1 / 23

IP and SMEs: Australian Evidence

IP and SMEs: Australian Evidence. Dr. Paul H. Jensen University of Melbourne WIPO Expert Panel on IP and SMEs, Geneva, 17-18 th September 2009. OVERVIEW. I will cover two recent research projects which have analysed the use and effectiveness of IP by Australian firms

Download Presentation

IP and SMEs: Australian Evidence

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. IP and SMEs: Australian Evidence Dr. Paul H. Jensen University of Melbourne WIPO Expert Panel on IP and SMEs, Geneva, 17-18th September 2009 www.melbourneinstitute.com

  2. OVERVIEW • I will cover two recent research projects which have analysed the use and effectiveness of IP by Australian firms • Factors Affecting the Use of Intellectual Property Protection by SMEs in Australia (Jensen & Webster 2006) • IP, Technological Conditions and New Firm Survival(Jensen et al. 2008; 2010)

  3. OBJECTIVES • The Australian Govt. commissioned IPRIA: “…to determine whether the level of intellectual property protection by Australian SMEs is at sub-optimal levels, and the reasons for this...” • There are 3 key components to the study: • How does the existing level of IPR protection by SMEs compare with that of large companies? • What is the optimal level of IPR use? If there are differences in IPR use, does this imply market failure? • What inhibits SMEs’ use of the IPR system?

  4. METHODOLOGY • The methodology involved: • Consultation with key stakeholders • Analysis of IP Australia database on patents, trade marks & registered designs to establish level of activity • Surveying 100 SME “Innovation Partners” and “Innovation Advisors” to identify factors inhibiting SMEs’ use of IPRs • Conduct 10 case studies of SMEs • I will focus on: IPR activity levels, survey results • Other results are available in Jensen & Webster (2006)

  5. AUSTRALIAN SMEs • SME definition: <200 employees & <$200m assets • According to ABS data, there are 608,000 SMEs and 3,000 large firms in Australia • SMEs are important to the Australian economy: • Employ 69% of total workforce • Account for 49% of value-added • Own approximately 15% of business assets • SMEs: mainly in manufacturing, retail trade and business services

  6. DATA ISSUES • “Matching” IP administrative data to IBISWorld and AOD data on firm characteristics, since there is no universal firm-level dataset in Australia • Excluding individuals from the analysis, the matching rates across the various IPRs were: • Patents (60% of Aust. company applications) • Trade marks (50% of Aust. company applications) • Designs (40% of Aust. company applications) • No evidence of any systematic bias. That is, matched sample is representative.

  7. IP APPLICATION RATES • Note the use of a rate not just a count of IPRs • Controlling for the number of employees: • SMEs’ use of patents/designs is comparable to large firms • SMEs apply for significantly more TMs than large firms

  8. OBSERVATIONS • Results seem to run counter to the conventional wisdom since SMEs do not appear to be disadvantaged in their use of IPRs • But we can’t draw any strong conclusions whether this represents “optimal” levels of IPR use. Why? • Because we don’t have an independent measure of innovative activity by large and small firms • It may be the case that SMEs do far more innovation, but don’t take out as many patents

  9. SURVEY METHOD • Two surveys of IP stakeholders were conducted: • Innovation Partners (50 organisations): venture capitalists, CRCs, business incubators… • Innovation Advisors (50 organisations): IP lawyers, patent and trade mark attorneys, COMET advisors… • All were asked their view on factors affecting IP usage by SMEs • Response rate of 49% and no systematic bias across respondents • Respondents asked a number of questions and rated their responses on a 1-5 Likert scale

  10. RESULTS: USE OF IPR

  11. OBSTACLES FOR SMEs

  12. IP EFFECTIVENESS

  13. CONCLUSIONS • SMEs don’t appear to have a problem using the IP system vis-à-vis large firms • Enforcement costs are the most important inhibiting factor, but it is not clear whether these are more (or less) of a barrier than for large firms • Future work on innovation measurement may provide stronger conclusions • Availability of firm-level panel data continues to be a major obstacle to good empirical analysis

  14. IP, Technological Conditions and New Firm Survival

  15. MOTIVATION • International empirical evidence suggests that: • Firm survival has important effects on market structure, productivity growth and technological change • Innovation, firm size (size-at-birth) and organisational structure are important determinants of firm survival • Problems with existing survival studies: • Selection bias: only “successful” innovation considered • Omitted variable bias: technological conditions matter • Fail to capture industry dynamics • In this paper, we: • Map patterns of entry/exit using data 1997-2003 • Link these data with other firm-, industry- and macro-level data in order to analyse the determinants of survival

  16. OBJECTIVE • We answer the following questions: • Firm Level: How does innovation shape survival for new vis-a-vis incumbent firms? • Industry Level: How does the speed of technological change in an industry affect relative survival rates? • Macro Level: Are new firms more susceptible to business cycle effects than incumbent firms? • Firm survival modeled using a piecewise-constant exponential hazard function • Data: unbalanced panel of 260,000 companies alive at some stage during 1997-2003 • Numerous cohorts of entrants • Time-varying industry-level measure of tech conditions • Firm-level measures of IP stocks and flows • Some aggregate macroeconomic fluctuation

  17. DATA • Our dataset consists of: • 261,262 companies alive during 1997-2003 as determined by ASIC registration/deregistration data • The data were linked (by company name) to: • IP Australia data to construct IP stocks/flows • Yellow Pages in order to get ANZSIC codes • Parent/subsidiary concordance • Companies that changed name treated as ongoing entities • 67% of ASIC records matched to Yellow Pages • Cafes under-represented since company ≠ trading name • Yellow Pages filters out “non-trading” companies • The following ABS data also linked into the dataset: • Industry-level profit margin • GDP, interest rates and • ASX stock market index

  18. DESCRIPTIVES • Death is defined as deregistration of an ACN or disappearance from the Yellow Pages • Age profile: companies vary from 0 to 124 yrs old • Trends in birth/death rates: • Births are decreasing over the period • Deaths are increasing over the period • But net entry rate is positive overall

  19. EMPIRICAL MODEL • Piecewise exponential hazard function • Company age (years) is the unit of time analysis • Incumbents are defined as any company born prior to 1990 who we observe in 1997-2003 • New firms are defined as new ACNs 1997-2003 • Our set of explanatory variables xi consists of: • Patent/trade mark stocks (i.e. renewals): (log+1) yrs • Patent/trade mark flows (i.e. applications): lagged number of applications (log+1) (“Shadow of death”) • Size dummy (all IBIS firms are large) • Parent and subsidiary dummies • Private/public firm dummy • 1-digit ANZSIC industry dummies

  20. EMPIRICAL MODEL (2) • Other explanatory variables are: • Gross industry entry rate: # entrants relative to # incumbents (proxies intensity of competition or barriers to entry) • Risk: industry profit margin over the tangible capital-output ratio (proxies capital intensity) • Industry innovativeness (i.e. technological conditions), a weighted index of R&D expenditure/employment, IP applications and labour productivity (to proxy process innovations). Measures the speed of technological change • Macro conditions: factor of ∆GDP and ∆∆GDP • Interest rate: 90-day bank bill rate • Stock market: ASX index • Model is estimated separately for incumbent/new firms and the relative effects are compared

  21. RESULTS (1)

  22. RESULTS (2) • Firm size (crudely measured) matters: larger firms are much more likely to survive • Entry begets exit, especially for new firms. Maybe low barriers to entry, but high barriers to survival • BUT: in industries characterised by rapid technological change, new firms are more likely to survive • All macro factors are significant, but the relative effect is greater for new firms: • Increase in interest rates increase hazard rate, but new firms are more vulnerable • Increase in GDP aids all firms, but provides a greater boost for new firms • New firms are more susceptible to stock market falls

  23. CONCLUSIONS • No simple linear relationship between innovation and performance • Results demonstrate the importance of separating innovation investments (IP flows) from innovation capital (IP stocks) • New firms play an important role in technological change: in fast-moving industries, new firms drive the “gale of creative destruction” • New firms are particularly sensitive to changes in macroeconomic conditions

More Related