IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormnsc/v68y2022i10p7176-7201.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Science and the Market for Technology

Author

Listed:
  • Ashish Arora

    (Fuqua School of Business, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina 27708; National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138)

  • Sharon Belenzon

    (Fuqua School of Business, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina 27708; National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138)

  • Jungkyu Suh

    (Fuqua School of Business, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina 27708)

Abstract

Well-functioning markets for technology (MFT) allow inventors to sell their inventions to others that may derive more value from them. We argue that the growing use of science in inventions enhances MFT. Science-based inventions have higher gains from trade and lower transaction costs. This relationship is amplified in equilibrium because science-based inventions are also likely to feature smaller inventors with a greater propensity to trade. Using large-scale data, we show that patents citing science are more likely to be traded, especially for novel patents and for smaller inventors. We conclude that the growing use of science in invention is beneficial by encouraging the expansion of MFT and supporting a division of innovative labor.

Suggested Citation

  • Ashish Arora & Sharon Belenzon & Jungkyu Suh, 2022. "Science and the Market for Technology," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(10), pages 7176-7201, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:68:y:2022:i:10:p:7176-7201
    DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.2021.4268
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2021.4268
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/mnsc.2021.4268?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
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Benjamin F. Jones, 2009. "The Burden of Knowledge and the "Death of the Renaissance Man": Is Innovation Getting Harder?," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 76(1), pages 283-317.
    2. Bruce Kogut & Udo Zander, 1992. "Knowledge of the Firm, Combinative Capabilities, and the Replication of Technology," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 3(3), pages 383-397, August.
    3. Alberto Galasso & Mark Schankerman & Carlos J. Serrano, 2013. "Trading and enforcing patent rights," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 44(2), pages 275-312, June.
    4. Figueroa, Nicolás & Serrano, Carlos J., 2019. "Patent trading flows of small and large firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(7), pages 1601-1616.
    5. Sharon Belenzon & Mark Schankerman, 2009. "University Knowledge Transfer: Private Ownership, Incentives, and Local Development Objectives," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 52(1), pages 111-144, February.
    6. Bryan, Kevin A. & Ozcan, Yasin & Sampat, Bhaven, 2020. "In-text patent citations: A user's guide," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(4).
    7. Arts, Sam & Hou, Jianan & Gomez, Juan Carlos, 2021. "Natural language processing to identify the creation and impact of new technologies in patent text: Code, data, and new measures," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(2).
    8. Leonid Kogan & Dimitris Papanikolaou & Amit Seru & Noah Stoffman, 2017. "Technological Innovation, Resource Allocation, and Growth," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 132(2), pages 665-712.
    9. Carlos J. Serrano, 2010. "The dynamics of the transfer and renewal of patents," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 41(4), pages 686-708, December.
    10. Stuart J. H. Graham & Alan C. Marco & Amanda F. Myers, 2018. "Patent transactions in the marketplace: Lessons from the USPTO Patent Assignment Dataset," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(3), pages 343-371, September.
    11. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555, September.
    12. 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.
    13. Veugelers, Reinhilde & Wang, Jian, 2019. "Scientific novelty and technological impact," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(6), pages 1362-1372.
    14. Ajay Agrawal & Rebecca Henderson, 2002. "Putting Patents in Context: Exploring Knowledge Transfer from MIT," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 48(1), pages 44-60, January.
    15. Carlos J. Serrano, 2018. "Estimating The Gains From Trade In The Market For Patent Rights," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 59(4), pages 1877-1904, November.
    16. Pierre Azoulay & Christian Fons-Rosen & Joshua S. Graff Zivin, 2019. "Does Science Advance One Funeral at a Time?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 109(8), pages 2889-2920, August.
    17. Ashish Arora & Andréa Fosfuri, 2000. "The Market for Technology in the Chemical Industry : Causes and Consequences," Revue d'Économie Industrielle, Programme National Persée, vol. 92(1), pages 317-334.
    18. Narin, Francis & Hamilton, Kimberly S. & Olivastro, Dominic, 1997. "The increasing linkage between U.S. technology and public science," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 317-330, October.
    19. Lee Fleming, 2001. "Recombinant Uncertainty in Technological Search," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(1), pages 117-132, January.
    20. Mahka Moeen & Rajshree Agarwal, 2017. "Incubation of an industry: Heterogeneous knowledge bases and modes of value capture," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(3), pages 566-587, March.
    21. Mansfield, Edwin, 1980. "Basic Research and Productivity Increase in Manufacturing," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 70(5), pages 863-873, December.
    22. Ashish Arora & Sharon Belenzon & Lia Sheer, 2021. "Knowledge Spillovers and Corporate Investment in Scientific Research," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 111(3), pages 871-898, March.
    23. Alberto Galasso & Mark Schankerman, 2018. "Patent rights, innovation, and firm exit," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 49(1), pages 64-86, March.
    24. Song Ma & Joy Tianjiao Tong & Wei Wang, 2021. "Bankrupt Innovative Firms," NBER Working Papers 28856, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    25. Joshua S. Gans & David H. Hsu & Scott Stern, 2002. "When Does Start-Up Innovation Spur the Gale of Creative Destruction?," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 33(4), pages 571-586, Winter.
    26. Alberto Galasso & Mark Schankerman, 2014. "Patents and Cumulative Innovation: Causal Evidence from the Courts," NBER Working Papers 20269, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    27. Michael Roach & Wesley M. Cohen, 2013. "Lens or Prism? Patent Citations as a Measure of Knowledge Flows from Public Research," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 59(2), pages 504-525, October.
    28. Marco, Antonio De & Scellato, Giuseppe & Ughetto, Elisa & Caviggioli, Federico, 2017. "Global markets for technology: Evidence from patent transactions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(9), pages 1644-1654.
    29. Ashish Arora, 1995. "Licensing Tacit Knowledge: Intellectual Property Rights And The Market For Know-How," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 4(1), pages 41-60.
    30. Lee Fleming & Olav Sorenson, 2004. "Science as a map in technological search," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(8‐9), pages 909-928, August.
    31. Cotropia, Christopher A. & Lemley, Mark A. & Sampat, Bhaven, 2013. "Do applicant patent citations matter?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(4), pages 844-854.
    32. Rothschild, Michael & Stiglitz, Joseph E., 1970. "Increasing risk: I. A definition," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 2(3), pages 225-243, September.
    33. Hélène Dernis & Mosahid Khan, 2004. "Triadic Patent Families Methodology," OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers 2004/2, OECD Publishing.
    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. Kim, Young-Choon & Kotha, Reddi & Rhee, Mooweon, 2024. "Do firms with technological capabilities rush in? Evidence from the timing of licensing of Stanford inventions," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).
    2. Kim, Jinhwan & Valentine, Kristen, 2023. "Public firm disclosures and the market for innovation," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 76(1).
    3. Ziyou Teng & Xuezhong Zhu, 2024. "Measuring the global and domestic technological impact of Chinese scientific output: a patent-to-paper citation analysis of science-technology linkage," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(9), pages 5181-5210, September.

    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. Lee, Honggi, 2023. "The heterogeneous effects of patent scope on licensing propensity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(3).
    2. Leone, Maria Isabella & Messeni Petruzzelli, Antonio & Natalicchio, Angelo, 2022. "Boundary spanning through external technology acquisition: The moderating role of star scientists and upstream alliances," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    3. Wang, Fang, 2024. "Does the recombination of distant scientific knowledge generate valuable inventions? An analysis of pharmaceutical patents," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 130(C).
    4. Figueroa, Nicolás & Serrano, Carlos J., 2019. "Patent trading flows of small and large firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(7), pages 1601-1616.
    5. Caviggioli, Federico & De Marco, Antonio & Montobbio, Fabio & Ughetto, Elisa, 2020. "The licensing and selling of inventions by US universities," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 159(C).
    6. Sheer, Lia, 2022. "Sitting on the Fence: Integrating the two worlds of scientific discovery and invention within the firm," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(7).
    7. Carlos J. Serrano & Rosemarie Ziedonis, 2018. "How Redeployable are Patent Assets? Evidence from Failed Startups," NBER Working Papers 24526, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. Ke, Qing, 2020. "Technological impact of biomedical research: The role of basicness and novelty," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(7).
    9. Sam Arts & Lee Fleming, 2018. "Paradise of Novelty—Or Loss of Human Capital? Exploring New Fields and Inventive Output," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(6), pages 1074-1092, December.
    10. Bryan, Kevin A. & Ozcan, Yasin & Sampat, Bhaven, 2020. "In-text patent citations: A user's guide," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(4).
    11. Choi, Jin-Uk & Lee, Chang-Yang, 2022. "The differential effects of basic research on firm R&D productivity: The conditioning role of technological diversification," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 118(C).
    12. Aaron K. Chatterji & Kira R. Fabrizio, 2016. "Does the market for ideas influence the rate and direction of innovative activity? Evidence from the medical device industry," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(3), pages 447-465, March.
    13. Ugo Rizzo & Nicolò Barbieri & Laura Ramaciotti & Demian Iannantuono, 2020. "The division of labour between academia and industry for the generation of radical inventions," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 45(2), pages 393-413, April.
    14. Gambardella, Alfonso, 2023. "Private and social functions of patents: Innovation, markets, and new firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(7).
    15. Peters, Bettina & Marks, Hannes & Trunschke, Markus & Grimpe, Christoph & Sofka, Wolfgang & Czarnitzki, Dirk, 2023. "Schwerpunktstudie Technologiemärkte," Studien zum deutschen Innovationssystem 9-2023, Expertenkommission Forschung und Innovation (EFI) - Commission of Experts for Research and Innovation, Berlin.
    16. Wu, Xiaokang & Yang, Jijun, 2023. "High-speed railway and patent trade in China," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 123(C).
    17. Lee, Jong-Seon & Park, Ji-Hoon & Bae, Zong-Tae, 2017. "The effects of licensing-in on innovative performance in different technological regimes," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(2), pages 485-496.
    18. Peters, Bettina & Diekhof, Josefine & Grimpe, Christoph & Marks, Hannes & Sofka, Wolfgang, 2023. "Machbarkeitsstudie Technologiemärkte," Studien zum deutschen Innovationssystem 8-2023, Expertenkommission Forschung und Innovation (EFI) - Commission of Experts for Research and Innovation, Berlin.
    19. Arora, Ashish & Belenzon, Sharon & Dionisi, Bernardo, 2023. "First-mover advantage and the private value of public science," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(9).
    20. Plantec, Quentin & Le Masson, Pascal & Weil, Benoît, 2021. "Impact of knowledge search practices on the originality of inventions: A study in the oil & gas industry through dynamic patent analysis," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    science; market for technology; innovation; science-based entrepreneurship;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • L24 - Industrial Organization - - Firm Objectives, Organization, and Behavior - - - Contracting Out; Joint Ventures
    • O3 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights
    • O31 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives
    • O33 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Technological Change: Choices and Consequences; Diffusion Processes
    • O34 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Intellectual Property and Intellectual Capital
    • O36 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Open Innovation

    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:inm:ormnsc:v:68:y:2022:i:10:p:7176-7201. 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: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.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.