Selection bias in innovation studies: A simple test

Technological Forecasting and Social Change

Volumn 81, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 287-299

  De Rassenfosse, Gaétan ^a   Schoen, Anja ^b   Wastyn, Annelies ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE   (Australia)

^b TUM SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT   (Germany)

^c UNIVERSITY OF LEUVEN   (Belgium)

Author keywords

Knowledge production function; Patent count; R D; Selection bias

Indexed keywords

INNOVATION STUDIES; KNOWLEDGE PRODUCTION FUNCTION; PATENT COUNT; PRODUCTION FUNCTION; SELECTION BIAS; SIMPLE TESTS;

SOCIETIES AND INSTITUTIONS;

PATENTS AND INVENTIONS;

DATA SET; ECONOMETRICS; ESTIMATION METHOD; INNOVATION; RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT;

BELGIUM; GERMANY;

EID: 84888066331     PISSN: 00401625     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2013.02.012     Document Type: Article

References (54)

1. Jefferson M. The geographic distribution of inventiveness. Geogr. Rev. 1929, 19(4):649-661.
2. Merton R. Fluctuations in the rate of industrial invention. Q. J. Econ. 1935, 49(3):454-474.
3. Pavitt K. Patent statistics as indicators of innovative activities: possibilities and problems. Scientometrics 1985, 7(1-2):77-99.
4. Griliches Z. Patent statistics as economic indicators: a survey. J. Econ. Lit. 1990, 28(4):1661-1707.
5. Scherer F. Firms size, market structure, opportunity and the output of patent inventions. Am. Econ. Rev. 1965, 55(5):1097-1125.
6. Stoneman P. Patenting activity: a re-evaluation of the influence of demand pressures. J. Ind. Econ. 1979, 27(4):385-401.
7. Nielsen A. Patenting activity and market structure - correcting for self-selection in a sample of Danish patent holders. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2001, 66(1):47-58.
8. Aghion P., Bloom N., Blundell R., Griffith R., Howitt P. Competition and innovation: an inverted-U relationship. Q. J. Econ. 2005, 120(2):701-728.
9. Jaffe A. Technological opportunity and spillovers from R&D: evidence from firms' patents, profits, and market value. Am. Econ. Rev. 1986, 76(5):984-1001.
10. Cincera M. Patents, R&D, and technological spillovers at the firm level: some evidence from econometric count models for panel data. J. Appl. Econ. 1997, 12(3):265-280.
11. Czarnitzki D., Ebersberger B., Fier A. The relationship between R&D collaboration, subsidies and R&D performance: empirical evidence from Finland and Germany. J. Appl. Econ. 2007, 22(7):1347-1366.
12. Pakes A., Griliches Z. Patents and R&D at the firm level: a first report. Econ. Lett. 1980, 5(7):377-381.
13. Crépon B., Duguet E., Mairesse J. Research, innovation, and productivity: an econometric analysis at the firm level. Econ. Innov. New Technol. 1998, 7(2):115-158.
14. G. de Rassenfosse, H. Dernis, D. Guellec, L. Picci, B. van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, The worldwide count of priority patents: a new indicator of inventive performance, Res. Policy, (in press).
15. Seip M. Matching Patent Data in the Netherlands, Paper Presented at the Patent Statistics for Decision Makers 2010 2010, European Patent Office, Vienna, Austria.
16. de Rassenfosse G., van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie B. A policy insight into the R&D-patent relationship. Res. Policy 2009, 38(5):779-792.
17. Azagra J., Yegros A., Archontakis F. What do university patent routes indicate at regional level?. Scientometrics 2006, 66(1):219-230.
18. van Zeebroeck N., van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie B. Filing strategies and patent value. Econ. Innov. New Technol. 2011, 20(6):539-562.
19. Jensen P., Thomson R., Yong J. Estimating the patent premium: evidence from the Australian Inventor Survey. Strateg. Manag. J. 2011, 32(10):1128-1138.
20. Tobin J. Estimation of relationships for limited dependent variables. Econometrica 1958, 26(1):24-36.
21. Heckman J. Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica 1979, 47(1):153-161.
22. Gourieroux C., Monfort A., Trognon A. Pseudo maximum likelihood methods: applications to Poisson models. Econometrica 1984, 52(3):701-720.
23. Hausman J., Hall B., Griliches Z. Econometric models for count data with an application to the patents-R&D relationship. Econometrica 1984, 52(4):909-938.
24. Blundell R., Griffith R., Van Reenen J. Market share, market value and innovation in a panel of British manufacturing firms. Rev. Econ. Stud. 1999, 66(3):529-554.
25. Blundell R., Griffith R., Windmeijer F. Individual effects and dynamics in count data models. J. Econ. 2002, 108(1):113-131.
26. Uchida Y., Cook P. Innovation and market structure in the manufacturing sector: an application of linear feedback models. Oxf. Bull. Econ. Stat. 2007, 69(4):557-580.
27. Czarnitzki D., Kraft K., Thorwarth S. The knowledge production of 'R' and 'D'. Econ. Lett. 2009, 105(1):141-143.
28. Papke L., Wooldridge J. Econometric methods for fractional response variables with an application to 401 (K) plan participation rates. J. Appl. Econ. 1996, 11(6):619-632.
29. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), OECD Patent Statistics Manual, Paris, 2009, 158 p.
30. Gilbert R. Looking for Mr. Schumpeter: where are we in the competition-innovation debate?. Innov. Policy Econ. 2006, 6:159-215.
31. Lambert D. Zero-inflated regression, with an application to defects in manufacturing. Technometrics 1992, 34(1):1-14.
32. van Zeebroeck N. The puzzle of patent value indicators. Econ. Innov. New Technol. 2011, 20(1):33-62.
33. D. Harhoff, K. Hoisl, C. Webb, European patent citations - how to count and how to interpret them, Unpublished manuscript, University of Munich (2008).
34. Schmude J., Heumann S. Vom Studenten Zum Unternehmer: Welche Universität bietet die besten Chancen? 2007, Handelsblatt Verlag, Düsseldorf.
35. Coupé T. Science is golden: academic R&D and university patents. J. Technol. Transf. 2003, 28(1):31-46.
36. Payne A., Siow A. Does federal research funding increase university research output?. Adv. Econ. Anal. Policy 2003, 3(1). (Article 1).
37. Azagra-Caro J., Carayol N., Llerena P. Patent production at a European research university: exploratory evidence at the laboratory level. J. Technol. Transf. 2006, 31(2):257-268.
38. Ernst H. Industrial research as a source of important patents. Res. Policy 1998, 27:1-15.
39. Brouwer E., Kleinknecht A. Innovative output, and a firm's propensity to patent. An exploration of CIS micro data. Res. Policy 1998, 28:615-624.
40. Meliciani V. The relationship between R&D, investment and patents: a panel data analysis. Appl. Econ. 2000, 32(11):1429-1437.
41. Furman J., Porter M., Stern S. The determinants of national innovative capacity. Res. Policy 2002, 31(66):899-933.
42. Fritsch M. Measuring the quality of regional innovation systems: a knowledge production function approach. Int. Reg. Sci. Rev. 2002, 25(1):86-101.
43. Bottazzi L., Peri G. Innovation and spillovers in regions: evidence from European patent data. Eur. Econ. Rev. 2003, 47:687-710.
44. Salomon R., Shaver J. Learning by exporting: new insights from examining firm innovation. J. Econ. Manag. Strateg. 2005, 14(2):431-460.
45. Ulku H. R&D, innovation, and growth: evidence from four manufacturing sectors in OECD countries. Oxf. Econ. Pap. 2007, 59(3):513-535.
46. Carayol N. Academic incentives, research organization and patenting at a large French university. Econ. Innov. New Technol. 2007, 16(2):119-138.
47. Mariani M., Romanelli M. "Stacking" and "picking" inventions: the patenting behavior of European inventors. Res. Policy 2007, 36:1128-1142.
48. Tappeiner G., Hauser C., Walde J. Regional knowledge spillovers: fact or artifact?. Res. Policy 2008, 37:861-874.
49. Akçomak I.,Weel B. Social capital, innovation and growth: evidence from Europe. Eur. Econ. Rev. 2009, 53:544-567.
50. Hoekman J., Frenken K., Oort F. The geography of collaborative knowledge production in Europe. Ann. Reg. Sci. 2008, 43(3):721-738.
51. Buesa M., Heijs J., Baumert T. The determinants of regional innovation in Europe: a combined factorial and regression knowledge production function approach. Res. Policy 2010, 39:722-735.
52. Picci L. The internationalization of inventive activity: a gravity model using patent data. Res. Policy 2010, 39:1070-1081.
53. Fornahl D., Broekel T., Boschma R. What drives patent performance of German biotech firms? The impact of R&D subsidies, knowledge networks and their location. Pap. Reg. Sci. 2011, 90(2):395-418.
54. Rentocchini F. Sources and characteristics of software patents in the European Union: some empirical considerations. Inf. Econ. Policy 2011, 23(1):141-157.