Resources Policy 68 (2020) 101690

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Resources Policy
journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/resourpol

Innovation in the global mining sector and the case of Chile

Viviana Fernandez
Business School at Universidad Adolfo Iba~
nez (UAI), Av. Diagonal Las Torres, 2700, Office 512–C, Santiago, Chile

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Recent research has highlighted the upsurge of innovation activity in the mining sector since the early 2000’s. By
Patent families following this research thread, this article contributes to the extant literature by: (i) discussing global innovation
Obstacles to innovate trends in the mining sector on the basis of R&D expenditure and patent families; and, (ii) modeling specific
Chile Survey of innovation in business
obstacles to innovate in the mining sector of Chile, a country with sizeable mineral rents/GDP (i.e., 9.4% average
over 1970–2017). The main findings show that, despite the fact that Latin America & the Caribbean accounted
for only 1% of worldwide mining patent families during 1970–2018, Chile has become more active in exploration
and environmental innovation since 2011. On the other hand, a factor analysis performed on Chile 10th Survey
of Innovation in Business (SIB) shows that mining and the remaining economic sectors differ as to how inno­
vation barriers are perceived. Specifically, the mining sector sees cooperation, knowledge, financial, and regu­
latory obstacles of high importance as one single category, while the remaining sectors see a much weaker
association between regulatory impediments and/lack of insufficient cooperation, knowledge and financial
funds. A robustness check is conducted on the basis of previous versions of the SIB.

1. Introduction competitors, leading to sleeping patents—i.e., neither used or licensed to

The role of patenting as a mechanism to improving innovation and
productivity is not without controversy. For instance, Baldrin and Levine
(2013) describe the so-called patent puzzle in which, despite a signifi­
cant increase in the number of patents and strengthening of intellectual
property rights over time, the US economy has not experienced a sig­
nificant acceleration of technological progress or a sizeable increase in
research and development (R&D) expenditure.1 Baldrin and Levine go
on to assert that empirical evidence has shown that weak patent systems
may mildly increase innovation with limited side effects, while strong
patent systems slow down innovation with detrimental side effects. For
instance, a firm with monopoly power has an incentive to keep such
power by patenting new technologies in the face of potential
others (Gilbert and Newbery, 1982). In addition, a strong patent system
may give rise to the so-called patent trolls, entities that do not manu­
facture products or transfer technology but allege patents against suc­
cessful companies unaware of such patents (Lemley, 2007).2
In weak intellectual property rights (IPR) protection environments
(e.g., China, India, Brazil, Chile, Turkey), firms/individuals may device
alternative mechanisms to protect their inventions. In this regard, Zhao
(2006) offers empirical evidence of R&D activities for multinational
enterprises (MNEs) operating in weak IPR countries. Based on a sample
of over 1500 headquartered US firms, Zhao concludes that technologies
developed in countries with weak IPR protection are used more inter­
nally, and technologies developed with R&D in such countries show
stronger internal linkages. In other words, firms may use internal

E-mail address: viviana.fernandez@uai.cl.

URL: https://negocios.uai.cl/profesor/viviana-fernandez/.
1
Indeed, according to Bloomberg innovation index 2020, the US is ranked 9th among 60 economies, being surpassed by countries such as Germany, South Korea,
and Singapore (No. 1, 2, 3, respectively). In particular, the US gets relatively low ranks in manufacturing value-added (27), researcher concentration (29), and
tertiary education (47); despite its leadership in patent activity and high-technology density (ranked 1st in both innovation metrics).
2
Jaffe and Lerner (2004) also present a critical view of the US patent system, which, in their view, may be more detrimental than beneficial to innovation. The
causes are an explosion of patent applications, very large patent grant rates, and proliferation of patent awards of dubious merits. At the same time, Jaffe and Lerner
assert that there has been a considerable increase of patent litigation over time, which brings substantial direct costs for the parties involved and indirect costs for
innovation itself.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2020.101690
Received 12 January 2020; Received in revised form 8 April 2020; Accepted 9 April 2020
Available online 30 April 2020
0301-4207/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
V. Fernandez
organizations to substitute for weak external institutions.3
Although IPR protection is a vast research area in law and economics
(e.g., Ilie, 2014), the role of patenting in mining innovation has been
only recently discussed. In particular, two recent working papers by
Daly et al. (2019) and Valacchi et al. (2019) have focused on identifying
innovation trends in the mining sector on the basis of patenting. Spe­
cifically, Daly et al. created a new dataset to identify patent activity in
the mining sector dating back as far as to 1826, which includes mining
companies and mining equipment, technology and service (METS)
firms. Despite the common view that mining is a slow innovator (e.g.,
Bartos, 2007), Daly et al. found that since 2005 mining innovation has
increased rapidly and shifted away from refining technologies to
exploration and environmental technologies of the 4th Industrial Rev­
olution. In terms of patent families, Daly at al. concluded that among the
largest contributors to mining innovation during the period of
1990–2015 were China, Japan, the United States, Germany, and South
Korea.
Building upon Daly et al.’s database, Valacchi et al. studied the
relationship between patent activity and price cycles of mineral com­
modities over 1970–2015. During the period of analysis, METS were
found to be more flexible in adapting to price changes than the mining
industry.4 Indeed, patenting in mining countries reacted more to the
long-term component of commodity prices as opposed to non-mining or
METS ones, which were more sensitive to the short- and medium-term
components. Hence, Valacchi et al. concluded that an increase of com­
modity prices may have a counter-cyclical effect on mining countries’
innovation in the short and medium term.
In the specific case of Chile, the role of METS in innovation of the
copper mining industry has been highlighted in a recent study by
Bravo-Ortega and Price Elton (2019). The authors concluded that
although METS are relatively innovative, only a few use IPR to protect
their innovations. The main reasons seem to be the cost and expected
complexity of the registration process.5 In the same line of research,
Stubrin (2017) conducted a case study to characterize copper knowledge
intensive mining suppliers (KIMS) in Chile.6 The KIMS analyzed were
found to either customize products and services for specific productive
needs or utilize new technologies to develop solutions to unsolved
mining problems. In particular, connections with leading mining firms
have proven essential for KIMS to learn about industry needs. However,
it is unclear whether such linkages have helped KIMS to build techno­
logical and innovative capabilities. Stubrin concluded that experimen­
tation at mine sites seems to be the most important bottleneck for KIMS’
3
The role of institutions has been also highlighted by Oxley (1999) and
Fleming and Sorensen (2001). Another research line has concentrated on pat­
enting strategy—i.e., firms’ appropriability (rights, licensing, enforcement) and
value creation strategies (e.g., Somaya 2012; Candelin-Palmqvist et al., 2012).
In particular, strategic management of patents pictures patents as real options
and a mechanism of signaling and information disclosure.
4
The role of suppliers as an external knowledge source has been recently
highlighted by Gassin and Foss (2018) in a study of Norway minerals industry.
The authors also identify customers, universities/research institutes, and
society/non-governmental organizations (NGOs) as critical sources of external
knowledge within a sustainability-oriented innovation (SOI) framework. The
idea is that the firm recognizes the value of external knowledge and integrates it
with internal knowledge to produce new knowledge for innovation. The out­
comes of SOI are process, product, and social innovation.
5
Bravo-Ortega and Price Elton conducted an online survey of resident METS
and semi-structured interviews of executives from copper mining companies
and suppliers, including two universities.
6
The KIMS selected by Stubrin developed various products and services, such
as water pumps, hammers, drills, environmental forecast services for mining
operations, engines and remote control systems reparations, biotech-based so­
lutions, sensors for mills, and products and services to increase foundries
efficiency.
2
Resources Policy 68 (2020) 101690
innovation strategy.7
In this regard, the 2019 Survey of Innovation in Providers of the
Large Mining Companies conducted by the Chilean Copper Commission
(Cochilco) sheds more light on Stubrin’s findings. The surveyed firms
belonged to two trade associations: Minnovex (Association of Com­
panies for the Innovation and Export of Products, Supplies and/or
Intensive Services in Knowledge for the Mining and Industrial Sector)
and Camchal (Chilean-German Chamber of Commerce and Industry),
which together added 670 suppliers. Taking as reference the period of
2016–2018, the survey showed that most companies in Chile already
have formal structures and processes that support innovation projects.8
Moreover, most companies carried out some kind of cooperation to
innovate, whether with other companies of their guild, clients, holding
companies to which they belong, and universities, among others.
Regarding priorities to innovate, respondents mainly agreed on two:
productivity and greater sophistication. Moreover, when asked what the
main drivers or triggers of innovation within their companies were,
respondents asserted that their customers’ problems and challenges, and
innovation as the central pillar of their business strategy. Also, both
groups agreed that they focus on innovations linked to goods, services
and processes.9 On the other hand, respondents pointed that the resis­
tance of the mining industry to incorporate unproven products and/or
services and the lack of a culture of innovation are some of the barriers
to innovate.
This study concentrates on innovation in the mining sector. To that
end, information from the World Intellectual Property Organization
(WIPO) and Chile Survey of Innovation in Business (SIB) is utilized. The
two main contributions to the extant literature of this study are as fol­
lows. First, it presents a historical account of innovation, as measured by
R&D expenditure and patent family filings, in various world geographic
regions. Second, this study offers a new perspective on the evolution of
Chile mining patenting and the decomposition of innovation impedi­
ments. In this regard, this study adds new empirical evidence to that
documented by Gruenhagen and Parker (2020), who concluded that
regulatory uncertainty, operational challenges and health, safety and
environmental concerns may impede the diffusion and adoption of new
mining technologies. In addition, this research contributes to the
extensive literature on IPR by offering new insights into the mining
sector innovation.
The material of this study is organized as follows. Section 2 discusses
some innovation trends in the mining sector on the basis of mining
patent families of various geographic regions and Chile. The figures
presented in this section were computed from the WIPO mining database
and the World Bank Development Indicators. Section 3 models obstacles
to innovate in mining and other economic sectors of Chile by means of
the SIB. Specifically, the statistical analysis there presented is based on a
factorial decomposition of innovation impediments and logistic re­
gressions for R&D expenditure and public funding application for
innovation activities. Section 4 summarizes the main findings.
2. Some figures on mining innovation
In this section, we concentrate on two measures of innovation ac­
tivities in the mining sector: R&D expenditure (input) and patenting
(output). The former may be an imperfect indicator of innovation as
mining exploration, a key process to finding new commercially
7
Other relevant references on the role played by suppliers are Crespi et al.
(2017), Katz and Pietrobelli (2017), and Pietrobelli et al. (2018).
8
https://www.cochilco.cl/Paginas/Estudios/Listado%20Tem%C3%A1tico/
Mercado-de-Proveedores.aspx.
9
In the case of Minnovex partners, 56% said that their companies launched
new products or services more than once a year, while 36% did so every few
years. In Camchal, meanwhile, 38% said they launched products once a year,
the same percentage that recognized doing so every certain number of years.
V. Fernandez
exploitable mineral resources, may not be formally recognized as R&D.
In addition, aggregate mining R&D expenditure may also include other
extraction sectors, such as oil & gas. In that sense, patents are more
easily comparable across years and countries, once the relevant tech­
nological contributions to the mining sector have been identified (Daly
et al. op. cit.) Indeed, the extant literature has found an approximately
contemporaneous association between R&D activities and patents,
which has justified the use of the latter as a proxy of the former at the
firm level (Valacchi et al. op. cit).
2.1. R&D expenditure
The Science and Technology Database of the European Statistics
(Eurostat) provides information on R&D expenditure in the mining &
quarrying sector for the period of 2008–2015. Panel (a) of Fig. 1 shows
figures in million purchasing power standards (PPS)10 at 2005 prices. As
can be seen, China and the United States spent the most relative to Japan
and the European Union during 2008–2015. On average for that time
period, China and the US spent 4852 and 2352 million PPS, respectively,
while Japan and the European Union, 49 and 457 million PPS,
respectively.
Panel (b) of Fig. 1 depicts mining & quarrying R&D expenditure as a
percentage of all NACE activities11 for the above countries. It is apparent
that China spent considerably more during 2008–2015 than the
remaining countries— between 2.3% and 4.2%, being followed far
behind by the United States, which spent between 0.5% and 1.4% in the
same time period.
Lastly, Panel (c) shows R&D expenditure figures for Chile for the
period of 2012–2016 (source: OECD). As can be seen, the R&D expen­
diture of the mining & quarrying sector was in absolute terms less than
that of manufacturing and services, two other key sectors of the Chilean
economy.12 Percentagewise, the shares of mining & quarrying,
manufacturing and services, with respect to total business enterprise
R&D (BERD), averaged 16%, 27% and 42%, respectively, during
2012–2016. Nevertheless, these figures ignore other forms of innovative
activities, such as improvement of existing processes or business prac­
tices, which may not count as R&D (e.g., Gorodnichenko and Schnitzer,
2013; Wellalage and Fernandez, 2019). We explore this aspect in more
detail in Section 3.2.
2.2. Patents
In what follows, the basic unit of analysis is a patent family, which is
a set of interrelated patent applications filed in one or more countries/
jurisdictions to protect the same invention. Patent families include
patents and utility models. The latter are similar to patents but are
generally cheaper to obtain and maintain, have shorter terms and less
stringent patentability requirements (e.g., Daly et al., op cit.) The year
will refer to the first filing year of the patent family, and the country will
refer to the country of origin. The figures discussed below have been
obtained from the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)
mining database, technology subset. The latter was built by Daly et al.,
op cit. on the basis of the mining lifecycle, which includes exploration,
10
PPS is an artificial currency unit used by Eurostat, which can buy the same
amount of goods and services in each country. PPS are obtained by dividing any
economic aggregate of a given country in national currency by its corre­
sponding purchasing power parity (Source: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/stat
istics-explained/index.php?title¼Main_Page.).
11
NACE is the French for Statistical Classification of Economic Activities in
the European Community.
12
Mining & quarrying averaged 12.7% of Chile GDP during 2008–2015, as
compared to 17.6%, 11.0%, and 9.9% of financial & entrepreneurship services,
manufacturing; and, commerce, restaurants & hotels, respectively. (Source:
Central Bank of Chile).
3
Resources Policy 68 (2020) 101690
mine operation, and metal production. These stages in turn involve
technologies associated with exploration, blasting, mine operation,
processing, metallurgy, refining, transport, automation, and environ­
mental aspects.13 In particular, the WIPO mining database includes only
mining for minerals and coal and, hence, leaves out oil & gas extraction
and quarrying.
Table 1(a) reports total patent filings by geographic region (as
defined by the World Bank’s regional grouping) for the period of
1970–2018. As can be seen, 87% of the 810,325 total filings were
accounted for by East Asia & Pacific (62%) and Europe & Central Asia
(26%). These regions also exhibited relatively large average R&D
expenditure/GDP shares during 1996–2016 (2.4% and 1.7%, respec­
tively). The largest contributors of patent families of East Asia & Pacific
were China (329,162), Japan (140,326), South Korea (22,229), and
Australia (5,967); whereas of Europe & Central Asia, the former Soviet
Union (60,740), the Russian Federation (32,350), Germany (31,992),
Poland (11,807), the United Kingdom (10,890), and France (9,685).
Table 1(a) also reports average mineral rents as a percentage of GDP
for the above-mentioned regions. The World Bank defines mineral rents
are the difference between the value of production for a stock of min­
erals at world prices and their total costs of production. Minerals
included in the calculation are tin, gold, lead, zinc, iron, copper, nickel,
silver, bauxite, and phosphate. The two regions with the largest mineral
rents, Latin America & the Caribbean (1.1%) and Sub-Saharan Africa
(1.4%), contributed only 1.5% of patent filings during the period of
1970–2018. Six selected countries of these two regions (Chile, Guyana,
and Peru; Democratic Republic of Congo, Mauritania, and Zambia),
along with Mongolia (East Asia & Pacific) are depicted in Fig. 2. These
seven countries were characterized by a high average exposure to
mineral rents during 1970–2017, which ranged from 16% (Mauritania)
to 4% (Peru). Altogether these economies contributed only 682 patent
families during 1970–2018 (0.1% of the total), of which 657 corre­
sponded to Chile (514) and Peru (143). It is worth highlighting that most
Chile and Peru’s patent filings concentrated during the period of
2003–2018 (462 and 114, respectively), which covered part of the
commodity super-cycle.14
A scatter plot of the natural logarithm of patent families versus
mining rents for the seven geographic regions of Table 1(a) is depicted in
Fig. 3. As can be seen, when excluding the observations with very low
mineral rents/GDP and high log(patents)—mostly corresponding to East
Asia & Pacific and Europe & Central Asia the relationship between the
two variables seems to be approximately concave. That is, patent fam­
ilies increase with mineral rents/GDP, but at a decreasing rate.
Table 1(b) in turn shows the fifteen countries that most contributed
percentagewise to total mining patent families during 1970–2018.
Altogether these countries generated 95% of all mining family patents,
being China, Japan, and the United States the top-3 contributors (44%,
19%, and 11%, respectively). On the other hand, these fifteen countries
produced 63% of the 2017 mineral production (including bauxite),
being China, the United States, the Russian Federation, and Australia the
largest producers (24%, 12%, 9%, and 7%, respectively). For
completeness, the table also reports the total patent filings per country
13
Daly et al.’s objective to conduct a technology search, rather than a firm
search alone, was to find patent families that were representative of the mining
sector, as mining firms may innovate in other industries and service providers
(METS) may innovate within the mining industry. Indeed, Daly et al. concluded
that there was a small amount of overlap (3 percent) between a mining tech­
nology- and a mining & METS firm-based search of patent families.
14
The commodity super-cycle is generally associated with the period of the
late 1990’s through the 2008 financial crisis (e.g., Johnson and Sharenow,
2013). The World Bank’s pink sheet data (http://www.worldbank.org/en/
research/commodity-markets) shows that the real annual price percent varia­
tion for base metals was 24.0%, 12.2% and 44.8% in 2004, 2005, and 2006,
respectively.
V. Fernandez
(resident and non-resident applications) during 1980–2017 and
Bloomberg innovation index version 2020. As can be seen, these fifteen
countries altogether accounted for 45,185,051 patent applications,
which represented 95% of the world patent filings during 1980–2017.
Interestingly, this share resembles that of mining patent families for
1970–2018. During that time period, Japan filed most applications
(12,824,103), followed by the United States (11,613,236), and China
(9,092,606).
On the other hand, Bloomberg innovation index considers seven
different metrics to rank 60 countries: R&D intensity (R&D expenditure/
GDP), manufacturing value-added, productivity (GDP and GNI per
employed person age 15þ and three-year improvement), high-
technology density (number of domestically domiciled high-
technology public companies), tertiary efficiency (enrollment in ter­
tiary education), researcher concentration (professionals engaged in
4
Resources Policy 68 (2020) 101690
Fig. 1. R&D expenditure in the mining &
quarrying sector. (a) Million purchasing
power standards (PPS) at 2005 prices. (b)
Mining and quarrying R&D expenditure as a
percentage of all NACE activities R&D
expenditure.
Notes: (1) own elaboration from Eurostat
(2018), https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/
science-technology-innovation/data/databa
se. (2) NACE: Statistical Classification of
Economic Activities in the European Com­
munity. (3) In Panel (b), percentages are
computed from PPS at 2005 prices figures.
(c) R&D expenditure in Chile.
Source: OECD dataset: Business enterprise
R&D (BERD) expenditure by industry.
R&D per population), and patent activity (annual patent filings, patent
grants and patent in-force per population or GDP). According to these
seven dimensions of innovation, Germany and South Korea stand out as
the most innovative ones in 2020, with corresponding ranks of 1 and 2.
Meanwhile, the United States, Japan, and China hold the 9th, 12th, and
15th position, respectively. It is worth pointing out that, despite its
leadership in patent activity and tertiary efficiency (ranked No. 2 and 5,
respectively), China falls behind in other aspects of innovation, such as
productivity and researcher concentration (ranked 47 and 39,
respectively).
Regarding global innovation trends in the mining sector, since the
mid-20000 s, mining innovation has increased rapidly and shifted away
from refining technologies to cutting-edge exploration and environ­
mental technologies (Daly et al. op. cit.) Indeed, figures from the WIPO
mining database reported in Table 1(c) show that worldwide patent
V. Fernandez
families of exploration and environmental technologies reached alto­
gether 182,699 (¼117,041 þ 65,658), as compared with 72,296 of
refining technologies, during 2005–2018. It is also worth highlighting
that in the fourteen-year period of 2005–2018 the number of patent
families of the six technologies reported in the table (¼390,797)
exceeded that of the thirty-three year period of 1970–2004 (¼311,685).
It is also striking the sizeable increase in China’s patent families share
from 5.4% in 1970–2004 to 65.5% in 2005–2018. During the same time
periods, Japan’s share decreased from 35.8% to 6.3%, while the US0
share did not vary dramatically (11.4% versus 9%)
Fig. 4 in turn shows time series of patent families of environmental,
exploration and refining technologies for Chile during 1990–2018. It is
apparent that refining has been predominant in that time period.
However, the figure also highlights that environmental and exploration
technologies gained particular importance during 2011–2017. Table 1
(c) provides more details as to the periods of 1970–2004 and
2005–2018. Altogether, family patents increased from 54 in the first
period to 304 in the second period. Percentagewise, the three categories
that experienced the highest increases between the two periods were
exploration (2400%), mining (1133%), and transportation (733%).
Table 1(c) also presents information for Peru, another country with
high exposure to mineral rents with respect to GDP (Fig. 2). It is
apparent that in absolute terms Peru was noticeably less active in patent
activity than Chile in the period of 2005–2018. Indeed, Peru filed only
69 patent families as compared with 304 of Chile. However, in relative
terms, Peru also experienced an upsurge in environmental and explo­
ration patenting (467% and 350%, respectively) between the periods of
1970–2004 and 2005–2018.
3. Innovation in Chile mining sector
In this section, we analyze innovation in Chile mining sector by
means of the Survey of Innovation in Business (SIB) –Encuesta de
Innovacio�n en Empresas, which is conducted biennially by Chile Ministry
of Economy, Development, and Tourism and Chile National Institute of
Statistics (INE). In particular, the SIB measures variables such as the type
of innovation (product, process, organizational management and/or
marketing), degree of novelty, intellectual property rights, innovative
activities (including R&D), carried out by companies in the different
productive sectors and regions of Chile. In addition, the SIB records the
obstacles that companies face when attempting to innovate (e.g., lack of
own/external funds, lack of qualified personnel, regulatory difficulty).
5
Resources Policy 68 (2020) 101690
Fig. 1. (continued).
The design of the survey form and methodology follow the general
guidelines suggested by the OECD and the Eurostat Community Inno­
vation Survey (CIS) for these types of surveys, which are reflected in the
Oslo Manual (source: https://www.economia.gob.cl/).
Our focus of study are obstacles to innovate perceived by firms
(Section 3.1), and resources allocated to innovative activities (Section
3.2) recorded in the 10th SIB, conducted in 2017 taking as reference the
years of 2015 and 2016. This survey is freely available at https://www.
economia.gob.cl/2018/02/22/decima-encuesta-de-innovacion-en-emp
resas-2015-2016.htm. In the spirit of the WIPO mining database, we
consider only mining for metals/minerals and coal: survey sectors 4
(extraction and processing of copper; extraction of stone coal and
lignite) and 7 (extraction of metal ores), which follow the International
Standard Industrial Classification of All Economic Activities (ISIC),
Revision 4.
The 10th SIB is made up of 5876 unweighted firms, which re-scaled
by firm factor-expansion weights, correspond to 176,895 weighted
firms. Just to have a glimpse of the data, in the full sample of weighted
firms, the ownership structure corresponded primarily to national pri­
vate (97.93%), followed by foreign private (1.99%) and state property
(0.08%). Only 123 weighted firms corresponded to fully state-owned
ones, whereas around 4600 weighted firms (2.6%) exhibited some
foreign ownership. Moreover, 8.2% of the (weighted) sampled firms
declared to belong to a group of formally organized firms (i.e., holding).
Regarding internationalization, on average only 4.5% of the (weighted)
sampled firms (7,960) exported during 2015–2016. Among mining firms
(56 unweighted/weighted firms), ownership was on average more
evenly distributed between national private (57.46%) and foreign pri­
vate (37.74%), with the remainder (4.8%) corresponding to state
property. In particular, only 2 firms were state-owned and around 35
firms belonged to a holding. On the other hand, on average 61% of the
mining firms exported during 2015–2016. Out of the 56 mining firms,
44 corresponded to sector 4, referred to above.15 Meanwhile the average
firm age in the full sample was 15 years and 25 years in the mining
sector.
15
The ownership structure of sector 4 firms is as follows: national private
(59.49%), foreign private (34.39%) and state property (6.11%). The two state-
owned mining firms belong to sector 4. Furthermore, on average about 57% of
these firms exported during 2015–2016.
V. Fernandez Resources Policy 68 (2020) 101690

Table 1
Mining patent families during 1970–2018.
(a) Patent families and mineral rents

Region Total filings Percentage Mineral Rents (% GDP)* R&D expenditure (% of GDP)**

East Asia & Pacific 498,518 61.5% 0.4% 2.4%

Europe & Central Asia 208,619 25.7% 0.1% 1.7%
Latin America & the Caribbean 7777 1.0% 1.1% 0.7%
Middle East & North Africa 1197 0.1% 0.2% 0.9%
North America 87,265 10.8% 0.1% 2.6%
South Asia 790 0.1% 0.4% 0.7%
Sub-Saharan Africa 4410 0.5% 1.4% 0.5%
Others 1749 0.2% 0.3% –
Total general 810,325 100% 0.50% –

(b) Patent families and mineral production

Country Mineral production share Mining patent families share R&D expenditure (% of Total patent filings Bloomberg
(2017) (1970–2018) GDP)** (1980–2017) Innovation index
(2020)

1 China 23.7% 44.2% 1.4% 9,092,606 78.80 (15)

2 Japan 0.0% 18.9% 3.1% 12,824,103 82.31 (12)
3 United States 11.6% 10.5% 2.6% 11,613,236 83.17 (9)
4 Russian 9.3% 4.3% 1.1% 927,755 68.63 (26)
Federation
5 Germany 1.3% 4.3% 2.6% 2,036,924 88.21 (1)
6 South Korea 0.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3,685,080 88.16 (2)
7 Poland 0.8% 1.6% 0.7% 197,686 69.98 (25)
8 United Kingdom 0.5% 1.5% 1.6% 1,082,162 76.03 (18)
9 France 0.1% 1.3% 2.2% 673,733 82.75 (10)
10 Canada 2.7% 1.2% 1.8% 1,242,196 73.11 (22)
11 Spain 0.1% 1.1% 1.1% 173,456 65.11 (33)
12 Ukraine 0.5% 1.0% 0.9% 142,084 48.24 (56)
13 Australia 7.4% 0.8% 2.0% 622,864 74.13 (20)
14 Brazil 2.9% 0.7% 1.1% 591,168 53.65 (46)
15 South Africa 1.9% 0.6% 0.8% 279,998 51.15 (50)
Total 62.8% 95.0% – 45,185,051

(c) Patent families by technology

(i) World

Period Environmental Mining Transportation Exploration Refining Metallurgy Total

1970–2004 37,319 97,834 17,552 64,500 90,948 3532 311,685
2005–2018 65,658 99,880 32,755 117,041 72,296 3167 390,797
% variation 76% 2% 87% 81% 21% 10% 25%
(ii) China
Period Environmental Mining Transportation Exploration Refining Metallurgy Total
1970–2004 1666 3686 1687 6004 3604 295 16,942
2005–2018 39,346 68,937 22,850 76,135 46,378 2379 256,025
% variation 2262% 1770% 1254% 1168% 1187% 706% 1411%
(iii) United States
Period Environmental Mining Transportation Exploration Refining Metallurgy Total
1970–2004 4654 6439 1599 15,891 6466 376 35,425
2005–2018 5621 6178 2658 18,464 2120 78 35,119
% variation 21% 4% 66% 16% 67% 79% 1%
(iv) Japan
Period Environmental Mining Transportation Exploration Refining Metallurgy Total
1970–2004 14,814 37,938 4086 9500 43,812 1338 111,488
2005–2018 6695 6250 1187 1752 8613 210 24,707
% variation 55% 84% 71% 82% 80% 84% 78%
(v) Chile
Period Environmental Mining Transportation Exploration Refining Metallurgy Total
1970–2004 12 3 6 2 30 1 54
2005–2018 67 37 50 50 96 4 304
% variation 458% 1133% 733% 2400% 220% 300% 463%
(vi) Peru
Period Environmental Mining Transportation Exploration Refining Metallurgy Total
1970–2004 3 9 4 2 9 0 27
2005–2018 17 14 8 9 21 0 69
% variation 467% 56% 100% 350% 133% – 156%

Notes to Table 1: (1) Panel (a): own elaboration based on WIPO mining database, technology subset, and World Development Indicators. *: 1970–2017 average. **:
1996–2016 average of total R&D expenditure/GDP. The geographic regions are based the World Bank’s regional grouping. Total patent filings correspond to the sum of
resident and non-resident applications. The 2020 Bloomberg innovation index ranks 60 countries and considers: 1. R&D intensity: Research and development
expenditure, as % GDP. 2. Manufacturing value-added as % GDP and per capita ($PPP). 3. Productivity: GDP and GNI per employed person age 15þ and three-year
improvement. 4. High-technology density: Number of domestically domiciled high-technology public companies. 5. Tertiary efficiency: Total enrollment in tertiary
education, regardless of age, as % the post-secondary cohort gross graduation ratio of first-degree earners, share of labor force with advanced level of education; annual
new science and engineering graduates as % total tertiary graduates and as % the labor force. 6. Researcher concentration: Professionals, including postgraduate PhD
students, engaged in R&D per population. 7. Patent activity: Annual patent filings, patent grants and patent-in-force, per population and/or GDP; 3-year average

6
V. Fernandez
growth of filings abroad and filings growth, per world total growth. The number in parenthesis indicates the corresponding country rank. (Source: www.bloomberg.co
m). (2) Panel (b): mineral production is measured in tons and includes bauxite. The mineral categories under consideration are iron and ferro-alloy metals, non-ferrous
metals, precious metals, industrial minerals, and mineral fuels. Source: World mining data, https://www.world-mining-data.info/. (3) Panel (c): own elaboration
based on WIPO mining database, technology subset.
Fig. 3. Patent families versus mineral rents by geographic regions: 1970–2017.
Source: own elaboration based on the WIPO mining database, technology
subset and the World Development Indicators. Mineral rents are the difference
between the value of production for a stock of minerals at world prices and their
total costs of production. Minerals included in the calculation are tin, gold, lead,
zinc, iron, copper, nickel, silver, bauxite, and phosphate. . (For interpretation of
the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web
version of this article.)
3.1. Research questions and methodology
The aim of Sections 3.2 and 3.3 is to assess the validity of the
following hypotheses:
H1. The mining sector perceives innovation obstacles differently from
the rest of Chile economic sectors.
H2. The mining sector may not necessarily be more innovative than
other Chile economic sectors.
H3. Mining/non-mining firms’ decision of spending on innovation
activities is positively associated to firm size, exporting, belonging to a
7
Resources Policy 68 (2020) 101690
Fig. 2. Countries with high exposure to mineral
rents: 1970–2017.
Source: World Development Indicators. Mineral
rents are the difference between the value of pro­
duction for a stock of minerals at world prices and
their total costs of production. Minerals included in
the calculation are tin, gold, lead, zinc, iron, cop­
per, nickel, silver, bauxite, and phosphate. (For
interpretation of the references to colour in this
figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web
version of this article.)
holding, and to facing cooperation, financial, and market barriers of
high importance; and, it is negatively associated to facing demand,
knowledge, and regulatory barriers of high importance.
H4. Mining/non-mining firms’ application to public funding for
innovating is negatively associated with firm size, facing regulatory
barriers of high importance (except for regulatory ones), carrying out
technological innovation, and belonging to a holding; and, it is posi­
tively associated with foreign property, carrying out non-technological
innovation, cooperating, and exporting.
In order to test the above hypotheses, we utilize factor analysis and
logistic regression. In particular, factor analysis is a statistical tool
designed to describe variability among p observed and correlated vari­
ables in terms of a potentially lower number q of unobserved variables,
called factors. More specifically, each of the p variables is expressed or
re-constructed as a linear combination of the q factors. Reconstruction is
usually defined in terms of the correlation of the p original variables
(see, for instance, Everitt and Hothorn, 2011, chapter 5).
In turn a logistic regression is based on a latent regression of the form
y* ¼ x0 β þ ε (1)
where y* is an unobservable index variable, x is a vector of explanatory
variables, β is a vector of parameters, and ε is an error term (see, for
instance, Liu, 2015, chapter 3). A binary variable y is defined to equal 1
when y* > 0, and 0 when y*� 0. For instance, in Section 3.2, y ¼ 1 when
a firm spends on innovation activities, and 0 otherwise. In that case, y*
would represent the net benefit of innovating, which is not directly
observable.
A logistic model is usually expressed in terms of an odds ratio:
p 1 þ ​ ex’βþε
¼ ¼ ​ ex’βþε ​ (2)
1 p 1 þ ​ e ðx’βþεÞ
which represents the probability of success of an event, p, to the prob­
ability of failure of such an event, (1 p), e.g., spending/not spending on
V. Fernandez Resources Policy 68 (2020) 101690

Fig. 4. Chile mining-subsector patent families: 1990–2018.

Source: own elaboration based on the WIPO mining database, technology subset.

innovation. By taking natural logarithm of both sides of (2), one obtains

Table 3
the logistic regression model
Descriptive statistics of obstacles to innovate.
� �
p Full sample Mining
ln ¼ x’β þ ε ¼ β1 þ β2 X2 þ … þ βk Xk þ ε (3)
1 p
Category Obstacle Mean Mean
1 42.2% 35.7%
Financial 2 30.6% 21.4%
3.2. Obstacles to innovate 3 45.9% 39.3%
4 30.1% 14.3%
The 2017 SIB considers a set of 12 obstacles, which are classified in Knowledge & cooperation 5 29.2% 23.2%
four categories: costs, knowledge, demand, and others. These are sum­ 6 26.6% 16.1%
7 33.5% 17.9%
marized in Table 2, which also includes a column with our own classi­
8 39.6% 21.4%
fication of obstacles (in the spirit of Zahler et al., 2018): financial, Market & demand 9 35.0% 17.9%
knowledge, cooperation, market, demand, and regulatory. The SIB 10 15.6% 8.9%
considers four levels for each obstacle: 1 ¼ High; 2 ¼ Medium; 3 ¼ Low; 11 19.3% 8.9%
Regulatory 12 16.7% 16.1%
4 ¼ None.
Observations 5876 56
For the purpose of analysis, we define a binary variable for each Weighted observations 176,895 56
obstacle that takes on the value of 1 if the level of that particular obstacle
is of high importance (i.e., Level 1 ¼ High) and zero otherwise. Notes: (1) For each obstacle, a binary variable that takes on the value of 1 if the
level of that particular obstacle is ‘High’ and zero otherwise, is defined. (2)
Descriptive statistics for the full sample of firms and for the mining
Weighted observations are obtained by using the firm expansion factors.
sector are shown in Table 3. For instance, 42% of the sampled firms
responded that the lack of funding was a significant obstacle to innovate.
In general, the percentages in the full sample are higher than in the
mining sector for all obstacles, particularly so for obstacles 6, 8 and 9 (i.
Table 2
e., lack of information on markets, market dominated by established
Obstacles to innovate: Chile 10th Survey of Innovation in Business.
firms, uncertain demand for innovative goods & services, respectively).
Obstacle Survey question Survey Our Following Galia and Legros (2004) and Arias et al. (2016), we
category category
conduct a factor analysis decomposition of the obstacles of high
1 Lack of own funds (P3196) Costs Financial importance to innovate, as defined in Table 3. We analyze mining and
2 Lack of external funding (P3197) Costs Financial
the remaining economic sectors as two separate groups. The estimation
3 High costs of innovation (P3285) Costs Financial
4 Lack of qualified personnel (P3198) Knowledge Knowledge results are presented in Table 4. The factor decomposition suggests that
5 Lack of information on technology Knowledge Knowledge three factors suffice to conduct the analysis, although most variation is
(P3199) explained by Factors 1 and 2 (71% and 84% for mining and remaining
6 Lack of information on markets Knowledge Knowledge
sectors, respectively). Specifically, Panel (a) of Table 4 shows that, for
(P3200)
7 Difficulty in finding innovation Knowledge Cooperation
mining, obstacles 1, 4, 7, 9, and 12 have large loadings on Factor 1.
partners (P3286) Hence, the latter is associated with financial, cooperation, and regula­
8 Market dominated by established Market Market tory obstacles. In turn, Factors 2 and 3 are linked to knowledge and
firms (P3201) demand obstacles, respectively.
9 Uncertain demand for innovative Market Demand
A closer look at the factor decomposition shows that about 32% of
goods & services (P3202)
10 Previous innovations (P3287) Other Demand mining firms have positive scores on Factor 1, indicating that they face
11 Lack of demand for innovation Other Demand financial, cooperation, and regulatory obstacles of high importance.
(P3288) About half of those firms, however, have a negative score on Factor 2,
12 Regulatory difficulty (P3289) Other Regulatory suggesting that they either do not face knowledge obstacles of high

8
V. Fernandez Resources Policy 68 (2020) 101690

Table 4 obstacles by category—cooperation, demand, financial, knowledge, and

Factor analysis decomposition of obstacles to innovate. regulatory (Table 3), and re-conduct the factor analysis. In doing so, we
(a) Mining average the obstacles by category. For instance, the financial obstacle is
the average of obstacles 1, 2 and 3. The advantage of this simplification
Obstacle Rotated factor loadings
is that only two factors suffice to characterize the data. The estimation
Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor3 Uniqueness results are depicted in Fig. 5, Panels (a) and (b).
Financial/ Knowledge Demand % variance not From Panel (a), corresponding to the mining sector, it can be seen
cooperation/ obstacles obstacles explained by that cooperation, knowledge, financial, and regulatory obstacles of high
regulatory common factors
importance conform to a well-defined group, while demand and market
obstacles
obstacles of high importance are located further apart (particularly,
1 0.647 0.212 0.067 0.532
market obstacles). Indeed, according to Table 5(a), cooperation,
2 0.461 0.449 0.019 0.586
3 0.431 0.346 0.167 0.667
knowledge, financial, and regulatory obstacles have high loadings on
4 0.608 0.330 0.380 0.377 Factor 1 but relative low loadings on Factor 2; while demand obstacles
5 0.370 0.794 0.124 0.218 have high loadings on both factors (particularly on Factor 1), and market
6 0.185 0.853 0.184 0.205 obstacles are more sensitive to Factor 2.
7 0.621 0.440 0.213 0.375
In Panel (b), the factor decomposition of the remaining economic
8 0.054 0.143 0.441 0.782
9 0.719 0.210 0.028 0.437 sectors shows in turn that cooperation, knowledge, and financial ob­
10 0.141 0.077 0.806 0.325 stacles of high importance are close to one another, exhibiting relatively
11 0.136 0.453 0.653 0.350 larger loadings on Factor 1, while demand, market, and regulatory ob­
12 0.680 0.340 0.358 0.294
stacles are relatively scattered on the plane. As Table 5(b) shows, market
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy ¼ 0.77
Rotation: orthogonal varimax
obstacles of high importance have similarly loadings on both factors,
Factor Variance Difference Proportion Cumulative while demand and regulatory obstacles depend relatively more on
Factor1 2.76 0.35 0.38 0.38 Factor 2.
Factor2 2.42 0.75 0.33 0.71 The above factor decompositions further highlight the differences
Factor3 1.67 . 0.23 0.94
between mining and the remaining economic sectors, as to how inno­
(b) All other economic sectors vation barriers are envisioned. Indeed, firms in the mining sector seem
Obstacles Rotated factor loadings to consider cooperation, knowledge, financial, and regulatory obstacles
Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Uniqueness
of high importance as of a similar nature, while the remaining sectors
see regulatory impediments less associated with high barriers arising
Knowledge/ Financial Demand/ % variance not
from lack of/insufficient cooperation, knowledge and financial funds.
cooperation obstacles regulatory explained by
obstacles obstacles common factors These findings are in line with Hypothesis 1.
In order to examine the factor scores exhibited by firms in the mining
1 0.273 0.629 0.093 0.522
2 0.272 0.629 0.129 0.514
and remaining economic sectors, we define four groups. Group 1 is
3 0.255 0.561 0.145 0.600 composed of firms with positive scores on Factors 1 and 2; Group 2, of
4 0.564 0.263 0.179 0.581 firms with a positive score on Factor 1 but a negative score on Factor 2;
5 0.770 0.192 0.161 0.345 Group 3, of firms with negative scores on both factors; and Group 4, of
6 0.726 0.212 0.189 0.393
firms with a negative score on Factor 1 but a positive score on Factor 2.
7 0.519 0.395 0.219 0.527
8 0.281 0.457 0.319 0.610 For instance, in the case of mining, firms in Group 2 do not face market
9 0.312 0.453 0.322 0.594 obstacles of high importance (Factor 2), but they do in the five
10 0.194 0.105 0.650 0.529 remaining obstacle categories (Factor 1)—although to a lesser extent in
11 0.208 0.107 0.654 0.517 demand due to its relatively large loading on Factor 2. In the case of the
12 0.221 0.277 0.521 0.603
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy ¼ 0.89
remaining economic sectors, firms in Group 2 do not face demand,
Rotation: orthogonal varimax market, and regulatory barriers of high importance (Factor 2), but they
Factor Variance Difference Proportion Cumulative do in cooperation, finance, and knowledge (Factor 1).
Factor1 2.23 0.30 0.45 0.45 Firms classified by size and factor exposure are presented in Table 6.
Factor2 1.92 0.41 0.39 0.84
Size equals 1 if the number of employees is equal to or greater than 50,
Factor3 1.52 . 0.31 1.14
that is, if the firm is medium- or large-sized.16 As can be seen from the
LR test: independent vs. saturated: chi-squared (66) ¼ 373.26, probability > chi- table, firms are predominantly medium/large-sized (84%) in the mining
squared ¼ 0.00. sector, while micro/small (89%) in the remaining economic sectors.17
LR test: independent vs. saturated: chi-squared (66) ¼ 2.5eþ04, probability >
On the other hand, the largest group, in absolute terms, in all economic
chi-squared ¼ 0.00.
sectors is number 3 (i.e., no obstacles of high importance in either
dimension). In particular, this group concentrates the largest percentage
importance or have a relative advantage in knowledge. On the other of medium/large-sized firms: 91% and 13% in the mining and remaining
hand, 60% of mining firms have negative scores on both factors, sug­ economic sectors, respectively.
gesting the absence of that sort of obstacle.
Table 4(b) in turn shows the factor decomposition for all the
remaining economic sectors. As can be seen, the association of obstacles
to each factor slightly differs from mining. Indeed, Factor 1 is now
associated with knowledge and cooperation obstacles, while Factors 2 16
Firms are classified as micro (fewer than 10 employees), small (10–49
and 3 with financial and demand/regulatory obstacles, respectively. The employees), medium (50–249 employees), and large (250 or more employees).
estimation results show that about 28% of the firms have positive scores Source: OECD (2019), Enterprises by business size (indicator). https://doi.
on Factor 1 (knowledge and cooperation obstacles), and about 33% of org/10.1787/31d5eeaf-en (Accessed in September 2019).
17
those firms have negative scores on Factor 2, suggesting that they do not It is worth pointing out that the 10th SIB defines firm size on the basis of
annual sales. According to this definition, 100% of the mining firms are me­
face demand/regulatory obstacles. On the other hand, about 50% of the
dium/large sized whereas such a proportion reaches 17% in the full sample (i.
firms have negative scores on both factors.
e., 83% are small). Given that the two definitions yield similar results, we prefer
In order to have a more parsimonious specification, we group the
using the OECD definition (e.g., Arias et al., 2016).

9
V. Fernandez Resources Policy 68 (2020) 101690

Fig. 5. Factor analysis of obstacles to innovate: 10th Survey of Innovation in Business.

Note: obs_coop, obs_dd, obs_fin, obs_know, obs_mk, and obs_reg denote obstacles of high importance in cooperation, demand, financial costs, knowledge, markets,
and regulation.

10
V. Fernandez Resources Policy 68 (2020) 101690

Table 5
Factor analysis by obstacle groups.
(a) Mining (b) All other economic sectors

Obstacles Factor1 Factor2 Uniqueness Factor1 Factor2 Uniqueness

Cooperation 0.727 0.182 0.438 0.639 0.310 0.495

Demand 0.719 0.492 0.240 0.404 0.621 0.451
Financial 0.738 0.067 0.451 0.558 0.362 0.558
Knowledge 0.810 0.198 0.305 0.637 0.332 0.484
Market 0.131 0.578 0.649 0.437 0.454 0.603
Regulatory 0.812 0.117 0.326 0.288 0.546 0.619
Overall KMO ¼ 0.79 Overall KMO ¼ 0.85

Note to Tables 4 and 5: KMO takes on values between 0 and 1, with small values meaning that the variables have too little in common to warrant a factor analysis.
Typically, 0.70 to 0.79: middling; 0.80 to 0.89: meritorious; 0.90 to 1.00: excellent.

indicates that mining spent relatively less than the whole economy, on
Table 6 average: 2% versus 8%.
Firms classified by size and factor exposure.
Now, according to Table 7, the share of firms engaged in product and
(a) Mining (b) All other economic sectors process innovation in the full sample reached 6% and 10%, respectively,
Firm size Firm size whereas in the mining sector, 5% and 21%, respectively. These figures
Group 0 1 Total 0 1 Total
suggest that a small percentage of firms carried out either product or
1 2 5 7 30,963 3026 33,989 process innovation, and, if they did, they were more likely to improve/
2 1 8 9 31,043 3380 34,422 modify processes rather than products. This was particularly so for
3 3 29 32 74,634 10,913 85,547 mining. The table also shows descriptive statistics for marketing and
4 3 5 8 20,950 1987 22,937
organizational innovation. Specifically, in the mining sector, 12 firms
Total 9 47 56 157,590 19,305 176,895
(21%) carried out either process or organizational innovation, of which
Notes: (1) Group 1 is composed of firms with positive scores on Factors 1 and 2; 9 carried out both type of innovations. On the other hand, 3 firms (5%)
Group 2, of firms with a positive score on Factor 1 but a negative score on Factor carried out either product or marketing innovation, of which 1 per­
2; Group 3, of firms with negative scores on both factors; and Group 4, of firms
formed both. In the full sample, product and marketing innovations
with a negative score on Factor 1 but a positive score on Factor 2. Factors 1 and 2
were relatively more frequent: 6% and 7%, respectively. These figures
by economic sector are as characterized in Table 5. (2) Size equals 1 if the
number of employees is equal to or greater than 50 (medium/large-sized firm).
and those associated with intensity suggest that Chile mining sector may
(3) Computations use firm expansion weights. be more innovative in some respects but less in others, which lends
support to Hypothesis 2.
Table 7 also reports statistics of cooperation and application for
3.3. Innovation expenditure and collaboration: technological/non-
public funding. The 10th SIB defines a cooperative innovation as the
technological innovation
active participation with other firms or non-commercial institutions (e.
g., universities, research institutes, others) in innovative activities, in
Following Zahler et al. op cit., we define a potentially innovative firm
which partners do not need to benefit commercially. (It excludes job
as one that meets at least one of the following requirements: (1) It
hiring that does not involve cooperation between the parties). In the full
innovated in products or processes, (2) it spent on activities related to
sample, only 14% of the firms (25,214) had information on cooperation,
innovation: internal/external R&D, acquisition of machinery/equip­
out of which only 20% (5043 firms) cooperated with other firms and
ment/software, acquisition of external knowledge, training, introduc­
institutions in innovation activities during 2015–2016. In the mining
tion of innovations to the market, design, installation and tuning of new
sector, the average rate of cooperation was higher among firms that
equipment for innovation, and others; (3) it declared at least one
reported information (24), reaching 33% (8). In regards to public
obstacle of high importance to innovate. As Table 7 shows, in the full
funding, the 10th SIB asks whether the firm requested during
sample of firms 74% was classified as such, whereas in the mining sector,
2015–2016 any public instrument to finance its innovation activities
86%.
(except for credits or tax benefits), regardless of whether it obtained
In addition, Table 7 shows that in the full sample a firm faced on
support. The descriptive statistics indicate that a reduced proportion of
average between 3 and 4 obstacles to innovate of high importance;
firms in the full sample and in the mining sector applied for public
whereas in the mining sector, between 2 and 3. On the other hand, 12%
support for innovation activities during 2015–2016 (2% and 4%,
of the firms in the full sample spent some money on innovation activ­
respectively).
ities, whereas in the mining sector, 38%. In terms of average monetary
Table A1 in the Appendix presents details on collaboration activities.
figures, mining spent considerably more on innovation activities than
The three most frequent ones in the mining sector were foreign suppliers
the whole economy in 2016: 2.66 thousand million versus 69.9 million
of equipment, materials, components or software (88%), domestic
Chilean pesos. More specifically, copper/coal mining was the economic
consultants, laboratories or R&D institutes (63%), and domestic public
sector that spent the most on such activities in 2016, with an average of
or government research institutes (63%). These figures highlight the
1393 thousand million Chilean pesos, followed by Scientific Research &
importance of METS in innovation efforts, as discussed in the Intro­
Development and Manufacture of basic pharmaceutical products, with
duction. By contrast the three most frequent collaboration activities in
corresponding averages of 545 and 306 thousand million Chilean pesos.
the full sample were domestic customers or consumers (57%), foreign
However, if one looks at intensity figures, such as innovation
companies in the firm group (42%), and foreign competitors or other
expenditure per employee, the whole economy spent on average much
companies of the same sector of activity (37%).
more than the mining sector: 2231 versus 734 thousand Chilean pesos.
In order to characterize the different types of innovation, we define
Specifically, the five economic sectors that spent the most per employee
two new variables: technological and non-technological innovation. The
were Manufacture of furniture (25,237), Scientific Research & Devel­
former is the sum of process and production innovation dummies,
opment (19,610), Warehousing & support activities for transportation
whereas the later, the sum of marketing and organizational innovation
(7,243), Financial and insurance activities (7,050), and Construction of
dummies. Hence, the technological and non-technological innovation
buildings (5,283). Similarly, the innovation expenditure/sales ratio also
variables may take on the values of 0 (no innovation of either type), 1

11
V. Fernandez Resources Policy 68 (2020) 101690

Table 7 (Group 4). Altogether, 9 firms (16%) performed joint innovation,

Innovation indicators. whereas 3 (5%) only innovated in technology. In the case of the
Full sample remaining economic sectors, firms in Groups 2 (no demand, market, and
regulatory barriers of high importance) and 3 (no barriers of any type)
Variable Weighted Mean Std. Dev. Min Max
obs. comparatively performed more joint innovation. In total, 7% (12,598
Potentially 176,895 0.75 0.43 0 1 firms) carried out both technological and non-technological innovation,
innovative firm whereas 4% (7292 firms) performed only the former.
Sum of obstacles 176,895 3.64 3.61 0 12 Panel (c) of Table 8 reports cooperated/applied for public funding
Innovation 176,895 0.12 0.40 0 1
expenditure >0
tables for those firms that carried out joint innovation.18 As can be seen,
Innovation 25,214 69,893 733,149 0 6.13eþ07 cooperation was considerably more frequent among these firms than
expenditure applying for public funding. For instance, for all sectors other than
(thousand $) mining, the number of firms that cooperated (3,089) more than tripled
Innovation 25,155 0.08 1.52 0 240
the one that applied for public funding (905). Out of 11,145 firms, only
expenditure/sales
Innovation 24,938 2231.4 6989.6 0 177,778 424 (3.8%) did both activities. In the mining sector, the ratio of coop­
expenditure/ erated/applied for public funding was even greater: 5/1.
employee As mentioned earlier in Section 2.2, a measure of innovation output
(thousand $) is patents. The 10th SIB shows that in the full sample only 0.8% of the
Product innovation 176,895 0.06 0.23 0 1
Process innovation 176,895 0.10 0.29 0 1
firms (¼ 13,730) reported to have applied for a patent in Chile or abroad
Marketing 176,895 0.07 0.26 0 1 during 2015–2016. More specifically, the mean number of patent ap­
innovation plications was 1.2 and 0.67 in Chile and abroad, respectively, with a
Organizational 176,895 0.08 0.27 0 1 maximum of 67 and 98, respectively. By contrast 7% of mining firms (¼
innovation
4) applied for a patent during that time period, amounting to 7 and 21
Cooperated 25,214 0.20 0.40 0 1
Applied for public 176,895 0.02 0.13 0 1 applications in Chile and abroad, respectively. However, most applica­
funding for tions 5 and 19 applications in Chile and abroad, respectively —were
innovation explained by only one firm, which engaged in foreign collaboration with
activities Australia, the United States and China.
Mining
It is worth pointing out that patenting in Chile has been historically
Variable Weighted Mean Std. Dev. Min Max
obs. low relatively to its geographic region. Indeed, the World Development
Potentially 56 0.86 0.35 0 1 Indicators show that Chile (residents and non-residents) filed 76,737
innovative firm patents in the period of 1980–2017, which represented only 5.4% of the
Sum of obstacles 56 2.41 3.10 0 12
patents filed by Latin America & the Caribbean in the same time period.
Innovation 56 0.38 0.49 0 1
expenditure >0 By contrast 42% of those patents were filed by Brazil, 28% by Mexico,
Innovation 24 2,655,359 1.01eþ07 0 5.00Eþ07 and 11% by Argentina. Even after controlling for economic size, Chile
expenditure invests less in R&D than Argentina, Brazil, and Mexico (average
(thousand $) 1996–2016: 0.36 versus 0.49, 1.1, 0.41% to GDP, respectively), and has
Innovation 24 0.02 0.11 0 0.55
fewer researchers in R&D per million people than Argentina and Brazil
expenditure/sales
Innovation 24 733.9 960.8 0 3830.2 (average 1996–2016: 378 versus 606 and 937, respectively. Mexico
expenditure/ averaged 279). Moreover, Bloomberg innovation index 2020 shows that
employee Chile ranks 51/60, whereas Argentina and Brazil, 45/60 and 46/60,
(thousand $)
respectively.
Product innovation 56 0.05 0.23 0 1
Process innovation 56 0.21 0.41 0 1
On the other hand, by examining the association between patent
Marketing 56 0.05 0.23 0 1 applications and potentially innovative firms, one finds that all firms in
innovation the full sample and in the mining sector, which applied for a patent, fell
Organizational 56 0.21 0.41 0 1 into the potentially innovative category. However, a Pearson chi-
innovation
squared test suggests that this association is statistically significant in
Cooperated 24 0.33 0.48 0 1
Applied for public 56 0.04 0.19 0 1 the full sample, but not in the mining sector.
funding for Now, if one looks at broader categories of intellectual property
innovation rights, which include, in addition to patents, trademarks, utility models,
activities
industrial design, and copyrights, 1490 firms in the full sample (0.84%)
Notes: (1) Innovation expenditure (year 2016) involves internal/external R&D, declared to have produced a good or service by making use of them.19
acquisition of machinery/equipment/software, acquisition of external knowl­ Meanwhile, in the full sample, 356 firms (0.20%) transferred intellectual
edge, training, introduction of innovations to the market, design, Installation property rights to third parties, and 87 firms (0.05%) acquired intel­
and tuning of new equipment for innovation, and others. (2) Sample statistics lectual property rights from universities, non-profit organizations and
are based on firm expansion weights. other firms. In the mining sector, these figures boiled down to 3 (5.3%),
1 (1.8%), and 2 firms (3.6%), respectively. Although these figures are
(either type of innovation), and 2 (both types of innovation). Condi­ modest in absolute terms, they suggest that mining is percentagewise
tional on having carried out technological innovation, we ask what more active in ensuring intellectual property rights than the whole
firms, classified by factor score group, also performed non-technological economy.
innovation. Table 8 presents the results for the mining and remaining
economic sectors.
As can be seen from the table, most joint innovation in mining was 18
The total number of firms that did joint innovation, corresponding to all
carried out by firms in Groups 3 and 4 (19% and 25%, respectively),
sectors other than mining, differs from that in Panel (b) (¼12,598) due to
which correspond with those with negative scores on Factor 1 (coop­
missing information in cooperation and/or public funding.
eration, demand, financial, knowledge and regulatory dimension). In 19
These are mostly firms from economic sectors 42 (civil engineering infra­
other words, firms that innovated either did not face any barriers (Group structure), G (wholesale and retail trade; repair of motorcycles and automo­
3) or encountered some market and, to lesser extent, demand ones biles), and I (accommodation and food service activities).

12
V. Fernandez Resources Policy 68 (2020) 101690

Table 8
Joint technological and non-technological innovation.
(a) Mining

Technological Innovation (� 1)

Non-technologic innovation
Group 0 1 2 Total Joint innovation Total group Joint innovation
1 0 0 0 0 0 7 0.0%
2 0 1 0 1 1 9 11.1%
3 3 4 2 9 6 32 18.8%
4 0 1 1 2 2 8 25.0%
Total 3 6 3 12 9 56 16.1%
(b) All other economic sectors
Technological Innovation (� 1)
Non-technologic innovation
Group 0 1 2 Total Joint innovation Total group Joint innovation
1 824 497 935 2256 1432 33,989 4.2%
2 1400 1419 2054 4873 3473 34,422 10.1%
3 2804 3542 2842 9188 6384 85,547 7.5%
4 2264 613 696 3573 1309 22,937 5.7%
Total 7292 6071 6527 19,890 12,598 176,895 7.1%
(c) Subset of firms that performed joint innovation
Mining All other economic sectors
Applied public $ Applied public $
Cooperated No Yes Total Cooperated No Yes Total
No 4 0 4 No 7579 481 8056
Yes 4 1 5 Yes 2665 424 3089
Total 8 1 9 Total 10,248 905 11,145

Notes: (1) Technological innovation equals the sum of the process and production innovation dummies, whereas non-technological innovation equals the sum of the
marketing and organizational innovation dummies. Hence, technological and non-technological innovation may take on the values of 0 (no innovation of either type),
1 (either type of innovation), and 2 (both types of innovation). (2) Group 1 is composed of firms with positive scores on Factors 1 and 2; Group 2, of firms with a positive
score on Factor 1 but a negative score on Factor 2; Group 3, of firms with negative scores on both factors; and Group 4, of firms with a negative score on Factor 1 but a
positive score on Factor 2. Factors 1 and 2 by economic sector are as characterized in Table 5. (3) Computations use firm expansion weights.

In order to test Hypotheses 3 and 4, we investigate the impact of
innovation barriers, cooperation, and innovation type on firm decisions
about innovation spending and applying for public funding to boost
innovation. Given that a very small percentage of firms spends on
innovation and/or apply for public funding (Table 7), the estimation
was carried out for the full sample of firms, after controlling for
belonging to the mining sector. Marginal effects based on logistic re­
gressions are reported in Table 9, Panels (a) through (e). Specifically,
Panel (a) shows that firm size, cooperation, financial, and market bar­
riers of high importance, being an exporter, and belonging to a holding
are positively associated with the decision of spending on innovation
activities (i.e., Innovation expenditure dummy ¼ 1). This result is not
surprising as, for instance, among firms that spent on innovation ac­
tivities, 22% were medium/large-sized20 and 39% faced financial ob­
stacles of high importance. The marginal effects show, for instance, that
for medium/large-sized firms the likelihood of spending on innovation is
0.082 percentage points greater, and for financially constrained ones,
0.052 percentage points greater. The estimation results also indicate
that older firms are less likely to invest on innovation; however, the
quantitative effect of firm age is minor ( 0.001).
Panel (b) in turn suggests that firms that are micro/small-sized, face
regulatory barriers of high importance, carry out non-technological
innovation (i.e., marketing and organizational innovation),21 coop­
erate with other firms and institutions on innovation activities, export,
belong to a holding, and have foreign property in their organizational
structure are more likely to rely on public funding. The latter suggests
that public support programs could be more successful if they promoted
cooperation with public and/or private actors (e.g., Mardones and
Zapata, 2018). On the other hand, Panels (a) and (b) respectively
highlight the positive impact of exports on the likelihood of spending on
R&D and of applying for public funding. In this regard, recent research
20
Only 11% of the full sample corresponds with medium/large-sized firms.
21
Among firms that applied for public funding, non-technological innovation
was more frequent than technological one (68% versus 49%).
has featured export intensity as a key driver of business innovation,
particularly in what regards to collaboration (e.g., Hasting and Anwar,
2019).
Panels (c) and (d) of Table 9 consider groups of firms classified by
their sensitivity to two factors, which are obtained from a factor
decomposition of innovation barriers in the full sample (Panel (e)). In
this case, Factor 1 is associated with cooperation, financial, and
knowledge barriers of high importance, whereas Factor 2, with demand,
market, and regulatory barriers of high importance. The group classifi­
cation is defined as in Table 5, being Group 1 the omitted category. In
particular, Groups 2–4 have negative scores on at least one factor. For
instance, Group 2 faces cooperation, financial, and knowledge barriers
of high importance (Factor 1) but does not encounter demand, market,
and regulatory ones (Factor 2).
The results of Panel (c) indicate that firms with a negative score on at
least one factor (i.e., those with a relative comparative advantage) are
more prone to spend on innovative activities. However, Panel (d) sug­
gests that only firms that do not face impediments of high importance in
either dimension (Group 3) are more likely to apply for public funding.
On the other hand, Panel (d) reinforces the finding of Panel (b) in that
firms focused on technological innovation are less inclined to seek
public support. Arias et al., 2016’s arrived at the same conclusion when
analyzing Spain food industry. On the other hand, belonging to the
mining sector does not have a statistically significant impact on the
likelihood of spending on innovation or applying for public funding, as
Panels (a)-(d) show.
3.4. Factor decomposition for previous innovation surveys
As a robustness check, we carry out a factor decomposition of ob­
stacles of high importance for previous versions of the SIB: 7th (2011,
reference years: 2009–2010), 8th (2013, reference years: 2011–2012),
and 9th (2015, reference years: 2013–2014). These versions consider the
same definition of innovation obstacles as the 10th SIB, discussed
earlier. However, they do not consider divisions within the mining &
quarrying sector (B), as given by the ISIC 4. Hence, we cannot exclude

13
V. Fernandez Resources Policy 68 (2020) 101690

Table 9
Logistic regressions for innovation expenditure and public funding application in the full sample.
(a) Innovation expenditure dummy (b) Public funding dummy

Regressor dy/dx s.e z p-value Regressor dy/dx s.e z p-value

Firm size 0.082 0.002 42.41 0.00 Firm size 0.044 0.004 9.89 0.00
Cooperation barrier 0.010 0.002 4.54 0.00 Cooperation barrier 0.017 0.004 3.90 0.00
Demand barrier 0.061 0.003 17.54 0.00 Demand barrier 0.192 0.010 18.72 0.00
Financial barrier 0.052 0.002 22.28 0.00 Financial barrier 0.018 0.005 3.63 0.00
Knowledge barrier 0.066 0.003 23.70 0.00 Knowledge barrier 0.018 0.007 2.45 0.01
Market barrier 0.023 0.002 12.77 0.00 Market barrier 0.050 0.004 11.60 0.00
Regulatory barrier 0.044 0.003 15.99 0.00 Regulatory barrier 0.033 0.005 6.02 0.00
Exporter 0.140 0.003 55.34 0.00 Tech innovation 0.025 0.002 10.66 0.00
Foreign property 0.006 0.004 1.38 0.17 Non-tech innovation 0.006 0.002 2.92 0.00
Firm age 0.001 0.000 12.75 0.00 Cooperated 0.035 0.004 9.12 0.00
Holding 0.051 0.002 22.57 0.00 Exporter 0.025 0.005 5.30 0.00
Mining 0.024 0.030 0.80 0.43 Foreign property 0.049 0.007 7.19 0.00
Firm age 0.001 0.000 4.91 0.00
Holding 0.016 0.005 3.16 0.00
Mining 0.053 0.053 1.00 0.32
Pseudo R2 ¼ 0.07, weighted obs. ¼ 177,017 2
Pseudo R ¼ 0.09, weighted obs. ¼ 25,238
(c) Innovation expenditure dummy (d) Public funding dummy
Regressor dy/dx s.e z p-value Regressor dy/dx s.e z p-value
Firm size 0.086 0.002 44.05 0.00 Firm size 0.059 0.005 12.77 0.00
Group 2 0.083 0.003 32.45 0.00 Group 2 0.059 0.007 8.24 0.00
Group 3 0.050 0.002 21.43 0.00 Group 3 0.049 0.006 8.47 0.00
Group 4 0.117 0.003 44.53 0.00 Group 4 0.064 0.007 8.54 0.00
Exporter 0.145 0.003 57.47 0.00 Tech innovation 0.030 0.002 12.97 0.00
Foreign property 0.004 0.004 0.85 0.39 Non-tech innovation 0.004 0.002 1.76 0.08
Firm age 0.001 0.000 14.61 0.00 Cooperated 0.050 0.004 12.55 0.00
Holding 0.054 0.002 23.64 0.00 Exporter 0.010 0.005 2.04 0.04
Mining 0.028 0.030 0.91 0.36 Foreign property 0.061 0.007 8.57 0.00
Firm age 0.001 0.000 3.37 0.00
Holding 0.022 0.005 4.27 0.00
Mining 0.035 0.056 0.63 0.53
Pseudo R2 ¼ 0.07, weighted obs. ¼ 177,017 Pseudo R2 ¼ 0.07, weighted obs. ¼ 25,238

(e) Factorial obstacle decomposition

Obstacles Factor1 Factor2 Uniqueness

Cooperation 0.70 0.30 0.41

Demand 0.40 0.67 0.39
Financial 0.62 0.36 0.49
Knowledge 0.69 0.33 0.42
Market 0.43 0.44 0.63
Regulatory 0.28 0.63 0.52
Overall KMO ¼ 0.84

the extraction of petroleum and natural gas sector from the sampled
firms.
Having that in mind, we proceed to re-draw Fig. 5 for mining and the
remaining economic sectors.22 The three SIB combined give rise to 166
unweighted observations for mining & quarrying and 13,721 un­
weighted observations for the remaining economic sectors (166 and
434,462 weighted observations, respectively). The results are depicted
in Fig. 6. It is apparent that the factor decomposition for all sectors
excluding mining (Panel (b)) is very similar to that depicted in Fig. 5(b).
However, this is not the case for mining (Panel (a)). A close look at the
correlation matrix of impediments of high importance can shed some
light on why this is so. Indeed, as Table 10(a) shows, the association of
regulatory impediments with financial, knowledge, and demand ones
for the 7th 9th SIB sample is much weaker than for the 10th SIB sample
(statistically insignificant, 0.26, and 0.51 versus 0.60.0.70, and 0.71).
On the other hand, financial and markets impediments were more highly
correlated in the 7th-9th SIB sample than in the 10th SIB sample. These
findings suggest that innovation impediments of high importance evolve
22
Nevertheless, we also drew Fig. 5 (a) for the 10th SIB including sector 05
(Extraction of crude oil and natural gas/Exploitation of mines and quarries).
Such an addition increases the sample size from 56 to 79 firms. However, the
factor decomposition remains qualitatively unchanged as regards with the
location of the obstacles on the Factor 1/Factor 2 plane.
more rapidly in the mining sector than in the rest of the economy. In
particular, in more recent years regulatory impediments has not been
envisioned in isolation by the mining sector, but more closely tied to
financial, cooperation, and knowledge constraints. In this regard,
Gruenhagen and Parker (2020) point out that investment costs/lack of
financial resources, administrative hurdles, and lack of coordination and
networks are among the most mentioned innovation barriers by the
mining sector.
4. Conclusions
This article concentrated on patenting and obstacles to innovate in
Chile mining sector. In particular, figures from the World Intellectual
Property Organization show that Chile innovation on exploration and
environmental aspects of mining has gained importance in recent years.
However, figures from the World Bank show that Chile’s total patent
filings have historically represented a low percentage of those of Latin
America & the Caribbean. For instance, in the period of 1980–2017,
Chile’s patent filings share represented only 5.4%. In this regard, Chile
still has a long way to go in terms of intellectual property protection.
Moreover, even after controlling for economic size, in recent years Chile
has lagged behind other Latin American nations in terms of innovation
indicators. Indeed, during 1996–2016 Chile invested less in R&D than
Argentina, Brazil, and Mexico, and had fewer researchers in R&D per
million people than Argentina and Brazil. Consequently, Chile has the

14
V. Fernandez Resources Policy 68 (2020) 101690

Fig. 6. Factor analysis of obstacles to innovate: 7th through 9th Survey of Innovation in Business.
Note: obs_coop, obs_dd, obs_fin, obs_know, obs_mk, and obs_reg denote obstacles of high importance in cooperation, demand, financial costs, knowledge, markets,
and regulation.

15
V. Fernandez Resources Policy 68 (2020) 101690

Table 10
Bivariate correlations of obstacles to innovate.
(a) Mining

7th 9th SIB 10th SIB

fin know coop mk dd reg fin know coop mk dd reg

fin 1.00 1.00

know 0.39* 1.00 0.60* 1.00
coop 0.24* 0.62* 1.00 0.57* 0.70* 1.00
mk 0.44* 0.46* 0.28* 1.00 0.10 0.25 0.21 1.00
dd 0.29* 0.35* 0.39* 0.38* 1.00 0.61* 0.64* 0.59* 0.44* 1.00
reg 0.15 0.26* 0.45* 0.15 0.51* 1.00 0.60* 0.70* 0.56* 0.13 0.71* 1.00
166 weighted observations 56 weighted observations
(b) All other economic sectors
7th 9th SIB 10th SIB
fin Know coop mk dd reg fin know coop mk dd reg
Fin 1.00 1.00
know 0.49* 1.00 0.56* 1.00
coop 0.46* 0.61* 1.00 0.57* 0.64* 1.00
Mk 0.46* 0.43* 0.42* 1.00 0.44* 0.42* 0.45* 1.00
Dd 0.47* 0.55* 0.49* 0.53* 1.00 0.49* 0.53* 0.46* 0.48* 1.00
Reg 0.38* 0.41* 0.39* 0.38* 0.61* 1.00 0.39* 0.38* 0.40* 0.41* 0.61* 1.00
434,462 weighted observations 176,961 weighted observations

Notes: (1) coop, dd, fin, know, mk, and reg denote obstacles of high importance in cooperation, demand, financial costs, knowledge, markets, and regulation. (2) *
indicates statistically significant at the 95% level.

pending task of becoming a more innovative country within the Latin
American region.
On the other hand, estimation results based on Chile 10th Survey of
Innovation in Business indicate that mining and the remaining economic
sectors differ as to how innovation barriers are perceived (Research
question 1). And, that mining was more active in process innovation
during 2015–2016 than the full economy, particularly in what regards to
improve/modify processes. However, if one looks at metrics of innova­
tion intensity, such as funds spent in innovation activities per employee,
mining lagged behind other economic sectors in 2016 (Research ques­
tion 2). Specifically, mining spent 734 thousand (Chilean pesos),
whereas, for instance, Manufacture of furniture and Financial & insur­
ance activities spent considerably more—25,237 and 7050 thousand,
respectively. Nevertheless, during 2015–2016 mining was more active
than the rest of the economy in securing intellectual property rights. For
instance, in the full sample of firms only 0.8% reported to have applied
for a patent in Chile or abroad, as compared with 7% of mining firms.
In turn logistic regressions for the full sample of firms showed that
firm size, exporting, cooperation, financial, and market barriers of high
importance are positively associated with the decision of spending on
innovation activities; whereas, firms that are micro/small-sized, export,
face regulatory barriers of high importance, carry out non-technological
innovation, and cooperate with other firms and institutions in innova­
tion activities are more likely to seek public funding (Research questions
3 and 4). Firm age and belonging to the mining sector do not play a
crucial role in these decisions. A robustness check of innovation im­
pediments showed that Chile mining sector has evolved overtime with
respect to how impediments are grouped. Nevertheless, in the remaining
economic sectors this structure has remained stable over time.
Funding
Funds provided by Programa de Apoyo a la Investigacio
�n (PAI)-UAI,
Grant DII_IND_2020_06, are greatly acknowledged.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Viviana Fernandez: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal
analysis, Writing - review & editing.

Appendix

Table A1
Statistics on types of collaboration and their origin: 10th SIB. (a) Full sample

Observations

Variable Unweighted Weighted Mean S.D

Other companies within your group. Domestic 1329 25,214 0.20 0.40
Other companies within your group. Foreign 323 5063 0.36 0.48
Suppliers of equipment, materials, components or software. Domestic 323 5063 0.11 0.31
Suppliers of equipment, materials, components or software. Foreign 323 5063 0.57 0.49
Customers or consumers. Domestic 323 5063 0.14 0.35
Customers or consumers. Foreign 323 5063 0.42 0.49
Competitors or other companies in your sector. Domestic 323 5063 0.13 0.33
Competitors or other companies in your sector. Foreign 323 5063 0.04 0.20
Consultants, laboratories or R&D institutes. Domestic 323 5063 0.33 0.47
Consultants, laboratories or R&D institutes. Foreign 323 5063 0.16 0.37
Universities or other institutions of higher education. Domestic 323 5063 0.37 0.48
Universities or other institutions of higher education. Foreign 323 5063 0.14 0.35
Public or government research institutes. Domestic 323 5063 0.27 0.45
(continued on next page)

16
V. Fernandez Resources Policy 68 (2020) 101690

Table A1 (continued )
Observations

Variable Unweighted Weighted Mean S.D

Public or government research institutes. Foreign 323 5063 0.01 0.10

(b) Mining

Variable Observations

Unweighted Weighted Mean S.D

Other companies within your group. Domestic 24 24 0.33 0.48

Other companies within your group. Foreign 8 8 0.38 0.52
Suppliers of equipment, materials, components or software. Domestic 8 8 0.13 0.35
Suppliers of equipment, materials, components or software. Foreign 8 8 0.88 0.35
Customers or consumers. Domestic 8 8 0.50 0.53
Customers or consumers. Foreign 8 8 0.25 0.46
Competitors or other companies in your sector. Domestic 8 8 0.00 0.00
Competitors or other companies in your sector. Foreign 8 8 0.25 0.46
Consultants, laboratories or R&D institutes. Domestic 8 8 0.63 0.52
Consultants, laboratories or R&D institutes. Foreign 8 8 0.38 0.52
Universities or other institutions of higher education. Domestic 8 8 0.50 0.53
Universities or other institutions of higher education. Foreign 8 8 0.38 0.52
Public or government research institutes. Domestic 8 8 0.63 0.52
Public or government research institutes. Foreign 8 8 0.25 0.46
Note: The variables above correspond respectively to surveys questions P3162, P3164, P3166, P3168, P3170, P3172, P3174, P3178, P3180, P3182, P3184, P3186,
P3188, and P3190.
Notes: (1) Exporter ¼ 1 if the firm exported during the two years prior to the survey. (2) Foreign property ¼ 1 if private foreign property is > 0. (3) Holding ¼ 1 if the
firms belongs to a group of formally organized firms. (4) Mining ¼ 1 if the firm belongs to the mining sector. (5) Group 2 is composed of firms with a positive score on
Factor 1 but a negative score on Factor 2; Group 3, of firms with negative scores on both factors; and Group 4, of firms with a negative score on Factor 1 but a positive
score on Factor 2. The omitted category is Group 1, in which firms have positive scores on Factors 1 and 2. (6) Logistic regressions use firm expansion weights. (5) dy/
dx represents the marginal effect of regressor x on the dependent variable y, and it is evaluated at the sample means of the regressors.

References Hastings, D., Anwar, M., 2019. Home-based businesses and the factors affecting their
collaborative propensity. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337224487
_Home-based_Businesses_and_the_Factors_Affecting_their_Collaborative_Propensity.
Arias, P., Alarc�
on, S., Botey, M., 2016. La caracterizaci�
on a trav�es del an�
alisis factorial de
Ilie, L., 2014. Intellectual property rights: an economic approach. Proc. Econ. Finance 16,
las empresas agroalimentarias según sus obst� aculos a la innovaci� on. Econ. Ind. 400,
548–552.
139–149.
Jaffe, A., Lerner, J., 2004. Innovation and its Discontents: How Our Broken Patent
Bartos, P., 2007. Is mining a high-tech industry? Investigations into innovation and
System Is Endangering Innovation and Progress, and what to Do about it. Princeton
productivity advance. Resour. Pol. 32, 149–158.
University Press, Princeton, NJ.
Boldrin, M., Levine, D., 2013. The case against patents. J. Econ. Perspect. 27 (1), 3–22.
Johnson, N., Sharenow, G., 2013. “Is the commodity super-cycle dead?” September
Bravo-Ortega, C., Price Elton, J.J., 2019. Innovation and IP Rights in the Chilean Copper
Viewpoint. Available at: www.pimco.com/en-us/insights/viewpoints/viewpoints/i
Mining Sector: the Role of the Mining, Equipment, Technology and Services Firms.
s-the-commodity-supercycle-dead/.
World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Economic Research Working Paper
Katz, J., Pietrobelli, C., 2017. Natural resource based growth, global value chains and
No. 54. wipo.int/publications/en/details.jsp?id¼4418.
domestic capabilities in the mining industry. Resour. Pol. 58, 11–20.
Candelin-Palmqvist, H., Sandberg, B., Mylly, U., 2012. Intellectual property rights in
Lemley, M., 2007. Should patent infringement require proof of copying? Mich. Law Rev.
innovation management research: a review. Technovation 32 (9–10), 502–512.
105, 1525–1536.
Crespi, G., Katz, J., Olivari, J., 2017. Innovation, Natural Resource-Based Activities and
Liu, X., 2015. Applied Ordinal Logistic Regression Using Stata. SAGE Publications, Inc.
Growth in Emerging Economies: the Formation and Role of Knowledge Intensive
First edition.
Service Firms. Innovation and Development. https://doi.org/10.1080/
Mardones, C., Zapata, A., 2018. Impact of public support on the innovation probability in
2157930X.2017.1377387.
Chilean firms. Econ. Innovat. N. Technol. https://doi.org/10.1080/
Daly, A., Valacchi, G., Raffo, J., 2019. Mining Patent Data: Measuring Innovation in the
10438599.2018.1546548.
Mining Industry with Patents. World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)
Oxley, J., 1999. Institutional environment and the mechanisms of governance: the
Economic Research Working Paper No. 56. wipo.int/publications/en/details.jsp?
impact of intellectual property protection on the structure of inter-firm alliances.
id¼4420.
J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 38 (3), 283–309.
Everitt, B., Hothorn, T., 2011. An Introduction to Applied Multivariate Analysis with R.
Pietrobelli, C., Marin, A., Olivari, J., 2018. Innovation in mining value chains: new
Springer Science þ Business Media, New York.
evidence from Latin America. Resour. Pol. 58, 1–10.
Fleming, L., Sorenson, O., 2001. Technology as a complex adaptive system: evidence
Somaya, D., 2012. Patent strategy and management: an integrative review and research
from patent data. Res. Pol. 30 (7), 1019–1039.
agenda. J. Manag. 38 (4), 1084–1114.
Galia, F., Legros, D., 2004. Complementarities between obstacles to innovation: evidence
Stubrin, L., 2017. Innovation, learning and competence building in the mining industry.
from France. Res. Pol. 33, 1185–1199.
The case of knowledge intensive mining suppliers (KIMS) in Chile. Resour. Pol. 54,
Ghassim, B., Foss, L., 2018. Understanding the micro-foundations of internal capabilities
167–175.
for open innovation in the minerals industry: a holistic sustainability perspective.
Valacchi, G., Raffo, J., Daly, A., Humphreys, D., 2019. Innovation in the Mining Sector
Resour. Pol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2018.09.011 (in press), corrected
and Cycles in Commodity Prices. World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)
proof.
Economic Research Working Paper No. 55. wipo.int/publications/en/details.jsp?
Gilbert, R., Newbery, D., 1982. Preemptive patenting and the persistence of monopoly.
id¼4419.
Am. Econ. Rev. 72 (3), 514–526.
Wellalage, N., Fernandez, V., 2019. Innovation and SME finance: evidence from
Gorodnichenko, Y., Schnitzer, M., 2013. “Financial constraints and innovation: why poor
developing countries. Int. Rev. Financ. Anal. 66, 101370.
countries don’t catch up. J. Eur. Econ. Assoc. 11 (5), 1115–1152.
Zahler, A., Goya, D., Caama~ no, M., 2018. The role of obstacles to innovation on
Gruenhagen, J., Parker, R., 2020. Factors driving or impeding the diffusion and adoption
innovative activities: an empirical analysis. IDB Working Paper 965. https://doi.
of innovation in mining: a systematic review of the literature. Resour. Pol. 65,
org/10.18235/0001505.
101540.
Zhao, M., 2006. Conducting R&D in countries with weak intellectual property rights
protection. Manag. Sci. 52 (8), 1185–1199.

17