Inequality, Innovation, and Patents
2018
- 1,227Usage
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Usage1,227
- Downloads891
- Abstract Views336
Article Description
This article explores the relationship between patents, innovation, and inequality, making three contributions. First, it reveals how shifts in patented innovation over the last several decades have contributed to broader social and economic shifts, away from manufacturing-based, domestic, and independent innovation, and towards digital, foreign, and corporate innovation, validating both optimistic accounts of immigration-driven, digital prosperity and pessimistic accounts of the shrinking role of domestic innovators. Second, it offers a framework for understanding the relationship between innovation and inequality that includes both the potentially inequality-increasing impacts of innovation and the potentially inequality-decreasing impacts of innovation and specifies the contribution of intellectual property to these dynamics. To minimize the risk of inequality-driven stagnation and maximize the social benefits of innovation, it argues, more attention should be paid to inclusion in innovation, and on tracking not only the amount but distribution of innovation. Demonstrating the value of this approach, it documents the striking concentration of new patents in the hands of the few, with 53% of new grants in 2016 going to the top 1% of grantees (up from 38% in 1986), an all-time high, as well as the decline in the share of patent filings by small and micro entities from from 33% in 2000 to 28.5% in 2015.
Bibliographic Details
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know