Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/grt/wpegrt/2015-05.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A time to nourish? Evaluating the impact of innovative public procurement on technological generality through patent data

Author

Listed:
  • RAITERI Emilio
Abstract
Innovative public procurement has been increasingly considered as a form of public support to innovative activities from both scholars and policy makers. Economic historians suggested an even more fundamental role for procurement in setting the pace of technological change, reporting how defense-related procurement had a major impact for the emergence of many general purpose technologies (GPT) developed in the United States in the 20th century. Conceiving the arrival of a GPT as a process unfolding in time, the paper surmises that procurement might represent one of the most important element in creating the right soil to \"cultivate\" a technology that has the potential to reach high levels of pervasiveness. To test this hypothesis I make use of patent data and patent citations. Citations allow to identify the connection between innovations related to public procurement and their technological antecedents and to measure the generality of the patents. Grounding on these two considerations, I hypothesize that receiving a citation from a patent related to public procurement raises the generality level of the cited patent. I design a quasi-experiment in which I compare the change in the generality level over time, between a group of treated and a group of control patents. A patent is assigned to the treatment group if it receives a citation from a patent related to public procurement. Results suggest a positive and significant impact of innovative public procurement upon the generality of a patent. Public demand seems to have crucial importance in increasing the pervasiveness of a technology, calling for Schumpeterian demand policies.

Suggested Citation

  • RAITERI Emilio, 2015. "A time to nourish? Evaluating the impact of innovative public procurement on technological generality through patent data," Cahiers du GREThA (2007-2019) 2015-05, Groupe de Recherche en Economie Théorique et Appliquée (GREThA).
    • Handle: RePEc:grt:wpegrt:2015-05
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://cahiersdugretha.u-bordeaux.fr/2015/2015-05.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lanjouw, Jean O & Schankerman, Mark, 2001. "Characteristics of Patent Litigation: A Window on Competition," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 32(1), pages 129-151, Spring.
    2. Bresnahan, Timothy F. & Trajtenberg, M., 1995. "General purpose technologies 'Engines of growth'?," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 65(1), pages 83-108, January.
    3. Jacob Schmookler, 1962. "Changes in Industry and in the State of Knowledge as Determinants of Industrial Invention," NBER Chapters, in: The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors, pages 195-232, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Mokyr, Joel, 1990. "Punctuated Equilibria and Technological Progress," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 80(2), pages 350-354, May.
    5. Marco Guerzoni, 2010. "The impact of market size and users' sophistication on innovation: the patterns of demand," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(1), pages 113-126.
    6. Roberto Fontana & Marco Guerzoni, 2008. "Incentives and uncertainty: an empirical analysis of the impact of demand on innovation," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 32(6), pages 927-946, November.
    7. Max Rolfstam, 2009. "Public procurement as an innovation policy tool: The role of institutions," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 36(5), pages 349-360, June.
    8. Nathan Rosenberg & Manuel Trajtenberg, 2009. "A General-Purpose Technology at Work: The Corliss Steam Engine in the Late-Nineteenth-Century United States," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Studies On Science And The Innovation Process Selected Works of Nathan Rosenberg, chapter 6, pages 97-135, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    9. Manuel Trajtenberg, 1990. "A Penny for Your Quotes: Patent Citations and the Value of Innovations," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 21(1), pages 172-187, Spring.
    10. Lichtenberg, Frank R, 1988. "The Private R&D Investment Response to Federal Design and Technical Competitions," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 78(3), pages 550-559, June.
    11. Petra Moser & Tom Nicholas, 2004. "Was Electricity a General Purpose Technology? Evidence from Historical Patent Citations," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 94(2), pages 388-394, May.
    12. Pierre Azoulay & Joshua S Graff Zivin & Danielle Li & Bhaven N Sampat, 2019. "Public R&D Investments and Private-sector Patenting: Evidence from NIH Funding Rules," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 86(1), pages 117-152.
    13. Jeffrey B. Liebman & Neale Mahoney, 2013. "Do Expiring Budgets Lead to Wasteful Year-End Spending? Evidence from Federal Procurement," NBER Working Papers 19481, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    14. Edler, Jakob & Georghiou, Luke, 2007. "Public procurement and innovation--Resurrecting the demand side," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(7), pages 949-963, September.
    15. Bronwyn H. Hall & Adam Jaffe & Manuel Trajtenberg, 2005. "Market Value and Patent Citations," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 36(1), pages 16-38, Spring.
    16. Cowan, Robin & Foray, Dominique, 1995. "Quandaries in the economics of dual technologies and spillovers from military to civilian research and development," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(6), pages 851-868, November.
    17. Adam B. Jaffe & Manuel Trajtenberg & Rebecca Henderson, 1993. "Geographic Localization of Knowledge Spillovers as Evidenced by Patent Citations," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 108(3), pages 577-598.
    18. Neale Mahoney, 2013. "Expiring Budgets and Wasteful Year-End Spending in Federal Procurement," 2013 Meeting Papers 705, Society for Economic Dynamics.
    19. Rebecca Henderson & Adam B. Jaffe & Manuel Trajtenberg, 1998. "Universities As A Source Of Commercial Technology: A Detailed Analysis Of University Patenting, 1965-1988," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 80(1), pages 119-127, February.
    20. Hall, B. & Jaffe, A. & Trajtenberg, M., 2001. "The NBER Patent Citations Data File: Lessons, Insights and Methodological Tools," Papers 2001-29, Tel Aviv.
    21. Helpman, Elhanan & Trajtenberg, Manuel, 1994. "A Time to Sow and a Time to Reap: Growth Based on General Purpose Technologies," CEPR Discussion Papers 1080, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    22. Bronwyn H. Hall & Manuel Trajtenberg, 2004. "Uncovering GPTS with Patent Data," NBER Working Papers 10901, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    23. Ruttan, Vernon W., 2006. "Is War Necessary for Economic Growth?: Military Procurement and Technology Development," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780195188042.
    24. Jan Youtie & Maurizio Iacopetta & Stuart Graham, 2008. "Assessing the nature of nanotechnology: can we uncover an emerging general purpose technology?," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 33(3), pages 315-329, June.
    25. Mowery, David & Rosenberg, Nathan, 1993. "The influence of market demand upon innovation: A critical review of some recent empirical studies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 107-108, April.
    26. Marco Caliendo & Sabine Kopeinig, 2008. "Some Practical Guidance For The Implementation Of Propensity Score Matching," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(1), pages 31-72, February.
    27. Adam B. Jaffe & Manuel Trajtenberg & Michael S. Fogarty, 2000. "The Meaning of Patent Citations: Report on the NBER/Case-Western Reserve Survey of Patentees," NBER Working Papers 7631, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    28. Guerzoni, Marco & Raiteri, Emilio, 2015. "Demand-side vs. supply-side technology policies: Hidden treatment and new empirical evidence on the policy mix," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(3), pages 726-747.
    29. Aschhoff, Birgit & Sofka, Wolfgang, 2009. "Innovation on demand--Can public procurement drive market success of innovations?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(8), pages 1235-1247, October.
    30. Franco Malerba & Richard Nelson & Luigi Orsenigo & Sidney Winter, 2007. "Demand, innovation, and the dynamics of market structure: The role of experimental users and diverse preferences," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 17(4), pages 371-399, August.
    31. Maryann P. Feldman & Ji Woong Yoon, 2012. "An empirical test for general purpose technology: an examination of the Cohen--Boyer rDNA technology," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 21(2), pages 249-275, April.
    32. Uwe Cantner & Simone Vannuccini, 2012. "A New View of General Purpose Technologies," Jena Economics Research Papers 2012-054, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    33. 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.
    34. David C. Mowery, 2011. "Federal Policy and the Development of Semiconductors, Computer Hardware, and Computer Software: A Policy Model for Climate Change R&D?," NBER Chapters, in: Accelerating Energy Innovation: Insights from Multiple Sectors, pages 159-188, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    35. Geroski, P. A., 2000. "Models of technology diffusion," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(4-5), pages 603-625, April.
    36. Jean O. Lanjouw & Mark Schankerman, 1999. "The Quality of Ideas: Measuring Innovation with Multiple Indicators," NBER Working Papers 7345, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    37. Alberto Abadie, 2005. "Semiparametric Difference-in-Differences Estimators," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 72(1), pages 1-19.
    38. Manuel Trajtenberg & Rebecca Henderson & Adam Jaffe, 1997. "University Versus Corporate Patents: A Window On The Basicness Of Invention," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 5(1), pages 19-50.
    39. Foray, Dominique, 1997. "The dynamic implications of increasing returns: Technological change and path dependent inefficiency," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 15(6), pages 733-752, October.
    40. Foray, D. & Mowery, D.C. & Nelson, R.R., 2012. "Public R&D and social challenges: What lessons from mission R&D programs?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(10), pages 1697-1702.
    41. Harhoff, Dietmar & Scherer, Frederic M. & Vopel, Katrin, 2003. "Citations, family size, opposition and the value of patent rights," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(8), pages 1343-1363, September.
    42. James Heckman & Hidehiko Ichimura & Jeffrey Smith & Petra Todd, 1998. "Characterizing Selection Bias Using Experimental Data," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 66(5), pages 1017-1098, September.
    43. Kenneth Carlaw & Richard Lipsey, 2011. "Sustained endogenous growth driven by structured and evolving general purpose technologies," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 21(4), pages 563-593, October.
    44. Richard R Nelson & Alexander Peterhansl & Bhaven Sampat, 2004. "Why and how innovations get adopted: a tale of four models," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 13(5), pages 679-699, October.
    45. Guido Cozzi & Giammario Impullitti, 2010. "Government Spending Composition, Technical Change, and Wage Inequality," Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press, vol. 8(6), pages 1325-1358, December.
    46. Mowery, David C. & Nelson, Richard R. & Martin, Ben R., 2010. "Technology policy and global warming: Why new policy models are needed (or why putting new wine in old bottles won't work)," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(8), pages 1011-1023, October.
    47. Dirk Czarnitzki & Katrin Hussinger & Cédric Schneider, 2011. "Commercializing academic research: the quality of faculty patenting," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 20(5), pages 1403-1437, October.
    48. Flanagan, Kieron & Uyarra, Elvira & Laranja, Manuel, 2011. "Reconceptualising the 'policy mix' for innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(5), pages 702-713, June.
    49. Heide Fier & Andreas Pyka, 2012. "Is It Worth All the Trouble? An Assessment of the Economic Value of Firm Patent Applications with Shared Intellectual Property Rights in the Biotechnology Industry," International Studies in Entrepreneurship, in: David B. Audretsch & Erik E. Lehmann & Albert N. Link & Alexander Starnecker (ed.), Technology Transfer in a Global Economy, edition 127, chapter 0, pages 123-142, Springer.
    50. Bronwyn H. Hall, 2005. "A Note on the Bias in Herfindahl-Type Measures Based on Count Data," Revue d'Économie Industrielle, Programme National Persée, vol. 110(1), pages 149-156.
    51. Elvira Uyarra & Kieron Flanagan, 2009. "Understanding the Innovation Impacts of Public Procurement," European Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(1), pages 123-143, June.
    52. 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.
    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. Paolo Castelnuovo & Stefano Clo & Massimo Florio, 2021. "Space policy drives innovation through technological procurement: evidence from Italy," Working Papers - Economics wp2021_08.rdf, Universita' degli Studi di Firenze, Dipartimento di Scienze per l'Economia e l'Impresa.

    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. Raiteri, Emilio, 2018. "A time to nourish? Evaluating the impact of public procurement on technological generality through patent data," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(5), pages 936-952.
    2. Guerzoni, Marco & Raiteri, Emilio, 2012. "Innovative public procurement and R&D Subsidies: hidden treatment and new empirical evidence on the technology policy mix in a quasi-experimental setting," Department of Economics and Statistics Cognetti de Martiis LEI & BRICK - Laboratory of Economics of Innovation "Franco Momigliano", Bureau of Research in Innovation, Complexity and Knowledge, Collegio 201218, University of Turin.
    3. Ghisetti, Claudia, 2017. "Demand-pull and environmental innovations: Estimating the effects of innovative public procurement," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 178-187.
    4. Barbieri, Nicolò & Marzucchi, Alberto & Rizzo, Ugo, 2020. "Knowledge sources and impacts on subsequent inventions: Do green technologies differ from non-green ones?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(2).
    5. Guerzoni, Marco & Raiteri, Emilio, 2015. "Demand-side vs. supply-side technology policies: Hidden treatment and new empirical evidence on the policy mix," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(3), pages 726-747.
    6. Dechezlepretre, Antoine & Martin, Ralf & Mohnen, Myra, 2014. "Knowledge spillovers from clean and dirty technologies," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 60501, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    7. Iossa, Elisabetta & Decarolis, Francesco & de Rassenfosse, Gaétan & Giuffrida, Leonardo Maria & Mollisi, Vincenzo & Raiteri, Emilio & Spagnolo, Giancarlo, 2019. "Buyers' Role in Innovation Procurement," CEPR Discussion Papers 13777, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    8. Jungpyo Lee & So Young Sohn, 2017. "What makes the first forward citation of a patent occur earlier?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(1), pages 279-298, October.
    9. Dirk Czarnitzki & Katrin Hussinger & Cédric Schneider, 2011. "Commercializing academic research: the quality of faculty patenting," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 20(5), pages 1403-1437, October.
    10. Hur, Wonchang & Oh, Junbyoung, 2021. "A man is known by the company he keeps?: A structural relationship between backward citation and forward citation of patents," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(1).
    11. Adam B. Jaffe & Gaétan de Rassenfosse, 2017. "Patent citation data in social science research: Overview and best practices," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 68(6), pages 1360-1374, June.
    12. Sarah Kaplan & Keyvan Vakili, 2015. "The double-edged sword of recombination in breakthrough innovation," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(10), pages 1435-1457, October.
    13. Michele Cincera & Ela Ince, 2019. "Types of Innovation and Firm performance," Working Papers TIMES² 2019-032, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    14. Munari, Federico & Toschi, Laura, 2014. "Running ahead in the nanotechnology gold rush. Strategic patenting in emerging technologies," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 194-207.
    15. Paola Giuri & Myriam Mariani & Stefano Brusoni & Gustavo Crespi & Dominique Francoz & Alfonso Gambardella & Walter Garcia-Fontes & Aldo Geuna & Raul Gonzales & Dietmar Harhoff & Karin Hoisl & Christia, 2005. "Everything you Always Wanted to Know about Inventors (but Never Asked): Evidence from the PatVal-EU Survey," LEM Papers Series 2005/20, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.
    16. Bonaccorsi, Andrea & Thoma, Grid, 2007. "Institutional complementarity and inventive performance in nano science and technology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(6), pages 813-831, July.
    17. Ascione, Grazia Sveva & Ciucci, Laura & Detotto, Claudio & Sterzi, Valerio, 2024. "University patent litigation in the United States: Do we have a problem?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(2).
    18. Giuri, Paola & Mariani, Myriam, 2007. "Inventors and invention processes in Europe: Results from the PatVal-EU survey," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(8), pages 1105-1106, October.
    19. Pallante, Gianluca & Russo, Emanuele & Roventini, Andrea, 2023. "Does public R&D funding crowd-in private R&D investment? Evidence from military R&D expenditures for US states," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(8).
    20. Nicolas Carayol & Valerio Sterzi, 2021. "The transfer and value of academic inventions when the TTO is one option," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(2), pages 338-367, May.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Economics of Innovation; General Purpose Technologies; Public Procurement; Patent Data; Technology Policy;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • O30 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - General
    • H57 - Public Economics - - National Government Expenditures and Related Policies - - - Procurement
    • O33 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Technological Change: Choices and Consequences; Diffusion Processes
    • O38 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Government Policy
    • C21 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Single Equation Models; Single Variables - - - Cross-Sectional Models; Spatial Models; Treatment Effect 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:grt:wpegrt:2015-05. 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: Ernest Miguelez (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ifredfr.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.