IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/15440.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Reorganization of Inventive Activity in the United States during the Early Twentieth Century

Author

Listed:
  • Naomi R. Lamoreaux
  • Kenneth L. Sokoloff
  • Dhanoos Sutthiphisal

Abstract

The standard view of U.S. technological history is that the locus of invention shifted during the early twentieth century to large firms whose in-house research laboratories were superior sites for advancing the complex technologies of the second industrial revolution. In recent years this view has been subject to increasing criticism. At the same time, new research on equity markets during the early twentieth century suggests that smaller, more entrepreneurial enterprises were finding it easier to gain financial backing for technological discovery. We use data on the assignment (sale or transfer) of patents to explore the extent to which, and how, inventive activity was reorganized during this period. We find that two alternative modes of technological discovery developed in parallel during the early twentieth century. The first, concentrated in the Middle Atlantic region, centered on large firms with in-house R&D labs and superior access to the region's rapidly growing equity markets. The other, located mainly in the East North Central region, consisted of smaller, more entrepreneurial enterprises that drew primarily on local sources of funds. Both modes seem to have made roughly equivalent contributions to technological change through the 1920s. The subsequent dominance of large firms seems to have been propelled by a differential access to capital during the Great Depression that was subsequently reinforced by the regulatory and military procurement policies of the federal government.

Suggested Citation

  • Naomi R. Lamoreaux & Kenneth L. Sokoloff & Dhanoos Sutthiphisal, 2009. "The Reorganization of Inventive Activity in the United States during the Early Twentieth Century," NBER Working Papers 15440, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  • Handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:15440
    Note: DAE
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w15440.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Miguel Cantillo., 1995. "The Rise and Fall of Bank Control in the United States: 1890-1920," Research Program in Finance Working Papers RPF-254-Rev, University of California at Berkeley.
    2. Naomi R. Lamoreaux & Kenneth L. Sokoloff, 2002. "Intermediaries in the U.S. Market for Technology, 1870-1920," NBER Working Papers 9017, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Simon, Miguel Cantillo, 1998. "The Rise and Fall of Bank Control in the United States: 1890-1939," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 88(5), pages 1077-1093, December.
    4. 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..
    5. Gans, Joshua S. & Stern, Scott, 2003. "The product market and the market for "ideas": commercialization strategies for technology entrepreneurs," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 333-350, February.
    6. Reich, Leonard S., 1977. "Research, Patents, and the Struggle to Control Radio: A Study of Big Business and the Uses of Industrial Research," Business History Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 51(2), pages 208-235, July.
    7. Reich, Leonard S., 1980. "Industrial Research and the Pursuit of Corporate Security: The Early Years of Bell Labs," Business History Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 54(4), pages 504-529, January.
    8. 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.
    9. Naomi R. Lamoreaux & Daniel M. G. Raff & Peter Temin, 1999. "Learning by Doing in Markets, Firms, and Countries," NBER Books, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, number lamo99-1.
    10. Usselman,Steven W., 2002. "Regulating Railroad Innovation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521806367, September.
    11. White, Eugene N., 2013. "Competition among the exchanges before the SEC: was the NYSE a natural hegemon?," Financial History Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 20(1), pages 29-48, April.
    12. 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.
    13. Cohen, Wesley M & Klepper, Steven, 1996. "A Reprise of Size and R&D," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 106(437), pages 925-951, July.
    14. Peter Temin, 1991. "Inside the Business Enterprise: Historical Perspectives on the Use of Information," NBER Books, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, number temi91-1.
    15. Navin, Thomas R. & Sears, Marian V., 1955. "The Rise of a Market for Industrial Securities, 1887-1902," Business History Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 29(2), pages 105-138, June.
    16. 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, April.
    17. Cull, Robert & Davis, Lance E. & Lamoreaux, Naomi R. & Rosenthal, Jean-Laurent, 2006. "Historical financing of small- and medium-size enterprises," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 30(11), pages 3017-3042, November.
    18. Eytan Sheshinski & Robert J. Strom, 2007. "Introduction to Entrepreneurship, Innovation, and the Growth Mechanism of the Free-Enterprise Economies," Introductory Chapters, in: Eytan Sheshinski & Robert J. Strom & William J. Baumol (ed.),Entrepreneurship, Innovation, and the Growth Mechanism of the Free-Enterprise Economies, Princeton University Press.
    19. Engerman,Stanley L. & Hoffman,Philip T. & Rosenthal,Jean-Laurent & Sokoloff,Kenneth L. (ed.), 2003. "Finance, Intermediaries, and Economic Development," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521820547, September.
    20. Kenneth L. Sokoloff & Naomi R. Lamoreaux, 2001. "Market Trade in Patents and the Rise of a Class of Specialized Inventors in the 19th-Century United States," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(2), pages 39-44, May.
    21. Richard R. Nelson, 1959. "The Simple Economics of Basic Scientific Research," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 67(3), pages 297-297.
    22. Baskin,Jonathan Barron & Miranti, Jr,Paul J., 1997. "A History of Corporate Finance," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521555142, September.
    23. Cohen, Wesley M & Levin, Richard C & Mowery, David C, 1987. "Firm Size and R&D Intensity: A Re-examination," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(4), pages 543-565, June.
    24. Joshua Lerner, 1994. "The Importance of Patent Scope: An Empirical Analysis," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 25(2), pages 319-333, Summer.
    25. Tom Nicholas, 2008. "Does Innovation Cause Stock Market Runups? Evidence from the Great Crash," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 98(4), pages 1370-1396, September.
    26. Usselman,Steven W., 2002. "Regulating Railroad Innovation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521001069, September.
    27. Tom Nicholas, 2009. "Spatial diversity in invention: evidence from the early R&D labs," Journal of Economic Geography, Oxford University Press, vol. 9(1), pages 1-31, January.
    28. Nicholas, Tom, 2003. "Why Schumpeter was Right: Innovation, Market Power, and Creative Destruction in 1920s America," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 63(4), pages 1023-1058, December.
    29. Miguel Cantillo Simon, 1998. "The Rise and Fall of Bank Control in the United States: 1890-1939," Finance 9803005, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    30. Leslie, Stuart W., 1980. "Thomas Midgley and the Politics of Industrial Research," Business History Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 54(4), pages 480-503, January.
    31. Mowery, David C., 1983. "The relationship between intrafirm and contractual forms of industrial research in American manufacturing, 1900-1940," Explorations in Economic History, Elsevier, vol. 20(4), pages 351-374, October.
    32. Naomi R. Lamoreaux & Kenneth L. Sokoloff, 1999. "Inventors, Firms, and the Market for Technology in the Late Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries," NBER Chapters, in: Learning by Doing in Markets, Firms, and Countries, pages 19-60, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    33. 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.
    34. White, Eugene N, 1990. "The Stock Market Boom and Crash of 1929 Revisited," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 4(2), pages 67-83, Spring.
    35. Charles Calomiris, 1995. "The Costs of Rejecting Universal Banking: American Finance in the German Mirror, 1870-1914," NBER Chapters, in: Coordination and Information: Historical Perspectives on the Organization of Enterprise, pages 257-322, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    36. Jean O. Lanjouw & Mark Schankerman, 2004. "Patent Quality and Research Productivity: Measuring Innovation with Multiple Indicators," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 114(495), pages 441-465, April.
    37. Edwards, Richard C., 1975. "Stages in Corporate Stability and the Risks of Corporate Failure," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 35(2), pages 428-457, June.
    38. Wesley M. Cohen & Richard C. Levin & David C. Mowery, 1987. "Firm Size and R&D Intensity: A Re-Examination," NBER Working Papers 2205, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    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. Howard Bodenhorn, 2016. "Two Centuries of Finance and Growth in the United States, 1790-1980," Working Papers id:11352, eSocialSciences.
    2. 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.
    3. Neal, Larry & White, Eugene N., 2012. "The Glass–Steagall Act in historical perspective," The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 52(2), pages 104-113.
    4. repec:ssa:lemwps:2013/20 is not listed 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. 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. Carola Frydman & Eric Hilt, 2014. "Investment Banks as Corporate Monitors in the Early 20th Century United States," NBER Working Papers 20544, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. 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.
    4. Schwiebacher, Franz, 2012. "Complementary assets, patent thickets and hold-up threats: Do transaction costs undermine investments in innovation?," ZEW Discussion Papers 12-015, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    5. Gao, Wenlian & Chou, Julia, 2015. "Innovation efficiency, global diversification, and firm value," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 30(C), pages 278-298.
    6. Kenny Ching & Joshua Gans & Scott Stern, 2019. "Control versus execution: endogenous appropriability and entrepreneurial strategy," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 28(2), pages 389-408.
    7. Cuervo-Cazurra, Alvaro & Un, C. Annique, 2007. "Regional economic integration and R&D investment," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 227-246, March.
    8. Howard Bodenhorn, 2016. "Two Centuries of Finance and Growth in the United States, 1790-1980," Working Papers id:11352, eSocialSciences.
    9. Bernhard Ganglmair & Imke Reimers, 2019. "Visibility of Technology and Cumulative Innovation: Evidence from Trade Secrets Laws," CRC TR 224 Discussion Paper Series crctr224_2019_119v1, University of Bonn and University of Mannheim, Germany.
    10. Figueroa, Nicolás & Serrano, Carlos J., 2019. "Patent trading flows of small and large firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(7), pages 1601-1616.
    11. Gambardella, Alfonso & Giuri, Paola & Luzzi, Alessandra, 2007. "The market for patents in Europe," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(8), pages 1163-1183, October.
    12. Niron Hashai & Sarit Markovich, 2017. "Market Entry by High Technology Startups: The Effect of Competition Level and Startup Innovativeness," Strategy Science, INFORMS, vol. 2(3), pages 141-160, September.
    13. Choi, Mincheol & Lee, Chang-Yang, 2021. "Technological diversification and R&D productivity: The moderating effects of knowledge spillovers and core-technology competence," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    14. 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.
    15. 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).
    16. de Rassenfosse, Gaétan & Palangkaraya, Alfons & Webster, Elizabeth, 2016. "Why do patents facilitate trade in technology? Testing the disclosure and appropriation effects," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(7), pages 1326-1336.
    17. Schwiebacher, Franz, 2013. "Does fragmented or heterogeneous IP ownership stifle investments in innovation?," ZEW Discussion Papers 13-096, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    18. Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, Pia & Yang, Jialei, 2022. "Distinguishing between appropriability and appropriation: A systematic review and a renewed conceptual framing," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(1).
    19. Ufuk Akcigit & Murat Alp Celik & Jeremy Greenwood, 2016. "Buy, Keep, or Sell: Economic Growth and the Market for Ideas," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 84, pages 943-984, May.
    20. Arora, Ashish & Cohen, Wesley & Lee, Honggi & Sebastian, Divya, 2023. "Invention value, inventive capability and the large firm advantage," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(1).

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • N0 - Economic History - - General
    • O3 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights

    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:nbr:nberwo:15440. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/nberrus.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.