IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/iae/iaewps/wp2001n20.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Modelling Firm Innovation using Panel Probit Estimators

Author

Listed:
  • Mark N. Harris

    (Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, The University of Melbourne and Economics Department, Central European University, Hungary)

  • Mark Rogers

    (Harris Manchester College, The University of Oxford, U.K.)

  • Anthony Siouclis

    (Monash University, Melbourne)

Abstract

Firm-level innovation is investigated using three probit panel estimators, which control for unobserved heterogeneity, and a standard probit estimator. Results indicate the standard probit model is misspecified and that inter-firm networks are important for innovation.

Suggested Citation

  • Mark N. Harris & Mark Rogers & Anthony Siouclis, 2001. "Modelling Firm Innovation using Panel Probit Estimators," Melbourne Institute Working Paper Series wp2001n20, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, The University of Melbourne.
    • Handle: RePEc:iae:iaewps:wp2001n20
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://melbourneinstitute.unimelb.edu.au/downloads/working_paper_series/wp2001n20.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. James Love & Stephen Roper, 1999. "The Determinants of Innovation: R & D, Technology Transfer and Networking Effects," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 15(1), pages 43-64, August.
    2. Butler, J S & Moffitt, Robert, 1982. "A Computationally Efficient Quadrature Procedure for the One-Factor Multinomial Probit Model," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(3), pages 761-764, May.
    3. Karlsson, Charlie & Olsson, Ola, 1998. "Product Innovation in Small and Large Enterprises," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 10(1), pages 31-46, February.
    4. George Symeonidis, 1996. "Innovation, Firm Size and Market Structure: Schumpeterian Hypotheses and Some New Themes," OECD Economics Department Working Papers 161, OECD Publishing.
    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. Cassey Lee & Lee Chew ging, 2007. "SME Innovation in the Malaysian Manufacturing Sector," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 12(30), pages 1-12.
    2. Frédérique Savignac, 2006. "The impact of financial constraints on innovation: evidence from french manufacturing firms," Cahiers de la Maison des Sciences Economiques v06042, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1).
    3. Edward Lorenz, 2014. "Do Credit Constrained Firms in Africa Innovate Less? A Study Based on Nine African Nations," GREDEG Working Papers 2014-29, Groupe de REcherche en Droit, Economie, Gestion (GREDEG CNRS), Université Côte d'Azur, France.
    4. Barge-Gil, Andrés & López, Alberto, 2014. "R&D determinants: Accounting for the differences between research and development," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(9), pages 1634-1648.
    5. Ashok Parikh & Kunal Sen, 2006. "Probit with heteroscedasticity: an application to Indian poverty analysis," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(11), pages 699-707.
    6. Artés, Joaquín, 2009. "Long-run versus short-run decisions: R&D and market structure in Spanish firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 120-132, February.
    7. Juan Vicente García Manjón & Rafael Mompó & Judith Redoli, 2016. "Accelerating Innovation in Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises in the ICT Services Sector," SAGE Open, , vol. 6(3), pages 21582440166, September.
    8. Jaakko Simonen, 2005. "The innovativeness of the Finnish high technology firms – The role of internal factors, cooperation, and the mobility of labour," ERSA conference papers ersa05p462, European Regional Science Association.
    9. Aruna Pain & Indrani Chakraborty, 2023. "What Factors are Driving R&D in the Pharmaceutical Industry in India? A Study of the Post-Liberalization Period," Journal of Quantitative Economics, Springer;The Indian Econometric Society (TIES), vol. 21(3), pages 617-640, September.

    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. Rosanna Pittiglio & Edgardo Sica & Stefania Villa, 2009. "Innovation and internationalization: the case of Italy," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 34(6), pages 588-602, December.
    2. Mark Rogers, 2000. "Understanding Innovative Firms: An Empirical Analysis of the GAPS," Melbourne Institute Working Paper Series wp2000n08, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, The University of Melbourne.
    3. Russell Thomson, 2010. "Tax Policy and R&D Investment by Australian Firms," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 86(273), pages 260-280, June.
    4. Jaakko Simonen, 2005. "The innovativeness of the Finnish high technology firms – The role of internal factors, cooperation, and the mobility of labour," ERSA conference papers ersa05p462, European Regional Science Association.
    5. Falk, Martin, 1999. "Technological innovations and the expected demand for skilled labour at the firm level," ZEW Discussion Papers 99-59, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    6. Freel, Mark S., 2003. "Sectoral patterns of small firm innovation, networking and proximity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(5), pages 751-770, May.
    7. Mark Freel, 2007. "Are Small Innovators Credit Rationed?," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 28(1), pages 23-35, January.
    8. Hammar, Henrik & Carlsson, Fredrik, 2001. "Smokers' Decisions To Quit Smoking," Working Papers in Economics 59, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
    9. Laisney, François & Pohlmeier, Winfried & Staat, Matthias, 1991. "Estimation of labour supply functions using panel data: a survey," ZEW Discussion Papers 91-05, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    10. Symeonidis, George, 2001. "Price Competition, Innovation and Profitability: Theory and UK Evidence," CEPR Discussion Papers 2816, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    11. Das, Marcel & van Soest, Arthur, 1999. "A panel data model for subjective information on household income growth," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 40(4), pages 409-426, December.
    12. Kelly D. Edmiston, 2007. "The role of small and large businesses in economic development," Economic Review, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, vol. 92(Q II), pages 73-97.
    13. Bettina Peters & Rebecca Riley & Iulia Siedschlag & Priit Vahter & John McQuinn, 2014. "Innovation and Productivity in Services: Evidence from Germany, Ireland and the United Kingdom," JRC Working Papers on Corporate R&D and Innovation 2014-04, Joint Research Centre.
    14. Chen, Yi-Yi & Schmidt, Peter & Wang, Hung-Jen, 2014. "Consistent estimation of the fixed effects stochastic frontier model," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 181(2), pages 65-76.
    15. Subal C. Kumbhakar & Christopher F. Parmeter & Valentin Zelenyuk, 2022. "Stochastic Frontier Analysis: Foundations and Advances I," Springer Books, in: Subhash C. Ray & Robert G. Chambers & Subal C. Kumbhakar (ed.), Handbook of Production Economics, chapter 8, pages 331-370, Springer.
    16. Greene, William, 2007. "Functional Form and Heterogeneity in Models for Count Data," Foundations and Trends(R) in Econometrics, now publishers, vol. 1(2), pages 113-218, August.
    17. Hendrik Thiel & Stephan L. Thomsen, 2015. "Individual Poverty Paths and the Stability of Control-Perception," SOEPpapers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research 794, DIW Berlin, The German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP).
    18. Roberts, M. & Tybout, J., 1993. "An Empirical Model of Sunk Costs and the Decision to Export," Papers 4-93-3, Pennsylvania State - Department of Economics.
    19. Bolduc, Denis & Kaci, Mustapha, 1993. "Estimation des modèles probit polytomiques : un survol des techniques," L'Actualité Economique, Société Canadienne de Science Economique, vol. 69(3), pages 161-191, septembre.
    20. Guizar-Mateos, Isai & Dadzie, Nicholas, 2014. "Financial Services and Divisible Technology Dis-adoption among Farm Households: Theory and Empirical Application Using Data from Ethiopia," 2014 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2014, Minneapolis, Minnesota 171765, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.

    More about this item

    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:iae:iaewps:wp2001n20. 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: Sheri Carnegie (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/mimelau.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.