Patents: Australia vs New Zealand
The All Blacks may have swept the Wallabies in the Bledisloe Cup this year, but how do New Zealand and Australia stack up on innovation? A few posts ago I looked at how New Zealand’s patents were distributed regionally. Using an OECD database of PCT patents from 1978-2008, I found that Auckland had the most patents per capita of any New Zealand city (naturally I was interviewed about this late last week by the Herald). But how do New Zealand cities compare to Australian cities in patents per capita?
To make the comparison, I have graphed the New Zealand and Australian city data together. Overall, the Australians are about a third ahead on patents per capita: there is one PCT patent for every 750 Australians compared to one for every 1000 New Zealanders.
However, we don’t do so badly when we compare cities. In fact Auckland compares well with the similar sized city of Adelaide, and even stacks up well against Brisbane. Where Australia gets ahead of us is through Sydney and Melbourne, with one patent for every 550 people.
As discussed earlier, this trend for larger cities to have more patents per capita has also been noted in data from the United States. It appears to hold in Australasia too, although Canberra bucks this trend with one patent for every 200 people. Thanks to CSIRO, Canberra is the most inventive city per capita in Australasia.
Nonetheless, why do bigger cities tend to have more patents per capita than smaller cities? I will look at this in later posts.
0 Responses to “Patents: Australia vs New Zealand”
Very interesting. This now makes me wonder how investment plays a role, given that Aussie’s R&D/GDP is higher than NZ’s. And how the US or more culturally and economically different EU countries.
[…] benefits of science blogging, Shaun has complemented the MSM coverage with a blog post of his own comparing NZ to Australia. Complete with colourful […]
The dotted lines in the above diagram are puzzling. The bulk of both colours data points lie beneath the lines. It looks to me like both lines should be steeper.
Hi Brent, the dotted lines show the distribution you would get if patenting was uniform e.g. if Invercargill had filed the same number of patents per capita as Auckland. The fact that smaller cities are below the dotted lines, while bigger cities are above, show that patenting activity tends to concentrate in larger cities.
[…] previous posts I have looked at data that showed that bigger cities produce more patents per capita. For instance, over the 30-years that the OECD database covers, Auckland has produced one PCT […]
[…] spent a lot of time in this blog analysing the distribution of patents both geographically and amongst companies. In this post I’ll briefly look at the value of a patent, firstly from the […]
[…] on scale in R&D (in particular, the increase in patents per capita with city size as discussed here) and McCann’s analysis. The slides from his talk are available […]
[…] some of my early posts, we have seen how New Zealand’s low population density contributes to low rates of patenting. […]
[…] studies, I have looked at the effect of city size in Australasia on measures of innovation, such as patents per capita and degrees of scientific collaboration. Sydney and Melbourne both produce more patents per […]
[…] agglomeration benefits exist? My patent data seems to suggest they do, and the continued existence of regional clusters of knowledge-based […]
[…] list. The idea for this series came about after several astute readers noted the overlap between my patent analyses and Philip McCann’s work on New Zealand’s economic geography. Actually, the link between […]
[…] innovation depends on scale. For example, when adjusted for scale, I found that we perform on par with Australia in patents per capita. Our low population density and high spatial transaction costs for […]
[…] have been on the road recently giving my talk on evidence for agglomeration and networks in the international patent record. Over consecutive weeks I gave talks at the […]