IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/wpaper/hal-03473787.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Inefficiencies in technology transfer: theory and empirics

Author

Listed:
  • Marie-Laure Allain

    (Department of Economics Ecole polytechnique, CREST - Centre de Recherche en Économie et Statistique - ENSAI - Ecole Nationale de la Statistique et de l'Analyse de l'Information [Bruz] - X - École polytechnique - IP Paris - Institut Polytechnique de Paris - ENSAE Paris - École Nationale de la Statistique et de l'Administration Économique - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

  • Emeric Henry

    (ECON - Département d'économie (Sciences Po) - Sciences Po - Sciences Po - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, CEPR - Center for Economic Policy Research)

  • Margaret Kyle

    (CEPR - Center for Economic Policy Research, TSE-R - Toulouse School of Economics - UT Capitole - Université Toulouse Capitole - UT - Université de Toulouse - INRA - Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique - EHESS - École des hautes études en sciences sociales - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

Abstract

Markets for technology can promote innovation by allowing for division of labor in research and development. Some firms may specialize in the discovery of ideas, while others have a comparative advantage in later stages of development and marketing. However, these gains depend on the timing of technology transfer: the buyer of an idea should take over development at the stage at which he has an efficiency advantage. We show that in an environment with asymmetric information about the value of the idea and where this asymmetry decreases as the product is developed, deviations from the optimal timing of technology transfer will occur. We obtain a condition for the optimal timing to take place and show that the intensity of competition between potential buyers has countervailing effects on this condition. An empirical analysis of licensing contracts signed between biotechnology firms and large pharmaceutical firms confirms our theoretical predictions.

Suggested Citation

  • Marie-Laure Allain & Emeric Henry & Margaret Kyle, 2011. "Inefficiencies in technology transfer: theory and empirics," Working Papers hal-03473787, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:wpaper:hal-03473787
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://sciencespo.hal.science/hal-03473787
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://sciencespo.hal.science/hal-03473787/document
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Motta,Massimo, 2004. "Competition Policy," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521016919, November.
    2. Vishwasrao, Sharmila, 2007. "Royalties vs. fees: How do firms pay for foreign technology?," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 25(4), pages 741-759, August.
    3. Ken Binmore & Ariel Rubinstein & Asher Wolinsky, 1986. "The Nash Bargaining Solution in Economic Modelling," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 17(2), pages 176-188, Summer.
    4. Pedro Mendi, 2005. "The Structure of Payments in Technology Transfer Contracts: Evidence from Spain," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 14(2), pages 403-429, June.
    5. James J. Anton & Dennis A. Yao, 2002. "The Sale of Ideas: Strategic Disclosure, Property Rights, and Contracting," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 69(3), pages 513-531.
    6. repec:bla:jindec:v:46:y:1998:i:2:p:125-56 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Sean Nicholson, 2005. "Biotech-Pharmaceutical Alliances as a Signal of Asset and Firm Quality," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 78(4), pages 1433-1464, July.
    8. Josh Lerner & Robert P. Merges, 1998. "The Control of Technology Alliances: An Empirical Analysis of the Biotechnology Industry," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(2), pages 125-156, June.
    9. Josh Lerner & Ulrike Malmendier, 2010. "Contractibility and the Design of Research Agreements," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 100(1), pages 214-246, March.
    10. Catherine C. de Fontenay & Joshua S. Gans, 2005. "Vertical Integration in the Presence of Upstream Competition," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 36(3), pages 544-572, Autumn.
    11. Choi, Jay Pil, 2001. "Technology transfer with moral hazard," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 19(1-2), pages 249-266, January.
    12. Ashish Arora & Andrea Fosfuri & Alfonso Gambardella, 2004. "Markets for Technology: The Economics of Innovation and Corporate Strategy," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262511819, December.
    13. Lars A. Stole & Jeffrey Zwiebel, 1996. "Intra-firm Bargaining under Non-binding Contracts," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 63(3), pages 375-410.
    14. Higgins, Matthew J., 2007. "The allocation of control rights in pharmaceutical alliances," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 58-75, March.
    15. Bharat N. Anand & Tarun Khanna, 2000. "The Structure of Licensing Contracts," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 48(1), pages 103-135, March.
    16. Raskovich, Alexander, 2007. "Ordered bargaining," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 25(5), pages 1126-1143, October.
    17. repec:bla:jindec:v:48:y:2000:i:1:p:103-35 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. 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.
    19. Beggs, A. W., 1992. "The licensing of patents under asymmetric information," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 171-191, June.
    20. Ilan Guedj & David Scharfstein, 2004. "Organizational Scope and Investment: Evidence from the Drug Development Strategies and Performance of Biopharmaceutical Firms," NBER Working Papers 10933, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    21. Smith, Howard & Thanassoulis, John, 2006. "Upstream Competition and Downstream Buyer Power," CEPR Discussion Papers 5803, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    22. Puri, Manju & Robinson, David T., 2007. "Optimism and economic choice," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(1), pages 71-99, October.
    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. Marie-Laure Allain & Emeric Henry & Margaret Kyle, 2011. "Inefficiencies in the sale of ideas: theory and empirics," SciencePo Working papers Main hal-00639128, HAL.
    2. Hong Luo, 2014. "When to Sell Your Idea: Theory and Evidence from the Movie Industry," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 60(12), pages 3067-3086, December.
    3. Marie-Laure Allain & Emeric Henry & Margaret Kyle, 2016. "Competition and the Efficiency of Markets for Technology," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(4), pages 1000-1019, April.
    4. Simon Wakeman, 2012. "How does obtaining intellectual property rights impact technology commercialization strategy for start-up innovators? Reconciling the effects on licensing vs. financing," ESMT Research Working Papers ESMT-12-03 (R1), ESMT European School of Management and Technology, revised 11 Jul 2012.
    5. Seongkyoon Jeong & Sungki Lee, 2015. "Strategic timing of academic commercialism: evidence from technology transfer," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 40(6), pages 910-931, December.

    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. repec:hal:spmain:info:hdl:2441/eu4vqp9ompqllr09iatrn4log is not listed on IDEAS
    2. repec:spo:wpmain:info:hdl:2441/eu4vqp9ompqllr09iatrn4log is not listed on IDEAS
    3. repec:hal:wpspec:info:hdl:2441/eu4vqp9ompqllr09iatrn4log is not listed on IDEAS
    4. repec:spo:wpecon:info:hdl:2441/eu4vqp9ompqllr09iatrn4log is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Marie-Laure Allain & Emeric Henry & Margaret Kyle, 2011. "Inefficiencies in the sale of ideas: theory and empirics," SciencePo Working papers Main hal-00639128, HAL.
    6. Marie-Laure Allain & Emeric Henry & Margaret Kyle, 2011. "Inefficiencies in technology transfer: theory and empirics," Working Papers hal-03473787, HAL.
    7. Marie-Laure Allain & Emeric Henry & Margaret Kyle, 2016. "Competition and the Efficiency of Markets for Technology," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(4), pages 1000-1019, April.
    8. 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.
    9. Sudipto Bhattacharya & Claude d’Aspremont & Sergei Guriev & Debapriya Sen & Yair Tauman, 2014. "Cooperation in R&D: Patenting, Licensing, and Contracting," International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, in: Kalyan Chatterjee & William Samuelson (ed.), Game Theory and Business Applications, edition 2, chapter 0, pages 265-286, Springer.
    10. 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.
    11. Pedro Mendi & Rafael Moner-Colonques & José J. Sempere-Monerris, 2016. "Optimal know-how transfers in licensing contracts," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 118(2), pages 121-139, June.
    12. Umit Ozmel & Deniz Yavuz & Jeffrey J. Reuer & Todd Zenger, 2017. "Network Prominence, Bargaining Power, and the Allocation of Value Capturing Rights in High-Tech Alliance Contracts," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(5), pages 947-964, October.
    13. Deepak Hegde, 2014. "Tacit Knowledge and the Structure of License Contracts: Evidence from the Biomedical Industry," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 23(3), pages 568-600, September.
    14. Matsushima, Noriaki & Shinohara, Ryusuke, 2014. "What factors determine the number of trading partners?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 428-441.
    15. Debapriya Sen & Giorgos Stamatopoulos, 2009. "Technology Transfer Under Returns To Scale," Manchester School, University of Manchester, vol. 77(3), pages 337-365, June.
    16. Manuel Hermosilla, 2021. "Rushed Innovation: Evidence from Drug Licensing," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(1), pages 257-278, January.
    17. Dechenaux, Emmanuel & Thursby, Marie & Thursby, Jerry, 2009. "Shirking, sharing risk and shelving: The role of university license contracts," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 80-91, January.
    18. Pedro Mendi, 2007. "Contractual implications of international trade in tacit knowledge," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(9), pages 1173-1183.
    19. Claire Chambolle & Sofia Villas-Boas, 2007. "Buyer Power through Producer's Differentiation," Working Papers hal-00243058, HAL.
    20. Manel Antelo, 2010. "Screening vs. signaling in technology licensing," Economic Working Papers at Centro de Estudios Andaluces E2010/05, Centro de Estudios Andaluces.
    21. Gordanier, John & Miao, Chun-Hui, 2011. "On the duration of technology licensing," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 29(6), pages 755-765.
    22. Pedro Mendi, 2005. "The Structure of Payments in Technology Transfer Contracts: Evidence from Spain," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 14(2), pages 403-429, June.
    23. Toshihiro Matsumura & Noriaki Matsushima, 2010. "Patent licensing, bargaining, and product positioning," ISER Discussion Paper 0775, Institute of Social and Economic Research, Osaka University.
    24. Figueroa, Nicolás & Serrano, Carlos J., 2019. "Patent trading flows of small and large firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(7), pages 1601-1616.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Innovation; Licensing and market structure;

    JEL classification:

    • L13 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Oligopoly and Other Imperfect Markets
    • L24 - Industrial Organization - - Firm Objectives, Organization, and Behavior - - - Contracting Out; Joint Ventures
    • L65 - Industrial Organization - - Industry Studies: Manufacturing - - - Chemicals; Rubber; Drugs; Biotechnology; Plastics

    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:hal:wpaper:hal-03473787. 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: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.