Upload
cody-rogers
View
219
Download
2
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
Economics of Innovation
Jaffe’s model
Manuel Trajtenberg2005
2
Technological Opportunity and Spillovers of R&D: Evidence from
Firms’ Patents, Profits, and Market Value
byAdam Jaffe
AER, Vol. 76 (5), Dec 1986, 984-1001
3
Introduction
.
The main goal is to assess the effect of key “supply side” factors,
(1) spillovers from other firms, and
(2) “technological opportunity,” and the corresponding “tech position” of firms
on the “productivity” of own R&D, and profits
Key issue: how to define these concepts, how to actually measure them?
4
The key concepts
Spillovers:
• presumed to have a positive technological effect,
• but a potentially negative economic effect through competition.
“Tech opportunity”: “exogenous variations in costs and difficulty of innovation in different areas.”
“Tech position” of firms vis tech opportunities: endogenous, but slowly moving
Concepts not directly observable – use patent data to measure them.
5
Front page of a patent (partial)Frohman-Bentchkowsky, et. al. May 13, 1980
Electrically programmable and erasable MOS floating gate memory device employing tunneling and method of fabricating same
Inventors: Frohman-Bentchkowsky; Dov (Haifa, IL); Mar; Jerry (Sunnyvale, CA); Perlegos; George (Cupertino, CA); Johnson; William S. (Palo Alto, CA).
Assignee: Intel Corporation (Santa Clara, CA).
Current U.S. Cl.: 365/185.29; 257/321; 326/37; 327/427; Field of Search: 365/185, 189; 307/238; 357/41, 45, 304 References Cited 3,500,142 Mar., 1970 Kahng 365/1854,051,464 Sept., 1977 Huang 365/185
Primary Examiner: Fears; Terrell W. 16 Claims, 14 Drawing Figures
6
Patent Class Definitions: examplesCLASS 365, STATIC INFORMATION STORAGE AND
RETRIEVAL
CLASS DEFINITION: This is the generic class for apparatus or corresponding processes for the static storage and retrieval of information. For classification herein, the storage system must be (1) static, (2) a singular storage element or plural elements of the same type, (3) addressable.
CLASS 257, ACTIVE SOLID-STATE DEVICES E.G., TRANSISTORS, SOLID-STATE DIODES)
CLASS DEFINITION: This class provides for active solid-state electronic devices, …, usually semiconductors, which operate by the movement of charge carriers - electrons or holes - which undergo energy level changes within the material and can modify an input voltage to achieve rectification, amplification, or switching action, and are not classified elsewhere.
7
The Technological Location of Firm i
Characterize each firm by the vector:
fij: the % of firm i patents in “patent category” j.
The USPTO patent classification system (purely tech based, not “industries”):
• ~ 400 patent classes (328 back in the 1980’s).
• ~ 150,000 patent sub-classes
Jaffe aggregated the 328 patent classes into 49 “patent categories”.
)...,( ,2,1 iKiii fffF
8
Measuring spillovers
10 ,)')('(
' ij
jjii
jiij P
FFFF
FFP
A measure of technological proximity between firms: the “angular separation” (or uncentered correlation) of the vectors Fi and Fj:
The potential spillover pool:
R&Dj: the R&D expenditure of firm j
jij
iji DRPS )&(
9
Data• All patents granted to 1700 manufacturing firms, for 1969-79: 260,000 patents
• Firms linked to Compustat
• Two tech “positions:” one based on patents up to 1972, the second based on patents after 1972.
• Thus each firm: two 49 elements vector, one for each period.
1969 19791972
Fi1 Fi2
10
http://www.compustat.com/www/
Compustat Data Packages Compustat Offerings>Compustat® Data>Compustat North America>Compustat Global>Compustat Xpressfeed>Compustat Xpressfeed Loader>Compustat Historical>Compustat Unrestated Quarterly>Research Insight on the Web>Research Insight>Market Insight>Standard & Poor's Custom Business Unit
11
Establishing the tech position of firms
• Use clustering algorithm: identify firms with a similar tech focus, so that they face the same state of technological opportunity; based again on the vectors Fi ’s.
• Found 21 clusters; done twice, pre- and post 1972.
• About 1/3 of firms change clusters between the 2 periods.
12
Cluster# Firms
19721978
Adhesives & Coatings3024
Chemistry, Carbon4539
Chemistry, Electrochemistry
1613
Chemistry, Organic2122
Cleaning and Abrading1614
Compositions2020
Cutting2415
Elec. Computers & Data Proc.2120
Elec. Transmission & Systems3426
Electronic Communication2832
Fluid Handling2724
Cluster# Firms
‘72‘78
Food3429
Measuring & Testing3120
Medical1325
Metals and Metal Working3329
Misc. Consumer Goods2429
Power Plants (Non electric)5129
Receptacles & Packages2436
Refrigeration & Heat Exch.2937
Static Structures2738
Vehicles2536
All Firms573557
Technological clusters
13
The patenting equationPatents as a function of:
• own R&D - flow
• Spillovers Pool (R&D of others, weighted by their “tech proximity):
• Interaction between the two (“absorptive capacity”)
• Dummies for Tech clusters
n
ij jiji DRPS )&(
i
iiiii
dummiestech
SDRSDRPat
)&()&( 3210
14
The Profits EquationHow to measure profits? Operating income before depreciation
Profits as a function of:
• own R&D stock
• Spillovers Pool
• Interaction between the two
• Dummies for Tech clusters
• Capital
• Market share
• Market concentration – C4
15
The Tobin’s q equation
Tobin’s q: Market value/Capital
As a function of:
• R&D/Capital
• (R&D/Capital) x Spillovers Pool
• Dummies for Tech clusters
• Market share
• Market concentration – C4
16
The estimating equations
Log of:
PatentsProfitsTobin’s q
Log(R&D)x flowx stock
Log(S-pool)xx
log(R&D)xlog(S-pool)xx
R&D/Capitalx
[R&D/Capital]xlog(S-pool)x
Log(Capital)x
Tech cluster dummiesxxx
Market Share, C4xx
17
Statistics for Regression Variables
Levels (846 Obs)
MeanMedian
Patents35.59.3
Gross Profit207.932.7
Tobin’s q1.020.84
Annual R&D25.73.41
R&D Stock12112.5
Capital Stock968153
Annual Spillover Pool2,6222,438
Spillover Pool Stock10,0429,986
Market Share5.443.24
Four-Firm Concentration38.337.1
Note : All nominal variables are millions of 1972 dollars. Market share and concentration are percentages.
18
Data issues• 432 firms, 1/3 of those that report R&D, but they
account for 95% of total R&D (possible selectivity bias “against” small firms).
• Two cross-sections, centered on 1973 and 1979. Each cross section: average of 3 years data,
“smoothing”.
• R&D stocks (for the profits and market value equations): computed assuming 15% depreciation of R&D; extrapolation into the past using average growth rate.
• Market shares only for 1972 – proxies for 1979.
19
Econometric issues
• Endogeneity of R&D, Capital, market share: shock (e.g. unobserved “management skill”) may both lead to higher patents, profits, etc. and to higher investments and market share.
• Measurement error in some of the X’s, e.g. R&D (because assume only contemporaneous effect for patents, the way the stock is constructed, etc.).
iii
iiiii
dummiestechCMarkShCap
SDStockRSStockDRProfits
)4(
)&() &(
654
3210
20
Estimation• First estimates OLS, but as said possible endogeneity.
• Estimate first differences between two cross sections (like fixed effects); but just 2 cross sections, very imprecise, may exacerbate errors in variables problem
• Bring in instruments, estimate 3SLS: like 2SLS, but also system of equations to take into account possible correlations of error terms across equations. White s.e.
21
Instruments
Need IVs for R&D, Capital and Market Share. Use Industry variables (given for the individual firm). Each firm belongs to a bunch of SIC, according to its sales, so take the weighted average – that gives variation across firms even if similar.
• Industry R&D, Sales, growth rate
• Industry MSE - minimum efficient scale (IV for Capital)
• Spillover pool (and interactions between it and the industry variables)
22
Table 5: 3SLS Estimates - 432 obs(elasticities)
Log of:
PatentsProfitsTobin’s q
Log(R&D)0.88 (0.18)0.18 (0.04)
Log(S)0.51 (0.10)-0.09 (0.05)-0.058 (0.03)
log(R&D)xlog(S)0.35 (0.05)0.06 (0.02)
R&D/Capital3.31 (0.21)
[R&D/Capital]xlog(S)0.80 (0.10)
Log(Capital)0.82 (0.40)
Log(C4)-0.22 (0.04)-0.53 (0.08)Log(72 Market share) 730.19 (0.06)0.31 (0.05)
S: spillover pool (zero mean)
23
Log of:
PatentsProfitsTobin’s q
on Technological Cluster Effects :
(1973)81.388.498.6
(1979)94.476.590.2
s.e. (1973)0.8423.620.652
s.e. (1979)0.9123.510.420
220
Table 5 – cont.
24
Results for the patents equation
• Elasticity of patents w.r.t. R&D: 0.88 for average firm, higher for those with above-average
spillover pool.
• Elasticity w.r.t. to S-pool: 0.51 + 0.35 log(R&D); for those with mean R&D (1.8): 1.1 – very large!
• Thus, if everybody increases R&D by 10%, total patents increase by ~ 20% (0.088+0.035x(1.8x1.1)+0.051).
• “Return” of 2 patents per million $ own R&D, 0.6 patents per 10 M$ of others R&D.
25
Results for the profits equation
Compute gross rate of return to R&D (or to capital); start with estimated elasticity of R&D:
DRDR
DR
DR &&
&
&
Gross rate of return to R&D:
(mean /mean R&D stock) = 208/121= 1.7
Estimated elasticity x 1.7 = 0.18 x 1.7 = 0.31 (in Jaffe it is 28%, difference apparently because of mean of the ratio, not ratio of the means)
26
Profit equation – cont.
Gross rate of return to capital:
Mean profits/mean capital = 208/968 = 0.21
times elasticity of capital: 0.21 x 0.825= 0.18%(in Jaffe it is 15%)
Thus, returns to R&D (0.31) almost 2 times larger than return to conventional capital (but much higher depreciation).
27
Profit equation – cont. 2
Spillover pool: negative direct effect (-0.095, only marginally significant), but positive through interaction (+0.058). Net effect for average log(R&D):
-0.095 + 0.058 (3.09) = +0.084
For firms with little R&D (below half s.d. of mean log R&D): negative net effect
28
Tobin’s q equation
• Similar to profit equation: negative direct effect of S, positive interaction – firms doing lots of R&D benefit from spillovers pool.
• An R&D dollar increases market value 3 times as much as a dollar invested in physical capital (see coefficient of R&D/Capital).
• C(4) decreases market value, own market share increases q.
29
Pooled OLS Estimates for 1973 and 1979 (846 Obs)
Log of:
PatentsProfitsTobin’s q
Log(R&D)0.73 (0.15)0.20 (0.05)
Log(S)0.63 (0.11)-0.08 (0.04)-0.08 (0.05)
log(R&D)xlog(S)0.17 (0.03)0.03 (0.02)
R&D/Capital2.95 (1.52)
[R&D/Capital]xlog(S)0.53 (0.19)
Log(Capital)0.56 (0.02)
Market Share, C4-0.16 (0.04)-0.44 (0.05)
30
Log of:
PatentsProfitsTobin’s q
F-Stats for Tech Cluster Dummies (20 D.F) :
19734.25.85.6
19793.95.75.5
0.940.440.77
s.e.0.8063.460.509
2R
Lower coefficients for R&D in OLS: because endogeneity expected positive bias, but errors in measurement the other way.
OLS – cont.
31
Technological clusters & tech opportunity
High correlation over time of the tech dummy coefficients from the patents equation, low corr. for the profits or market value:
Technological persistence, but high profits in clusters in 1973 get competed away by 1979. Indeed,
• positive corr. between net entry into clusters, and size of coefficients in 1973;
• negative corr. between change in dummies in Tobin’s q equation, and entry (i.e. entry lowers market value).
32
Key contributions
1. Method to measure spillovers, tech position and tech proximity (used since).
2. Findings:
• Large impact of spillovers in 3 equations: positive for patents, negative (direct) for profits and market value, but positive if do at least average R&D.
• Importance of “absorptive capacity.”
• Large (private) returns from R&D (twice as large as for physical investment).