Journal of Evolutionary Economics

, Volume 22, Issue 4, pp 811–832 | Cite as

R&D, patents and stock return volatility

  • Mariana MazzucatoEmail author
  • Massimiliano Tancioni
Regular Article


Recent finance literature highlights the role of technological change in increasing firm specific (idiosyncratic) and aggregate stock return volatility, yet innovation data is not used in these analyses, leaving the direct relationship between innovation and stock return volatility untested. The paper investigates the relationship between volatility and innovation using firm level patent data. The analysis builds on the empirical work by Mazzucato (Rev Econ Dyn 5:318–345, 2002; J Evol Econ 13(5):491–512, 2003) where it is found that stock return volatility is highest during periods in the industry life-cycle when innovation is the most ‘radical’. In this paper we ask whether firms which invest more in innovation (more R&D and more patents) and/or which have more important innovations (patents with more citations) experience more volatility in their returns. Given that returns should in theory be higher, on average, for higher risk stocks, we also look at the effect of innovation on the level of returns. To take into account the competition between firms within industries, firm returns and volatility are measured relative to the industry average. We focus the analysis on firms in the pharmaceutical industry between 1974 and 1999. Results suggest that there is a positive and significant relationship between volatility, R&D intensity and the various patent related measures—especially when the innovation measures are filtered to distinguish the very innovative firms from the less innovate ones.


Idiosyncratic risk Volatility Technological change Industry life-cycle 

JEL Classification

G12 030 


  1. Bresnahan TF, Greenstein S (1997) Technological Competition and the structure of the computer industry. J Ind Econ 47(1):1–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Campbell JY, Lettau M, Malkiel BG, Yexiao X (2001) Have individual stocks become more volatile? An empirical exploration of idiosyncratic risk. J Finance 56:1–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Deng Y (2005) The value of knowledge spillovers. Paper presented at the CEF annual conference, Washington DC, 24 June 2005Google Scholar
  4. Gambardella A (1995) Science and innovation in the US Pharmaceutical Industry. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Griliches Z, Hall B, Pakes A (1991) R&D, patents and market value revisited: is there ad second (technological opportunity) factor? Econ Innov New Technol 1:1983–1201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hall B, Jaffe A, Trajtenberg M (2001) The NBER patent citations data file. In: Jaffe AB, Trajtenberg M (eds) Patents, citations and innovations: a window on the knowledge economy. MIT Press, BostonGoogle Scholar
  7. Hall BH, Jaffe A, Trajtenberg M (2005) Market value and patent citations. Rand J Econ 36(1):16–38Google Scholar
  8. Harris G (2002) Why drug makers are failing in quest for new blockbusters. Wall Street Journal. 18 March 2002Google Scholar
  9. Henderson R, Orsenigo L, Pisano G (1999) The pharmaceutical industry and the revolution in molecular biology: interactions among scientific, institutional and organizational change. In: Mowery D, Nelson R (eds) Sources of industrial leadership. CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  10. Hymer S, Pashigian P (1962). Firm size and rate of growth. J Polit Econ 70(6):556–569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Jaffe AB, Trajtenberg M (2002) Patents, citations and innovations: a window on the knowledge economy. MIT Press, BostonGoogle Scholar
  12. Kahneman D, Tversky A (1979) Prospect theory: an analysis of decisions under risk. Econometrica 47(2):263–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Klepper S (1996) Exit, entry, growth, and innovation over the product life-cycle. Am Econ Rev 86(3):562–583Google Scholar
  14. Knight FH (1921) Risk, uncertainty and profit. Houghton Mifflin, BostonGoogle Scholar
  15. Mazzucato M (2002) The PC industry: new economy or early life-cycle. Rev Econ Dyn 5:318–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mazzucato M (2003) Risk, variety and volatility: innovation, growth and stock returns in old and new industries. J Evol Econ 13(5):491–512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mazzucato M, Semmler W (1999) Stock market volatility and market share instability during the US auto industry life-cycle. J Evol Econ 9(1):67–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mazzucato M, Tancioni M (2008) Idiosyncratic risk and innovation: a firm and industry level analysis. Ind Corp Change 17(4):779–811CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mowery DC, Ziedonis AA (2002). Academic patent quality and quantity before and after the Bayh–Dole act in the United States. Res Policy 31(3):399–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mundlack Y (1978) On the pooling of time series and cross section data. Econometrica 46:69–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Orsenigo L, Pammolli F, Riccaboni M (2001) Technological change and network dynamics. Lessons from the pharmaceutical industry. Res Policy 30:485–509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Pakes A (1985) On patents, R&D, and the stock market rate of return. J Polit Econ 93(2):390–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pastor L, Veronesi P (2004) Was there a Nasdaq Bubble in the Late 1990’s. J Financ Econ 81(1):61–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Pastor L, Veronesi P (2005) Technological revolutions and stock returns. National Bureau of Economic Research w11876Google Scholar
  25. Perez C (2002) Technological revolutions and financial capital: the dynamics of bubbles and golden ages. Edward Elgar, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  26. Pisano GP (2006) Can science be a business? Lessons from Biotech. Harvard Business Review, October, 114–125Google Scholar
  27. Scherer FM, Ross D (1990). Industrial market structure and economic performance. Houghton Mifflin Company, BostonGoogle Scholar
  28. Schwert GW (1989) Why does stock market volatility change over time? J Finance 54:1115–1153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Shiller RJ (1981) Do stock returns move too much to be justified by subsequent changes in dividends. Am Econ Rev 71:421–435Google Scholar
  30. Shiller RJ (2000) Irrational exuberance. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  31. Tushman M, Anderson P (1986) Technological discontinuities and organizational environments. Adm Sci Q 31:439–465CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Science and Technology Policy Research UnitUniversity of SussexBrightonUnited Kingdom
  2. 2.Econ. Dept.University of Rome La SapienzaRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations