IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cen/wpaper/20-14.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

R&D or R vs. D? Firm Innovation Strategy and Equity Ownership

Author

Listed:
  • James Driver
  • Adam Kolasinski
  • Jared Stanfield

Abstract

We analyze a unique dataset that separately reports research and development expenditures for a large panel of public and private firms. Definitions of “research” and “development” in this dataset, respectively, correspond to definitions of knowledge “exploration” and “exploitation” in the innovation theory literature. We can thus test theories of how equity ownership status relates to innovation strategy. We find that public firms have greater research intensity than private firms, inconsistent with theories asserting private ownership is more conducive to exploration. We also find public firms invest more intensely in innovation of all sorts. These results suggest relaxed financing constraints enjoyed by public firms, as well as their diversified shareholder bases, make them more conducive to investing in all types of innovation. Reconciling several seemingly conflicting results in prior research, we find private-equity-owned firms, though not less innovative overall than other private firms, skew their innovation strategies toward development and away from research.

Suggested Citation

  • James Driver & Adam Kolasinski & Jared Stanfield, 2020. "R&D or R vs. D? Firm Innovation Strategy and Equity Ownership," Working Papers 20-14, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.
    • Handle: RePEc:cen:wpaper:20-14
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www2.census.gov/ces/wp/2020/CES-WP-20-14.pdf
    File Function: First version, 2020
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gustavo Manso, 2011. "Motivating Innovation," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 66(5), pages 1823-1860, October.
    2. Jensen, Michael C, 1986. "Agency Costs of Free Cash Flow, Corporate Finance, and Takeovers," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 76(2), pages 323-329, May.
    3. Josh Lerner & Morten Sorensen & Per Strömberg, 2011. "Private Equity and Long‐Run Investment: The Case of Innovation," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 66(2), pages 445-477, April.
    4. James G. March, 1991. "Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 2(1), pages 71-87, February.
    5. Jarrad Harford & Adam Kolasinski, 2014. "Do Private Equity Returns Result from Wealth Transfers and Short-Termism? Evidence from a Comprehensive Sample of Large Buyouts," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 60(4), pages 888-902, April.
    6. Radhakrishnan Gopalan & Todd Milbourn & Fenghua Song & Anjan V. Thakor, 2014. "Duration of Executive Compensation," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 69(6), pages 2777-2817, December.
    7. Daniel Ferreira & Gustavo Manso & André C. Silva, 2014. "Incentives to Innovate and the Decision to Go Public or Private," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 27(1), pages 256-300, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Filippo Mezzanotti & Timothy Simcoe, 2022. "Innovation and Appropriability: Revisiting the Role of Intellectual Property," Working Papers 22-09, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.
    2. Filippo Mezzanotti & Timothy Simcoe, 2023. "Research and/or Development? Financial Frictions and Innovation Investment," Working Papers 23-39, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Balsmeier, Benjamin & Fleming, Lee & Manso, Gustavo, 2017. "Independent boards and innovation," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 123(3), pages 536-557.
    2. Byungchul Choi & M. V. Shyam Kumar & Fabio Zambuto, 2016. "Capital Structure and Innovation Trajectory: The Role of Debt in Balancing Exploration and Exploitation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(5), pages 1183-1201, October.
    3. Bena, Jan & Ferreira, Miguel A & Matos, Pedro & Pires, Pedro, 2017. "Are foreign investors locusts? The long-term effects of foreign institutional ownership," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 126(1), pages 122-146.
    4. Huang, Minjie & Kubick, Thomas R. & Tseng, Kevin, 2021. "Technology spillovers and the duration of executive compensation," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    5. Ramana Nanda & William R. Kerr, 2015. "Financing Innovation," Annual Review of Financial Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 7(1), pages 445-462, December.
    6. Shai Bernstein & Timothy McQuade & Richard R. Townsend, 2017. "Do Household Wealth Shocks Affect Productivity? Evidence from Innovative Workers During the Great Recession," NBER Working Papers 24011, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. repec:zbw:bofrdp:2015_028 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Seong K. Byun & Jong-Min & Han Xia, 2021. "Incremental vs. Breakthrough Innovation: The Role of Technology Spillovers," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(3), pages 1779-1802, March.
    9. Jason Roderick Donaldson & Giorgia Piacentino & Anjan Thakor, 2021. "Intermediation Variety," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 76(6), pages 3103-3152, December.
    10. Matthew Crail Johnson, 2015. "The Effect of Initial Public Offerings on Firm Innovation," Working Papers 22, Birkbeck Centre for Innovation Management Research, revised Feb 2015.
    11. Hsu, Yuan-Teng & Huang, Chia-Wei & Koedijk, Kees G., 2023. "Unintended consequences of compensation peer groups on corporate innovation," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    12. repec:zbw:bofrdp:urn:nbn:fi:bof-201512141480 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Chu, Chien-Chi & Li, Yong-Li & Li, Shi-Jie & Ji, Yun, 2021. "Uncertainty, venture capital and entrepreneurial enterprise innovation—Evidence from companies listed on China's GEM," Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 68(C).
    14. Chen Lin & Sibo Liu & Gustavo Manso, 2021. "Shareholder Litigation and Corporate Innovation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(6), pages 3346-3367, June.
    15. Lindsay Baran & Arno Forst & M. Tony Via, 2023. "Dual‐class share structure and innovation," Journal of Financial Research, Southern Finance Association;Southwestern Finance Association, vol. 46(1), pages 169-202, February.
    16. Brav, Alon & Jiang, Wei & Ma, Song & Tian, Xuan, 2018. "How does hedge fund activism reshape corporate innovation?," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 130(2), pages 237-264.
    17. Raffaele Morandi Stagni & Andrea Fosfuri & Juan Santaló, 2021. "A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush: Technology search strategies and competition due to import penetration," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 42(8), pages 1516-1544, August.
    18. Lingfei Kong & Gunratan Lonare & Ahmet Nart, 2022. "Industry tournament incentives and corporate innovation strategies," Journal of Financial Research, Southern Finance Association;Southwestern Finance Association, vol. 45(1), pages 124-161, March.
    19. Jean-Noël Barrot, 2017. "Investor Horizon and the Life Cycle of Innovative Firms: Evidence from Venture Capital," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(9), pages 3021-3043, September.
    20. Ramana Nanda & William R. Kerr, 2015. "Financing Innovation," Annual Review of Financial Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 7(1), pages 445-462, December.
    21. repec:bof:bofrdp:urn:nbn:fi:bof-201512141480 is not listed on IDEAS
    22. Kamoto, Shinsuke, 2017. "Managerial innovation incentives, management buyouts, and shareholders' intolerance of failure," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 55-74.
    23. Danmo Lin, 2023. "Accelerability vs. Scalability: R&D Investment Under Financial Constraints and Competition," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 69(7), pages 4078-4107, July.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cen:wpaper:20-14. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Dawn Anderson (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cesgvus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.