Innovation Trends in NAFTA Countries: An Econometric Analysis of Patent Applications
AbstractThis paper analyzes innovation trends in North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) countries by means of the number of patent applications during the period 1965 to 2008. Making use of patent data released by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and the Network for Science and Technology Indicators (Red Iberoamericana de Ciencia y Tecnología, RICYT), we search for presence of multiple structural changes in the patent applications series in Canada, Mexico, and the United States. Such changes may suggest that firms’ innovative activity has been modified in these countries (Mansfield, 1986). Accordingly, it would be expected that the new regulations implemented in these countries in the 1980s and 1990s have influenced their intellectual property regimes through the NAFTA and the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement. Consequently, the question conducting this research is how the new dispositions affecting intellectual regimes in NAFTA countries have affected innovation activities in these countries. The results achieved in this research confirm the existence of multiple structural changes in the series of patent applications resulting from the new legislation implemented in these countries.
ARUNDEL, A. (2001). The relative effectiveness of patents and secrecy for appropriation. Research Policy, 30(4), 611-624.
BAI, J., Perron P. (1998). Estimating and testing linear models with multiple structural change. Econometrica, 66(11), 47-78.
BAI, J., Perron, P. (2003). Computation and analysis of multiple structural change models. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 18(1), 1-22.
BROUWER, E., Kleinknecht, A. (1999). Innovative output and a firm propensity to patent: An exploration of CIS micro data. Research Policy, 28(6), 615-624.
COHEN, W. M., Levin, R. C. (1989). Empirical studies of innovation and market structure. In: Schmalensee, R., Willing, R. D. (Eds.), Handbook of Industrial Organization. North-Holland, Amsterdam.
COHEN, W. M., Nelson, R. R., Walsh, J. P. (2000). Protecting their intellectual assets: Appropriability conditions and why US manufacturing firms patent (or not). NBER Working Paper Series No. 7552.
DE RASSENFOSSE, G., van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, B. (2007). Per un pugno di dollari: A first look at the price elasticity of patents. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 238(4), 588-604.
DENG, Y. (2007). The effects of patent regime changes: A case study of the European patent office. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 25(1), 121-138.
DUGUET, E., Kabla, I. (1998). Appropriation strategy and the motivations to use the patent system: An econometric analysis at the firm level in French manufacturing. Annales d'économie et statistique, 49, 289-327.
ENCAOUA, D., Guellec, D., Martínez, C. (2006). Patent systems for encouraging innovation: Lessons from economic analysis. Research Policy, 35(9), 1423-1440.
GÓMEZ, M., Rodríguez, J. C. (2008). Innovative Activity in NAFTA and EU Countries: An Analysis of Structural Change in Patent Granted Trends. Proceedings of the Applied Econometrics Association. AEA, Tokyo.
GUJARATI, D. (2004). Econometría. McGraw-Hill, Mexico.
HALL, B. H. (2001). The Global Nature of Intellectual Property. Discussion Paper. Industry Canada, Ottawa.
HALL, B. H. (2005). Exploring the Patent Explosion. Journal of Technology Transfer, 30(2), 35-48.
HALL, B. H. (2007). Patents and patent policy. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 23(4), 568-587.
HANSEN, B. (2001). The new econometrics of structural change: Dating breaks in U.S. labor Productivity. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 15(4), 117-128.
INDUSTRY CANADA. (2002). Achieving Excellence, Investing in People, Knowledge, and Opportunity. Industry Canada, Ottawa.
INDUSTRY CANADA. (2007). Mobilizing Science and Technology to Canada's Advantage. Industry Canada, Ottawa.
JAFFE, A. B., Lerner, J. (2001). Reinventing public R&D: Patent policy and the commercialization of national laboratory technologies. The RAND Journal of Economics, 32(1), 167-198.
LANJOUW, J. O., Cockburn, I. M. (2001). New pills for poor people? Evidence after GATT. World Development, 29(2), 265-289.
LEVIN, R. C., Klerovick, A. K., Nelson, R. R., Winter, S. G. (1987). Appropriating the returns from industrial research and development. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 18(3), 783-831.
MADDALA, G. S., Kim, I. (1998). Unit Root, Cointegration and Structural Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
MANSFIELD, E. (1986). Patents and innovation: An empirical study. Management Science, 32(2), 173-181.
NG, S., Perron, P. (1995). Unit root tests in ARMA models with data dependent methods for the selection of the truncation lag. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 90(429), 268-281.
NIELSEN, A. O. (2001). Patenting, R&D and market structure: Manufacturing firms in Denmark, Technology Forecast and Social Change, 66(1), 47-58.
PEETERS, C., van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, B. (2006). Innovation strategy and the patenting behavior of firms. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 16(1), 109-135.
PERRON, P. (1989). The great crash, the oil price shock, and the unit root hypothesis. Econometrica, 57(6), 1361-1401.
PERRON, P. (1997). Further evidence on breaking trend functions in macroeconomics variables. Journal of Econometrics, 80(2), 355-385.
PULIDO, A. (2001). Modelos Econométricos. Ediciones Pirámide, Mexico.
RODRÍGUEZ, J. C. (2010). University-Industry Technology Transfer in Canada: An Analysis of Stakeholders' Performance Using System Dynamics. Doctoral Dissertation, École de science de la gestion, UQÀM, Montreal.
RODRÍGUEZ, J. C., Gómez, M. (2009). Multiple Structural Changes in Patent Granted Series and Innovative Performance: The Case of NAFTA and EU Countries. Proceedings of the International Society for Professional Innovation Management. ISPIM, New York.
SCHUMPETER, J. A. (1942). Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. Harper, New York.
SCOTCHMER, S. (2004). The political economy of intellectual property treaties. The Journal of Law, Economics & Organization, 20(2), 415-437.
SCOTCHMER, S., Green, J. (1990). Novelty and disclosure in patent law. The RAND Journal of Economics, 20(1), 131 -146.
SEN, A. (2003). On unit-root test when the alternative is a trend-break stationary process. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, 21(1), 11-30.
SHADLEN, K. C. (2009). Harmonization, differentiation, and development: The case of intellectual property in the global trading system. In: Sacchetti, S., Sugden, R. (Eds.), Knowledge in the Development of Economics: Institutional Choices under Globalisation. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham and Northampton.
SHADLEN, K. C. (2010). The puzzling politics of patents and innovation policy in Mexico. Law and Business Review of the Americas, 16(4), 823-838.
SIEGEL, D. S., Waldman, D. A., Atwater, L. E., Link, A. N. (2004). Toward a model of the effective transfer of scientific knowledge from academicians to practitioners: Qualitative evidence from the commercialization of university technologies. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 21(1/2), 115-142.
VOGELSANG, T. (1997). Wald-type tests for detecting breaks in the trend function of a dynamic time series. Econometric Theory, 13(6), 818-849.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).