Does technological diversification spur university patenting?
Technological diversity, or the breadth of technological knowledge embedded in patented inventions, refers to the range of different technological or economic fields covered by a patent. This paper explores the role of diversification scope in encouraging the production of new patents in European universities by including the diversification scope as an explanatory variable in a patent production function. We hypothesize that the more diversified the patented technology in the university, the greater the production of new patents in subsequent periods. To test this hypothesis we rely on a cross-sectional sample of patents owned by 141 European universities across Europe in 2001–2004. Our empirical findings support the hypothesis of diversification, which means that the production of new patents can be spurred by promoting or stimulating greater levels of technological diversification. This result is robust to both the use of various measures of diversification and to different econometric specifications.
KeywordsUniversity patenting Technological diversification Entropy index Multilevel negative binomial model Knowledge production function European universities
JEL ClassificationO31 O32
The authors highly appreciate the helpful comments of an anonymous Reviewer, which significantly contributed to improving the clarity and quality of the paper. We are also grateful for the financial assistance provided by Junta de Andalucía.
- Cameron, A. C., & Trivedi, P. K. (2009). Microeconomics using stata. Lakeway Drive, TX: Stata Press Books.Google Scholar
- Greene, W. H. (2012). Econometric analysis (7th ed.). Boston: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
- Hall, B. H., & Harhoff, D. (2012). Recent research on the economics of patents. Working Paper No. w17773. National Bureau of Economic Research.Google Scholar
- Hall, B. H., Jaffe, A. B., & Trajtenberg, M. (2001). The NBER Patent Citation Data File: Lessons, Insights and Methodological Tools, NBER Working Paper 8498.Google Scholar
- Jaffe, A. B. (1989). Real effects of academic research. American Economic Review, 79(5), 957–970.Google Scholar
- Lerner, J. (1994). The importance of patent scope: An empirical analysis. The RAND Journal of Economics, 25(2), 319–333.Google Scholar
- Payne, A., & Siow, A. (2003). Does federal research funding increase university research output? Advances in Economic Analysis & Policy, 3(1), Article 1.Google Scholar
- Rabe-Hesketh, S., & Skrondal, A. (2012). Multilevel and longitudinal modeling using stata (3rd ed.). College Station, TX: Stata Press.Google Scholar
- Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
- Schmoch, U., Laville, F., Patel, P., & Frietsch, R. (2003). Linking technology areas to industrial sectors, Final Report to the European Commission, DG Research.Google Scholar
- 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), 115–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Tantiyaswasdikul, K. (2012). The impact of the breadth of patent protection and the Japanese university patents. International Journal of Innovation, Management and Technology, 3(6), 754–758.Google Scholar
- Zucker, L. G., Darby, M. R., & Brewer, M. B. (1998). Intellectual human capital and the birth of U.S. biotechnology enterprises. American Economic Review, 88(1), 290–306.Google Scholar