IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/osk/wpaper/1427.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A patentability requirement and industries targeted by R&D

Author

Listed:
  • Keiichi Kishi

    (Graduate School of Economics, Osaka University)

Abstract

In this paper, we introduce into a Schumpeterian growth model an inventive step: a minimum innovation size required for patents, which is a patentability requirement. We show that each R&D firm targets only the industries that the incumbent fs technology is sufficiently obsolete in order to satisfy an inventive step requirement. This is because a technological gap between innovator and incumbent is larger in the industries that use older technology. Under the circumstance, strengthening an inventive step requirement reduces the industries targeted by R&D, on the other hand, increases R&D investments to the targeted industries. Consequently, we find a nonmonotonic effect of the inventive step on the aggregate flow of innovations.

Suggested Citation

  • Keiichi Kishi, 2014. "A patentability requirement and industries targeted by R&D," Discussion Papers in Economics and Business 14-27, Osaka University, Graduate School of Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:osk:wpaper:1427
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Cozzi, Guido, 2001. "Inventing or Spying? Implications for Growth," Journal of Economic Growth, Springer, vol. 6(1), pages 55-77, March.
    2. Silverberg, Gerald & Verspagen, Bart, 2007. "The size distribution of innovations revisited: An application of extreme value statistics to citation and value measures of patent significance," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 139(2), pages 318-339, August.
    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. Mark A. Lemley & Carl Shapiro, 2005. "Probabilistic Patents," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 19(2), pages 75-98, Spring.
    5. Gangopadhyay, Kausik & Mondal, Debasis, 2012. "Does stronger protection of intellectual property stimulate innovation?," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 116(1), pages 80-82.
    6. Chu, Angus C. & Pan, Shiyuan, 2013. "The Escape-Infringement Effect Of Blocking Patents On Innovation And Economic Growth," Macroeconomic Dynamics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 17(4), pages 955-969, June.
    7. Robert E. Lucas Jr. & Benjamin Moll, 2014. "Knowledge Growth and the Allocation of Time," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 122(1), pages 1-51.
    8. 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.
    9. Eicher, Theo & García-Peñalosa, Cecilia, 2008. "Endogenous strength of intellectual property rights: Implications for economic development and growth," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 52(2), pages 237-258, February.
    10. Sakakibara, Mariko & Branstetter, Lee, 2001. "Do Stronger Patents Induce More Innovation? Evidence from the 1988 Japanese Patent Law Reforms," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 32(1), pages 77-100, Spring.
    11. Jess Benhabib & Jesse Perla & Christopher Tonetti, 2014. "Catch-up and fall-back through innovation and imitation," Journal of Economic Growth, Springer, vol. 19(1), pages 1-35, March.
    12. Jones, Charles I & Williams, John C, 2000. "Too Much of a Good Thing? The Economics of Investment in R&D," Journal of Economic Growth, Springer, vol. 5(1), pages 65-85, March.
    13. Jesse Perla & Christopher Tonetti, 2014. "Equilibrium Imitation and Growth," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 122(1), pages 52-76.
    14. Chu, Angus C. & Cozzi, Guido & Galli, Silvia, 2012. "Does intellectual monopoly stimulate or stifle innovation?," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 56(4), pages 727-746.
    15. Antonio Minniti & Carmelo Parello & Paul Segerstrom, 2013. "A Schumpeterian growth model with random quality improvements," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 52(2), pages 755-791, March.
    16. Thompson, Peter, 1996. "Technological Opportunity and the Growth of Knowledge: A Schumpeterian Approach to Measurement," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 6(1), pages 77-97, February.
    17. Furukawa, Yuichi, 2010. "Intellectual property protection and innovation: an inverted-U relationship," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 109(2), pages 99-101, November.
    18. Keiichi Kishi, 2015. "Dynamic analysis of wage inequality and creative destruction," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 115(1), pages 1-23, May.
    19. 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.
    20. Tapio Palokangas, 2011. "Optimal patent length and breadth in an economy with creative destruction and non-diversifiable risk," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 102(1), pages 1-27, January.
    21. Chu, Angus C. & Pan, Shiyuan & Sun, Minjuan, 2012. "When does elastic labor supply cause an inverted-U effect of patents on innovation?," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 117(1), pages 211-213.
    22. 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.
    23. F. M. Scherer & Dietmar Harhoff & J, rg Kukies, 2000. "Uncertainty and the size distribution of rewards from innovation," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 10(1), pages 175-200.
    24. Gilles Koléda, 2008. "Promoting innovation and competition with patent policy," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 18(3), pages 433-453, August.
    25. 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.
    26. Ted O'Donoghue & Josef Zweimueller, 2004. "Patents in a Model of Endogenous Growth," Journal of Economic Growth, Springer, vol. 9(1), pages 81-123, March.
    27. Scherer, F. M. & Harhoff, Dietmar, 2000. "Technology policy for a world of skew-distributed outcomes," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(4-5), pages 559-566, April.
    28. Theo Eicher & Cecilia García-Peñalosa, 2008. "Endogenous Strength of Intellectual Property Rights," Working Papers UWEC-2007-14-P, University of Washington, Department of Economics.
    29. Chol-Won Li, 2003. "Endogenous Growth Without Scale Effects: Comment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 93(3), pages 1009-1017, June.
    30. Peter Howitt, 2000. "Endogenous Growth and Cross-Country Income Differences," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 90(4), pages 829-846, September.
    31. Peter Howitt, 1999. "Steady Endogenous Growth with Population and R & D Inputs Growing," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 107(4), pages 715-730, August.
    32. 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.
    33. Cozzi, Guido & Spinesi, Luca, 2006. "Intellectual Appropriability, Product Differentiation, And Growth," Macroeconomic Dynamics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 10(1), pages 39-55, February.
    34. Futagami, Koichi & Iwaisako, Tatsuro, 2007. "Dynamic analysis of patent policy in an endogenous growth model," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 132(1), pages 306-334, January.
    35. Yi Qian, 2007. "Do National Patent Laws Stimulate Domestic Innovation in a Global Patenting Environment? A Cross-Country Analysis of Pharmaceutical Patent Protection, 1978-2002," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 89(3), pages 436-453, August.
    36. Howitt, Peter & Aghion, Philippe, 1998. "Capital Accumulation and Innovation as Complementary Factors in Long-Run Growth," Journal of Economic Growth, Springer, vol. 3(2), pages 111-130, June.
    37. T. Di Matteo & T. Aste & M. Gallegati, 2005. "Innovation flow through social networks: productivity distribution in France and Italy," The European Physical Journal B: Condensed Matter and Complex Systems, Springer;EDP Sciences, vol. 47(3), pages 459-466, 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. Keiichi Kishi, 2016. "Technology Diffusion, Pareto Distribution, and Patent Policy," Discussion Papers in Economics and Business 16-31, Osaka University, Graduate School of Economics.
    2. Kishi, Keiichi, 2019. "Technology diffusion, innovation size, and patent policy," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 382-410.

    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. Chu, Angus C. & Cozzi, Guido & Galli, Silvia, 2012. "Does intellectual monopoly stimulate or stifle innovation?," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 56(4), pages 727-746.
    3. Angus C. Chu & Yuichi Furukawa & Lei Ji, 2016. "Patents, R&D subsidies, and endogenous market structure in a schumpeterian economy," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 82(3), pages 809-825, January.
    4. Angus C. Chu, 2022. "Patent policy and economic growth: A survey," Manchester School, University of Manchester, vol. 90(2), pages 237-254, March.
    5. Angus C. Chu & Yuichi Furukawa, 2013. "Patentability and Knowledge Spillovers of Basic R&D," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 79(4), pages 928-945, April.
    6. 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.
    7. Angus Chu & Guido Cozzi & Chih-Hsing Liao, 2013. "Endogenous fertility and human capital in a Schumpeterian growth model," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 26(1), pages 181-202, January.
    8. Chu, Angus C. & Furukawa, Yuichi, 2012. "Patents versus R&D subsidies in a Schumpeterian growth model with endogenous market structure," MPRA Paper 40469, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. 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.
    10. Angus C. Chu & Yuichi Furukawa & Sushanta Mallick & Pietro Peretto & Xilin Wang, 2021. "Dynamic effects of patent policy on innovation and inequality in a Schumpeterian economy," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 71(4), pages 1429-1465, June.
    11. Shiyuan Pan & Mengbo Zhang & Heng-fu Zou, 2011. "Patent Protection, Financial Development and Economic Growth," CEMA Working Papers 589, China Economics and Management Academy, Central University of Finance and Economics.
    12. Chu, Angus C. & Leung, Charles K.Y. & Tang, Edward, 2012. "Intellectual property rights, technical progress and the volatility of economic growth," Journal of Macroeconomics, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 749-756.
    13. Shiyuan Pan & Mengbo Zhang & Heng-fu Zou, 2013. "The Effects of Patent Protection: A Growth Model with Status Preference," CEMA Working Papers 574, China Economics and Management Academy, Central University of Finance and Economics.
    14. 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.
    15. Guido Cozzi & Silvia Galli, 2009. "Upstream Innovation Protection: Common Law Evolution and the Dynamics of Wage Inequality," Working Papers 2009_20, Business School - Economics, University of Glasgow.
    16. Guido Cozzi & Silvia Galli, 2014. "Sequential R&D and blocking patents in the dynamics of growth," Journal of Economic Growth, Springer, vol. 19(2), pages 183-219, June.
    17. 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.
    18. Rudra Narayan Kushwaha & Taniya Ghosh, 2023. "The Effects of population growth on patents and economic growth dynamics," Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research, Mumbai Working Papers 2023-05, Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research, Mumbai, India.
    19. Chu, Angus C. & Furukawa, Yuichi, 2011. "Growth and Welfare Effects of Patentability and Knowledge Spillovers of Basic R&D," MPRA Paper 27813, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    20. Chu, Angus & Liao, Chih-Hsing, 2023. "Optimal Patent Policy and Wealth Inequality in a Schumpeterian Economy," MPRA Paper 117209, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Technological progress; Innovations; Intellectual property rights;
    All these 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
    • O34 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Intellectual Property and Intellectual Capital
    • O41 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Growth and Aggregate Productivity - - - One, Two, and Multisector Growth Models

    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:osk:wpaper:1427. 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 Economic Society of Osaka University (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/feosujp.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.