|
on Innovation |
| By: | Michele Boldrin; David K Levine |
| Date: | 2008–10–04 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:cla:levrem:122247000000002371&r=ino |
| By: | Zoltan J. Acs; Mark Sanders |
| Abstract: | We develop a model in which stronger protection of intellectual property rights has an inverted U-shaped effect on innovation. Intellectual property rights protection allows the incumbent firms to capture part of the rents of commercial exploration that would otherwise accrue to the entrepreneurs. Stronger patent protection will increase the incentive to do R&D and generate new knowledge. This has a positive impact on entrepreneurship and innovation. However, after some point, further strengthening patent protection will reduce the returns to entrepreneurship sufficiently to reduce overall economic growth. |
| Keywords: | Intellectual Property Rights, Endogenous Growth, Entrepreneurship, Incentives, Knowledge Spillovers, Rents |
| JEL: | J24 L26 M13 O3 |
| Date: | 2008–09 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:use:tkiwps:0823&r=ino |
| By: | James Bessen (Research on Innovation, Boston University School of Law); Michael J. Meurer |
| Abstract: | Do patents provide critical incentives to encourage investment in innovation? Or, instead, do patents impose legal risks and burdens on innovators that discourage innovation, as some critics now claim? This paper reviews empirical economic evidence on how well patents perform as a property system. |
| Date: | 2008 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:roi:wpaper:0801&r=ino |
| By: | Alireza Naghavi; Dermot Leahy |
| Abstract: | We study the effect of the intellectual property rights (IPR) regime of a host country (South) on a multinational's decision between serving a market via greenfield foreign direct investment to avoid the exposure of its technology or a North-South joint venture (JV) with a local firm, which allows R&D spillovers under imperfect IPRs. JV is the equilibrium market structure when R&D intensity is moderate and IPRs strong. The South can gain from increased IPR protection by encouraging a JV, whereas policies to limit foreign ownership in a JV gain importance in technology intensive industries as complementary policies to strong IPRs. |
| Keywords: | North-South Joint Ventures, Intellectual Property Rights, FDI Policy, Technology Transfer, R&D Spillovers |
| JEL: | O34 F23 O32 F13 L24 O24 |
| Date: | 2008–05 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:mod:recent:017&r=ino |
| By: | Henry van der Wiel; Harold Creusen; George van Leeuwen; Eugene van der Pijll |
| Abstract: | This document focuses on innovation, human capital, technology transfers and competition as potential sources of productivity growth for firms. It integrates the views of existing literature such as the two faces of R&D, the convergence debate and the existence of firm-level heterogeneity in productivity. Using firm-level data of 127 industries in the Netherlands, the document analyses which determinants are most relevant for a catch up to the global frontier and in that respect are important for the productivity performance of firms. Moreover, the document takes into account the potential importance of a national frontier. The frontier is defined as the highest productivity level at the national or global level respectively. The document provides econometric evidence that technology transfers matter, predominantly from the national frontier. Particularly, R&D encourages growth through technology transfers from the national frontier. This suggests that firms mainly conduct R&D in order to adopt existing technologies from other (domestic) firms. Competition on Dutch markets plays a role in productivity growth as well. Finally, human capital also seems to affect productivity growth. |
| Keywords: | Competition; human capital; technological frontier; R&D; productivity |
| JEL: | D40 L10 O31 |
| Date: | 2008–09 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:cpb:docmnt:170&r=ino |
| By: | Flavia Cortelezzi; Giovanni Villani |
| Abstract: | This article describes a methodology for evaluating R&D investment projects using Monte Carlomethods. R&D projects generally involves multiple phases with or without overlapping. R&D investments are made often in a phased manner, with the commencement of subsequent phase being dependent on the successful completion of the preceding phase, it is known as sequential investment. Moreover, each stage creates an opportunity (option) for subsequent investment. Therefore, R&D projects can be considered as ‘Compound Options’ in which investments present uncertainty both in the gross project value and in costs. It is possible to use exchange options to value the R&D investment opportunities. In this paper, we propose to value the European and American Real Compound Exchange options through Monte Carlo simulation. We also provide a set of numerical experiments to provide evidence for the accuracy of the proposed methodology. |
| Keywords: | Pseudo Compound American Exchange option; R&D;Monte Carlo Methods. |
| Date: | 2008–01 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:ufg:qdsems:04-2008&r=ino |
| By: | Andrew Sharpe; Ian Currie |
| Abstract: | The objective of the report is to survey and assess the existing economic theoretical literature and empirical evidence on the linkages between open and competitive markets (competitive intensity) and innovation and productivity growth. The report is divided into three main parts. The first part examines the state of economic theory on the relationship between competitive intensity, innovation and productivity. The second section examines relevant empirical work that has been done on the role of firm dynamics in sustaining a competitive environment. The third section surveys evidence of linkages provided by the international case studies of the effects of open and competitive markets on innovation and productivity. The report concludes that the weight of the evidence indicates that competitive intensity has a strong positive effect on innovation and productivity. Accordingly, Canada should pay closer attention to the competitive implications of public policy than has been the case in the past. The international experience provides strong support for this conclusion. While there can be negative implications for certain groups from such policy changes, the evidence shows that they are often smaller than anticipated. Restrictions on competition should only be allowed when it can be demonstrated that they are needed to achieve overriding societal interests. |
| Keywords: | Competition, Competition policy, competitive intensity, innovation, productivity, firm dynamics, empirical work, case studies |
| JEL: | O20 O33 O38 O47 |
| Date: | 2008–06 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:sls:resrep:0803&r=ino |