Advertisement

Scientometrics

, Volume 94, Issue 1, pp 1–22 | Cite as

Factors affecting the diffusion of patented military technology in the field of weapons and ammunition

  • Manuel Acosta
  • Daniel Coronado
  • Rosario Marín
  • Pedro Prats
Article

Abstract

In this paper, we carry out an empirical analysis to address some questions concerning the flow of knowledge stemming from military patented technologies. Patented military technology consists of a set of inventions which nature, uses or/and applications have defensive or offensive purposes. In this paper, we focus on the field of weapons and ammunition. Our objective is to identify, why the knowledge embedded in a military technology diffuses into other patented technologies. The methodology relies on a patent citations analysis and involves the specification of several multilevel logit models to identify the individual and country characteristics that determine the citation of military patents in subsequent patents. The data contain 1,756 citations to 582 patents of military origin with a simultaneous Europe–US protection and registered by companies/institutions from 1998 to 2003. The results reveal that military knowledge diffuses more intensively across civil patents, when the original military patent includes diverse technologies (civil and military) and is progressively less specific in terms of weapons and ammunition. Military patents filed by British, French, US, Japanese and German companies are, in this order, more likely to have a larger number of citations in subsequent civil patents. The ownership of the original military patent is not a determining factor for explaining the diffusion into civil patents, but it does influence the diffusion across mixed and military technologies. Finally, the technological capacity of the citing company also affects the type and intensity of the diffusion of the military knowledge.

Keywords

Technology diffusion Forward patent citations Military technology Military patents Weapons and ammunition 

JEL Classification

O33 O34 L64 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors highly appreciate the helpful comments of the 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, Consejería de Innovación, Ciencia y Empresa (P08-SEJ-03981) and the ISDEFE-IEB Chair of Markets and Industrial Policy (ISDEFE is Ingeniería de Sistemas para la Defensa de España, S.A. and IEB is Institut d’Economia de Barcelona).

References

  1. Acosta, M., & Coronado, D. (2003). Science technology flows in Spanish regions. An analysis of scientific citations in patents. Research Policy, 32, 1783–1803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alic, J., Branscomb, L., Brooks, H., Carter, A., & Epstein, G. (1992). Beyond spinoff: Military and commercial technologies in a changing world. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  3. Antweiler, W. (2001). Nested random effects estimation in unbalanced panel data. Journal of Econometrics, 101, 295–313.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Avadikyan, A., Cohendet, P., Dupouët, O. (2005). A study of military innovation diffusion based on two case studies. In: P. Llerena, M. Mireille (Eds.) Innovation policy in a knowledge-based economy (pp. 161–190). Springer: New York.Google Scholar
  5. Azagra-Caro, J. M., Mattsson, P., & Perruchas, F. (2011). Smoothing the lies: the distinctive effects of patent characteristics on examiner and applicant citations. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62, 1727–1740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bellais, R., & Guichard, R. (2006). Defence innovation, technology transfers and public policy. Defence and Peace Economics, 17(3), 273–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bosi, S., Laurent, T. (2006). Military R&D, growth and the optimal allocation of government spending. Centre for economic policy studies (EPEE), Department of Economics, University of Paris-Evry: France (November 10).Google Scholar
  8. Breschi, S., & Lissoni, F. (2004). Knowledge networks from patent data: Methodological issues and research targets. CESPRI working papers. Milan: Universita L. Boconi.Google Scholar
  9. Buesa, M. (2001). Controlling the international exchanges of armaments and dual-use technologies: the case of Spain. Defence and Peace Economics, 12, 439–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chakrabarti, A. K., & Dror, I. (1994). Technology transfers and knowledge interactions among defence firms in the USA. An analysis of patent citations. International Journal of Technology Management, 9, 757–770.Google Scholar
  11. Chakrabarti, A. K., Dror, I., & Eakabuse, N. (1993). Interorganizational transfer of technology: an analysis of patent citations of a defence firm. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 40, 91–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cowan, R., & Foray, D. (1995). Quandaries in the economics of dual technologies and spillovers from military to civilian research and development. Research Policy, 24, 851–868.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Criscuolo, P., & Verspagen, B. (2008). Does it matter where patent citations come from? Inventor vs. examiner citations in European patents. Research Policy, 37, 1892–1908.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Duguet, E., & MacGarvie, M. (2005). How well do patent citations measure flows of technology? Evidence from French innovation surveys. Economics of Innovation and New Technologies, 14, 375–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fuhrmann, M. (2008). Exporting mass destruction? The determinants of dual-use trade. Journal of Peace Research, 45(5), 633–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Guillou, S., Lazaric, N., Longhi, C., & Roccia, S. (2009). The French defence industry in the knowledge management era: a historical overview and evidence from empirical data. Research Policy, 38, 170–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jaffe, A. B., Fogarty, M. S., & Banks, B. A. (1998). Evidence from patents and patent citations on the impact of NASA and other federal labs on commercial innovation. Journal of Industrial Economics, 46, 183–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jaffe, A., & Trajtenberg, M. (2002). Patent citations and innovations: a window on the knowledge economy. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  19. Jaffe, A., Trajtenberg, M., & Fogarty, M. (2000). The meaning of patent citations: report on the NBER/case-western reserve survey of patentees. American Economic Review, 90, 215–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. James, A. D. (2006). The transatlantic defence R&D gap: causes, consequences and controversies. Defence and Peace Economics, 17(3), 223–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. James, A. D. (2009a). Re-evaluating the role of military research in innovation systems: introduction to the symposium. Journal of Technology Transfer, 34, 449–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. James, A. D. (2009b). Organizational change and innovation system dynamics: the reform of the UK government defence research establishments. Journal of Technology Transfer, 34, 505–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kollias, C., Naxakis, C., & Zarangas, L. (2004). Defence spending and growth in Cyprus: a causal analysis. Defence and Peace Economics, 15(3), 299–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kulve, H., & Smit, W. A. (2003). Civilian–military co-operation strategies in developing new technologies. Research Policy, 32, 955–970.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lee, Ch., & Chen, S. (2007). Do defence expenditures spur GDP? A panel analysis from OECD and non-OECD countries. Defence and Peace Economics, 18, 265–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Molas-Gallart, J. (1997). Which way to go? Defence technology and the diversity of dual-use’ technology transfer. Research Policy, 26, 367–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Molas-Gallart, J. (2001). Government defence research establishments: the uncertain outcome of institutional change. Defence and Peace Economics, 12, 417–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Molas-Gallart, J., & Sinclair, T. (1999). From technology generation to technology transfer: the concept and reality of “dual-use technology centres”. Technovation, 19, 661–671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Moulton, B. R. (1990). Interpretation of graphs that compare the distribution functions of estimators. Econometric Theory, 6, 97–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rabe-Hesketh, S., & Skrondal, A. (2008). Multilevel and longitudinal modelling using Stata. Texas: StataCorp LP.Google Scholar
  31. Shieh, J. Y., Lai, C. C., & Chang, W. Y. (2002). Endogenous growth and defence expenditures: a new explanation of the Benoit hypothesis. Defence and Peace Economics, 13(3), 179–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wooldridge, J. M. (2003). Cluster-sample methods in applied econometrics. American Economic Review, 93(2), 133–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wooldridge, J. M. (2006). Cluster-sample methods in applied econometrics: An extended analysis. Michigan: Michigan State University (Mimeo).Google Scholar
  34. Yakovlev, P. (2007). Arms trade, military spending and economic growth. Defence and Peace Economics, 18(4), 317–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Yildirim, J., Sezgin, S., & Ocal, N. (2005). Military expenditure and economic growth in Middle Eastern countries: a dynamic panel data analysis. Defence and Peace Economics, 16(4), 283–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Manuel Acosta
    • 1
  • Daniel Coronado
    • 1
  • Rosario Marín
    • 1
  • Pedro Prats
    • 1
  1. 1.Departamento de Economía General, Facultad CC.EE. y EmpresarialesUniversity of CádizCádizSpain

Personalised recommendations