Martin Nybom
Jan Stuhler
Mattia Fochesato
Sam Bowles
Linda Wu
Tzu-Ting Yang
Thomas Piketty
Malka Guillot
Jonathan Goupille-Lebret
Bertrand Garbinti
Antoine Bozio
Hakki Yazici
Slavík Ctirad
Kina Özlem
Tilman Graff
Tilman Graff
Yuri Ostrovsky
Martin Munk
Anton Heil
Maitreesh Ghatak
Robin Burgess
Oriana Bandiera
Claire Balboni
Jonna Olsson
Richard Foltyn
Minjie Deng
Iiyana Kuziemko
Elisa Jácome
Juan Pablo Rud
Bridget Hofmann
Sumaiya Rahman
Martin Nybom
Stephen Machin
Hans van Kippersluis
Anne C. Gielen
Espen Bratberg
Jo Blanden
Adrian Adermon
Maximilian Hell
Robert Manduca
Robert Manduca
Marta Morazzoni
Aadesh Gupta
David Wengrow
Damian Phelan
Amanda Dahlstrand
Andrea Guariso
Erika Deserranno
Lukas Hensel
Stefano Caria
Vrinda Mittal
Ararat Gocmen
Clara Martínez-Toledano
Yves Steinebach
Breno Sampaio
Joana Naritomi
Diogo Britto
François Gerard
Filippo Pallotti
Heather Sarsons
Kristóf Madarász
Anna Becker
Lucas Conwell
Michela Carlana
Katja Seim
Joao Granja
Jason Sockin
Todd Schoellman
Paolo Martellini
UCL Policy Lab
Natalia Ramondo
Javier Cravino
Vanessa Alviarez
Hugo Reis
Pedro Carneiro
Raul Santaeulalia-Llopis
Diego Restuccia
Chaoran Chen
Brad J. Hershbein
Claudia Macaluso
Chen Yeh
Xuan Tam
Xin Tang
Marina M. Tavares
Adrian Peralta-Alva
Carlos Carillo-Tudela
Felix Koenig
Joze Sambt
Ronald Lee
James Sefton
David McCarthy
Bledi Taska
Carter Braxton
Alp Simsek
Plamen T. Nenov
Gabriel Chodorow-Reich
Virgiliu Midrigan
Corina Boar
Sauro Mocetti
Guglielmo Barone
Jeffrey T. Denning
Sandra Black
Wei Cui
Mathieu Leduc
Philippe Jehiel
Shivam Gujral
Suraj Sridhar
Attila Lindner
Arindrajit Dube
Pascual Restrepo
Łukasz Rachel
Benjamin Moll
Kirill Borusyak
Michael McMahon
Frederic Malherbe
Gabor Pinter
Angus Foulis
Saleem Bahaj
Stone Centre at UCL
Phil Thornton
James Baggaley
Xavier Jaravel
Richard Blundell
Parama Chaudhury
Dani Rodrik
Alan Olivi
Vincent Sterk
Davide Melcangi
Enrico Miglino
Fabian Kosse
Daniel Wilhelm
Azeem M. Shaikh
Joseph Romano
Magne Mogstad
Suresh Naidu
Ilyana Kuziemko
Daniel Herbst
Henry Farber
Lisa Windsteiger
Ruben Durante
Mathias Dolls
Cevat Giray Aksoy
Angel Sánchez
Penélope Hernández
Antonio Cabrales
Wendy Carlin
Suphanit Piyapromdee
Garud Iyengar
Willemien Kets
Rajiv Sethi
Ralph Luetticke
Benjamin Born
Amy Bogaard
Mattia Fochesato
Samuel Bowles
Guanyi Wang
CORE Econ
David Cai
Toru Kitagawa
Michela Tincani
Christian Bayer
Arun Advani
Elliott Ash
Imran Rasul

Spillover effects of intellectual property protection in the interwar aircraft industry

What is this research about and why did you do it?

Intellectual property (IP) protection, offered through patents, copyright, and a variety of other mechanisms, is one of the primary policies that countries use to support innovation. However, the form and strength of IP protection remains a subject of vigorous debate. Our study improves our understanding of IP protection in order to help policymakers design more effective IP systems. We focus on a potentially important but understudied aspect of IP protection; the fact that IP protection offered to firms in one sector can, by enhancing their market power, affect the amount of innovation undertaken by firms in other related technology areas.

How did you answer this question?

To examine this issue, we use a unique historical policy experiment in the U.S. aircraft industry. As a result of concerns about profiteering during World War I, the US Congress essentially eliminated IP protection for producers of military aircraft—but not aircraft components such as aero-engines—in the early 1920s. This policy regime persisted until 1926, when concerns about the slow rate of innovation led to the reintroduction of IP protection for airframe producers. Our study examines changes in innovation in airframes as well as in aero-engines, where IP protection was available throughout.

What did you find?

Our results show that strengthening the IP protection available to airframe producers led to an acceleration in the rate of increase of airframe performance, as shown in Figure 1, which compares key performance indicators in the U.S. to the U.K. before vs. after the policy change. However, we also observe a slowdown in the rate of improvement of aero-engines. We can explain these patterns using a simple model in which the innovation decisions of aero-engine producers are influenced by the market power of airframe producers, which increased as a result of IP protection.

Airframe performance trends in the U.S. and the U.K. before and after the introduction of IP protection in the U.S. in 1926

What implications does this have for the study (research and teaching) of wealth concentration or economic inequality?

Innovation can be an important avenue for upward mobility, but whether this potential is realized depends on the openness of the innovation system. Our results highlight how the market power of firms in one branch of an industry can constrain innovation in other related areas. This is particularly important given recent concerns about growing concentration and rising market power in some of the most innovative sectors of the economy.

What are the next steps in your agenda?

In ongoing work, we are looking at how the openness of the innovation system affected who became an inventor, and in particular, how the emergence of new groups of specialist inventors, such as engineers, contributed to long-term economic growth.

Citation

Hanlon, W. W., and Jaworski, T. (2022). “Spillover Effects of Intellectual Property Protection in the Interwar Aircraft Industry,” The Economic Journal, 132(645), pp. 1824-1851.

About the authors