Yagi and Managi (2016, EAP)



Yagi, M. and Managi, S., “Time-period and industry heterogeneity of innovation activity in Japan,” Economic Analysis and Policy, vol.50, pp.100-119, 2016. doi:10.1016/j.eap.2016.03.002





This study examines time-period and industry heterogeneity of innovation activity in Japan from 1964 to 2006 using patent data and non-consolidated firm data. This study focuses on the following three periods, based on changes of the Japanese patent system, in and non-manufacturing industries: I) before 1976; II) 1976–1987; and III) after 1988. Specifically, for each degree of patent protection in each industry, this study examines how innovation activities are affected by the following determinants found in the innovation literature: size, market competition, and search variety (depth and scope). Empirical results show that when using the entire sample from 1964 to 2006, the size effect on innovation is significantly positive. In addition, the effects of market competition and search variety on innovation are inverse-U. When considering time-period heterogeneity, the effects of size and search variety are similar to the entire period; however, the inverse-U effect of market competition is broken after 1988. On the other hand, when considering industry heterogeneity, the effects of size and search variety are similar to the entire sample, but differ between manufacturing and non-manufacturing industries. In addition, the effect of market competition is not statistically significant in either industry.


  • Acs, Z.J., and D.B. Audretsch, 1987, “Innovation, Market Structure, and Firm Size,” Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol.69 (4), pp.567−574.doi: 10.23071935950
  • Acs, Z.J., and D.B. Audretsch, 1988a, “Innovation in Large and Small Firms: An Empirical Analysis,” American Economic Review, Vol.78 (4), pp. 678−690. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1811167
  • Acs, Z.J., and D.B. Audretsch, 1988b, “Testing the Schumpeterian Hypothesis,” Eastern Economic Journal, Vol.14 (2), pp.129−140. < http://www.jstor.org/stable/40325184>
  • Aghion, P., N. Bloom, R. Blundell, R. Griffith, and P. Howitt, 2005, “Competition and innovation: An inverted-U relationship,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol.120 (2), pp.701−728. doi: 10.11620033553053970214
  • Blundell, R., R. Griffith, and J.V. Reenen, 1999, “Market Share, Market Value and Innovation in a Panel of British Manufacturing Firms,” The Review of Economic Studies, Vol. 66 (3), pp. 529−554. doi: 10.11111467-937X.00097
  • Boone, J., 2008a, “Competition: Theoretical parameterizations and empirical measures,” Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, Vol. 164 (4), pp.587−611. doi: 10.1628093245608786534640
  • Boone, J., 2008b, “A New Way To Measure Competition,” The Economic Journal, Vol. 118 (531), pp. 1245–1261. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0297.2008.02168.x
  • Cohen, W.M. and Levin, R.C., 1989. “Chapter 18 − Empirical studies of innovation and market structure”, In Schmalensee, R. and R. Willig (Eds.), Handbook of Industrial Organization, Vol. II, pp. 1059−1107, North-Holland, Amsterdam. doi:10.1016/S1573-448X(89)02006-6
  • Cohen, W.M, and S. Klepper, 1996, “A reprise of size and R&D,” Economic Journal, Vol.106 (437), pp.925−951. doi:10.23072235365
  • Cohen, W. M., 2010, “Chapter 4 − fifty years of empirical studies of innovative activity and performance,” in Hall, B. H. and N. Rosenberg, (Eds.), Handbook of The Economics of. Innovation, Vol. 1, North-Holland, pp. 129−213. doi: 10.1016/S0169-7218(10)01004-X
  • Correa, J.A., 2012, “Innovation and competition: an unstable relationship,” Journal of Applied Econometrics, Vol.27 (1), pp.160−166. doi: 10.1002/jae.1262
  • Gilbert, R., 2006, “Looking for Mr. Schumpeter: Where are we in the competition–innovation debate?”, In Jaffe, A., J. Lerner, and S. Stern (Eds.), Innovation Policy and the Economy, Vol. 6, pp. 159–215, MIT Press/National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA. http://papers.nber.org/books/jaff06-1
  • Goto, A., and K. Motohashi, 2007, “Construction of a Japanese Patent Database and a first look at Japanese patenting activities,” Research Policy, Vol.36 (9), pp.1431−1442. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2007.06.005
  • Hall, B.H., A.B. Jaffe, and M. Trajtenberg, 2001, “The NBER Patent Citations Data File: Lessons, Insights and Methodological Tools,” NBER Working Paper No. 8498. http://www.nber.org/papers/w8498.pdf
  • Horowitz, I., 1962, “Firm size and research activity”, Southern Economic Journal, Vol. 28 (3), pp. 298−301. doi: 10.23071055448
  • Ijichi, H, T. Iwasa, H. Odagiri, H. Keira, T. Koga, A. Goto, Y. Tawara, A. Nagata, and Y. Hirano, 2004, “Report on Japanese National Innovation Survey 2003,” Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, National Institute of Science and Technology Policy [Japanese]. http://hdl.handle.net/11035/871
  • Ijichi, H, T. Iwasa, H. Odagiri, H. Keira, T. Koga, A. Goto, Y. Tawara, A. Nagata, and Y. Hirano, 2010, “Report on Japanese National Innovation Survey 2009,” Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, National Institute of Science and Technology Policy [Japanese]. http://hdl.handle.net/11035/657
  • Inui, T., A. Kawakami, and T. Miyagawa, 2012, “Market competition, differences in technology, and productivity improvement: An empirical analysis based on Japanese manufacturing firm data,” Japan and the World Economy, Vol. 24 (3), pp.197−206. doi: 10.1016/j.japwor.2012.04.002
  • Kamien, M.I., and N.L. Schwartz, 1975, “Market structure and innovation: a survey,” Journal of Economic Literature, Vol.13 (1), pp.1−37. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2722211
  • Katila, R. and G. Ahuja, 2002, “Something Old, Something New: A Longitudinal Study of Search Behavior and New Product Introduction,” Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 45 (6), pp. 1183−1194. doi: 10.23073069433
  • Laursen, K., 2012, “Keep searching and you’ll find: what do we know about variety creation through firms’ search activities for innovation?” Industrial and Corporate Change, Vol. 21 (5), pp.1−40. doi:10.1093/icc/dts025
  • Lind, J.T., and H. Mehlum, 2010, “With or Without U? The Appropriate Test for a U-Shaped Relationship,” Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Vol.72 (1), pp.109−118. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0084.2009.00569.x
  • Motohashi, K., 2004, “Chapter 2. Japan’s patent system and business innovation: reassessing pro-patent policies,” In OECD (Eds.), Patents, Innovation and Economic Performance, OECD Conference Proceedings, pp. 53−82. doi:10.17879789264015272-en
  • Motohashi, K., 2011, “Innovation and Entrepreneurship: A first look at linkage data of Japanese patent and enterprise census”, RIETI Discussion Paper Series 11-E-007. http://www.rieti.go.jp/en/publications/summary/11020005.html
  • Motohashi, K., 2012, “Open Innovation and Firm’s Survival: An empirical investigation by using a linked dataset of patent and enterprise census”, RIETI Discussion Paper Series 12-E-036. http://www.rieti.go.jp/en/publications/summary/12050018.html
  • Nickell, S., 1996, “Competition and Corporate Performance,” Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 104 (4), pp. 724–746. doi:10.1086262040
  • Patel, P. and K. Pavitt, 1997, “The technological competencies of the world’s largest firms: Complex and path-dependent, but not much variety,” Research Policy, Vol. 26 (2), pp. 141−156. doi:10.1016/S0048-7333(97)00005-X
  • Sakakibara, M. and L. Branstetter, 2001, “Do Stronger Patents Induce More Innovation? Evidence from the 1988 Japanese Patent Law Reforms,” The RAND Journal of Economics, Vol. 32 (1), pp. 77−100. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2696399
  • Scherer, F.M., 1967, “Market structure and the employment of scientists and engineers”, American Economic Review, Vol. 57 (3), pp.524−531. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1812118
  • Schumpeter, J., 1942, Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy, New York: Harper and Row.
  • Tingvall, P.G., and A. Poldahl, 2006, “Is there really an inverted U-shaped relation between competition and R&D?” Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Vol.15(2), pp.101−118. doi: 10.108010438590500129755
TOP page (日本語)