovators’ in 23 European transition economies, where varying degrees of intellectual property protection apply. The growth figures of the two firm groups vary significantly across different intellectual property rights (IPR) regimes. Innovative youngsters seem to benefit from strong intellectual property protection, while mature innovators exhibit the highest employment growth rates when IPRs are rather weak. These findings point to important undiscovered differences in employment growth patterns, which might explain some of the ambiguous results of former research on IPRs, and provide a reason why certain countries might benefit from strong IPRs while others might not.

Suggested Citation

  • Balsmeier, Benjamin & Delanote, Julie, 2015. "Employment growth heterogeneity under varying intellectual property rights regimes in European transition economies: Young vs. mature innovators," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(4), pages 1069-1084.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jcecon:v:43:y:2015:i:4:p:1069-1084
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jce.2014.10.002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0147596714001012
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jce.2014.10.002?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gaétan Rassenfosse, 2012. "How SMEs exploit their intellectual property assets: evidence from survey data," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 39(2), pages 437-452, September.
    2. Amable, Bruno & Chatelain, Jean-Bernard & Ralf, Kirsten, 2010. "Patents as collateral," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 34(6), pages 1092-1104, June.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Peter Rosa, 1999. "The prevalence of multiple owners and directors in the SME sector: implications for our understanding of start-up and growth," Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(1), pages 21-37, January.
    7. Ashish Arora & Alfonso Gambardella, 2010. "Ideas for rent: an overview of markets for technology," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 19(3), pages 775-803, June.
    8. 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..
    9. Guifang Yang & Keith Maskus, 2001. "Intellectual property rights and licensing: An econometric investigation," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 137(1), pages 58-79, March.
    10. R. Veugelers, 2008. "The Role of SMEs in Innovation in the EU. A Case for Policy Intervention?," Review of Business and Economic Literature, KU Leuven, Faculty of Economics and Business (FEB), Review of Business and Economic Literature, vol. 0(3), pages 239-262.
    11. Simon Johnson & John McMillan & Christopher Woodruff, 2002. "Property Rights and Finance," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(5), pages 1335-1356, December.
    12. Evans, David S, 1987. "The Relationship between Firm Growth, Size, and Age: Estimates for 100 Manufacturing Industries," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(4), pages 567-581, June.
    13. Harrison, Rupert & Jaumandreu, Jordi & Mairesse, Jacques & Peters, Bettina, 2014. "Does innovation stimulate employment? A firm-level analysis using comparable micro-data from four European countries," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 29-43.
    14. Smarzynska Javorcik, Beata, 2004. "The composition of foreign direct investment and protection of intellectual property rights: Evidence from transition economies," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 39-62, February.
    15. Lee Branstetter & Ray Fisman & C. Fritz Foley & Kamal Saggi, 2023. "Does intellectual property rights reform spur industrial development?," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Kamal Saggi (ed.), Technology Transfer, Foreign Direct Investment, and the Protection of Intellectual Property in the Global Economy, chapter 13, pages 307-316, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    16. Francesca Lotti & Enrico Santarelli & Marco Vivarelli, 2006. "Gibrat’s Law in a Medium-Technology Industry: Empirical Evidence for Italy," International Studies in Entrepreneurship, in: Enrico Santarelli (ed.), Entrepreneurship, Growth, and Innovation, chapter 0, pages 149-164, Springer.
    17. Evans, David S, 1987. "Tests of Alternative Theories of Firm Growth," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 95(4), pages 657-674, August.
    18. Kenneth Arrow, 1962. "Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention," NBER Chapters, in: The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors, pages 609-626, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    19. Acemoglu, Daron & Cao, Dan, 2015. "Innovation by entrants and incumbents," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 255-294.
    20. 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.
    21. Paul S. Segerstrom, 2007. "Intel Economics," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 48(1), pages 247-280, February.
    22. Josh Lerner, 2009. "The Empirical Impact of Intellectual Property Rights on Innovation: Puzzles and Clues," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 99(2), pages 343-348, May.
    23. Dirk Czarnitzki & Federico Etro & Kornelius Kraft, 2014. "Endogenous Market Structures and Innovation by Leaders: An Empirical Test," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 81(321), pages 117-139, January.
    24. Lee Branstetter & Kamal Saggi, 2011. "Intellectual Property Rights, Foreign Direct Investment and Industrial Development," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 121(555), pages 1161-1191, September.
    25. Thomas Hellmann & Manju Puri, 2002. "Venture Capital and the Professionalization of Start‐Up Firms: Empirical Evidence," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 57(1), pages 169-197, February.
    26. Richard Gilbert & Carl Shapiro, 1990. "Optimal Patent Length and Breadth," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 21(1), pages 106-112, Spring.
    27. Wesley M. Cohen & Richard R. Nelson & John P. Walsh, 2000. "Protecting Their Intellectual Assets: Appropriability Conditions and Why U.S. Manufacturing Firms Patent (or Not)," NBER Working Papers 7552, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    28. Joachim Wagner, 2007. "What a Difference a Y makes-Female and Male Nascent Entrepreneurs in Germany," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 28(1), pages 1-21, January.
    29. Davis, Lewis S. & Şener, Fuat, 2012. "Private patent protection in the theory of Schumpeterian growth," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 56(7), pages 1446-1460.
    30. Pisano, Gary, 2006. "Profiting from innovation and the intellectual property revolution," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(8), pages 1122-1130, October.
    31. Robert L Ostergard, 2000. "The Measurement of Intellectual Property Rights Protection," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 31(2), pages 349-360, June.
    32. Hall, Bronwyn H. & Lerner, Josh, 2010. "The Financing of R&D and Innovation," 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 609-639, Elsevier.
    33. Arora, Ashish & Gambardella, Alfonso, 2010. "The Market for Technology," 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 641-678, Elsevier.
    34. Arora, Ashish & Fosfuri, Andrea & Gambardella, Alfonso, 2001. "Markets for Technology and Their Implications for Corporate Strategy," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 10(2), pages 419-451, June.
    35. Elias Dinopoulos & Constantinos Syropoulos, 2007. "Rent Protection as a Barrier to Innovation and Growth," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 32(2), pages 309-332, August.
    36. Hart, Peter E & Oulton, Nicholas, 1996. "Growth and Size of Firms," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 106(438), pages 1242-1252, September.
    37. 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.
    38. Delmar, Frederic & Davidsson, Per & Gartner, William B., 2003. "Arriving at the high-growth firm," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 189-216, March.
    39. Himmelberg, Charles P & Petersen, Bruce C, 1994. "R&D and Internal Finance: A Panel Study of Small Firms in High-Tech Industries," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 76(1), pages 38-51, February.
    40. Lin, Chen & Lin, Ping & Song, Frank, 2010. "Property rights protection and corporate R&D: Evidence from China," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(1), pages 49-62, September.
    41. Almus, Matthias & Nerlinger, Eric A, 1999. "Growth of New Technology-Based Firms: Which Factors Matter?," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 13(2), pages 141-154, September.
    42. Dirk Czarnitzki & Julie Delanote, 2013. "Young Innovative Companies: the new high-growth firms?," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 22(5), pages 1315-1340, October.
    43. Helena Yli‐Renko & Erkko Autio & Harry J. Sapienza, 2001. "Social capital, knowledge acquisition, and knowledge exploitation in young technology‐based firms," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(6‐7), pages 587-613, June.
    44. Joshua S. Gans & David H. Hsu & Scott Stern, 2008. "The Impact of Uncertain Intellectual Property Rights on the Market for Ideas: Evidence from Patent Grant Delays," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(5), pages 982-997, May.
    45. Enrico Santarelli (ed.), 2006. "Entrepreneurship, Growth, and Innovation," International Studies in Entrepreneurship, Springer, number 978-0-387-32314-5, November.
    46. 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.
    47. Jens Matthias Arnold & Katrin Hussinger, 2005. "Export Behavior and Firm Productivity in German Manufacturing: A Firm-Level Analysis," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 141(2), pages 219-243, July.
    48. Lewis S. Davis & Fuat Şener, 2012. "Intellectual Property Rights, Institutional Quality And Economic Growth," Journal of International Commerce, Economics and Policy (JICEP), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 3(01), pages 1-28.
    49. Malerba, Franco & Orsenigo, Luigi, 1996. "Schumpeterian patterns of innovation are technology-specific," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 451-478, May.
    50. repec:nsr:niesrd:77 is not listed on IDEAS
    51. Lerner, Josh, 1995. "Patenting in the Shadow of Competitors," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 38(2), pages 463-495, October.
    52. Park, Walter G., 2008. "International patent protection: 1960-2005," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(4), pages 761-766, May.
    53. Art Durnev & Vihang Errunza & Alexander Molchanov, 2009. "Property rights protection, corporate transparency, and growth," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 40(9), pages 1533-1562, December.
    54. Keith E. Maskus, 2000. "Intellectual Property Rights in the Global Economy," Peterson Institute Press: All Books, Peterson Institute for International Economics, number 99, April.
    55. Takehiko Yasuda, 2005. "Firm Growth, Size, Age and Behavior in Japanese Manufacturing," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 24(1), pages 1-15, December.
    56. Federico Etro, 2004. "Innovation by leaders," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 114(495), pages 281-303, April.
    57. Cédric Schneider & Reinhilde Veugelers, 2010. "On young highly innovative companies: why they matter and how (not) to policy support them," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 19(4), pages 969-1007, August.
    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. L. Aldieri & C. P. Vinci, 2018. "Innovation effects on employment in high-tech and low-tech industries: evidence from large international firms within the triad," Eurasian Business Review, Springer;Eurasia Business and Economics Society, vol. 8(2), pages 229-243, June.
    2. Lawrence J. White, 2020. "A “Primarily Property” Presumption Is—Still—Really Needed for the IP/Antitrust Interface," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 56(4), pages 715-737, June.
    3. Balsmeier, Benjamin & Woerter, Martin, 2019. "Is this time different? How digitalization influences job creation and destruction," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(8), pages 1-1.
    4. Abdin, Joynal & Sharma, Abhijit & Trivedi, Rohit & Wang, Chengang, 2024. "Financing constraints, intellectual property rights protection and incremental innovation: Evidence from transition economy firms," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 198(C).
    5. Lee, Weng Chang & Law, Siong Hook, 2016. "The Roles of Formal and Informal Institutions on Innovations Activity," Jurnal Ekonomi Malaysia, Faculty of Economics and Business, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, vol. 50(2), pages 167-179.

    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. Chu, Angus C. & Cozzi, Guido & Galli, Silvia, 2014. "Stage-dependent intellectual property rights," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 239-249.
    2. Angus C. Chu & Guido Cozzi & Haichao Fan & Shiyuan Pan & Mengbo Zhang, 2020. "Do Stronger Patents Stimulate or Stifle Innovation? The Crucial Role of Financial Development," Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 52(5), pages 1305-1322, August.
    3. Daria Ciriaci & Pietro Moncada-Paternò-Castello & Peter Voigt, 2016. "Innovation and job creation: a sustainable relation?," Eurasian Business Review, Springer;Eurasia Business and Economics Society, vol. 6(2), pages 189-213, August.
    4. Zheng, Zhijie & Huang, Chien-Yu & Yang, Yibai, 2020. "Patent protection, innovation, and technology transfer in a Schumpeterian economy," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).
    5. Davis, Lewis S. & Şener, Fuat, 2012. "Private patent protection in the theory of Schumpeterian growth," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 56(7), pages 1446-1460.
    6. Henkel, Joachim, 2022. "Licensing standard-essential patents in the IoT – A value chain perspective on the markets for technology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(10).
    7. Auriol, Emmanuelle & Biancini, Sara & Paillacar, Rodrigo, 2023. "Intellectual property rights protection and trade: An empirical analysis," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 162(C).
    8. Neves, Pedro Cunha & Afonso, Oscar & Silva, Diana & Sochirca, Elena, 2021. "The link between intellectual property rights, innovation, and growth: A meta-analysis," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 196-209.
    9. Dirk Czarnitzki & Julie Delanote, 2015. "R&D policies for young SMEs: input and output effects," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 45(3), pages 465-485, October.
    10. Biancini, Sara & Bombarda, Pamela, 2021. "Intellectual property rights, multinational firms and technology transfers," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 185(C), pages 191-210.
    11. Aysun, Uluc & Kabukcuoglu, Zeynep, 2019. "Interest rates, R&D investment and the distortionary effects of R&D incentives," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 191-210.
    12. 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.
    13. Giraudo, Emanuele & Giudici, Giancarlo & Grilli, Luca, 2019. "Entrepreneurship policy and the financing of young innovative companies: Evidence from the Italian Startup Act," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(9), pages 1-1.
    14. Lin, Jenny X. & Lincoln, William F., 2017. "Pirate's treasure," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 235-245.
    15. Ledezma, Ivan, 2013. "Defensive strategies in quality ladders," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 176-194.
    16. Ceccagnoli, Marco & Lee, You-Na & Walsh, John P., 2024. "Reaching beyond low-hanging fruit: Basic research and innovativeness," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(1).
    17. Colombelli, Alessandra & Grilli, Luca & Minola, Tommaso & Mrkajic, Boris, 2020. "To what extent do young innovative companies take advantage of policy support to enact innovation appropriation mechanisms?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(10).
    18. Karin Beukel & Minyuan Zhao, 2018. "IP litigation is local, but those who litigate are global," Journal of International Business Policy, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 1(1), pages 53-70, June.
    19. Arora, Ashish & Athreye, Suma & Huang, Can, 2016. "The paradox of openness revisited: Collaborative innovation and patenting by UK innovators," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(7), pages 1352-1361.
    20. Hudson, John & Minea, Alexandru, 2013. "Innovation, Intellectual Property Rights, and Economic Development: A Unified Empirical Investigation," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 66-78.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Employment growth; Intellectual property rights; Innovative youngsters; Transition economies;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • G24 - Financial Economics - - Financial Institutions and Services - - - Investment Banking; Venture Capital; Brokerage
    • O31 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives
    • O38 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Government Policy

    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:eee:jcecon:v:43:y:2015:i:4:p:1069-1084. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/622864 .

    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.