Does the Firm Size Matter? An Empirical Enquiry into the Performance of Indian Manufacturing Firms
AbstractThe Law of Proportionate Effect depicts that firm’s growth rate is independent of its size; Gibrat (1931). Some of the existing studies support the Gibrat’s Law: Hymer and Pashigian (1962), Mansfield (1962), among others. However, Gale (1972), Shepherd (1972) and recently Punnose (2008) report a positive relationship, while Haines (1970) and Evans (1987) observe an inverse relationship between firm size and profitability. Baumol (1959) opined that rate of return increases with firm size. Therefore, the extant empirical research on the firm size – performance relationship provides inconclusive results. Manufacturing firms’ data from the Steel and Electrical & Electronics (EE) industries are taken from CMIE Prowess database for the period 2004-05 to 2006-07. Results show that firm size affects current profitability: positively in the Steel and negatively in the other. Some more determinants of firm performance are explored. Retained earnings have negative impact on profitability in Steel but, positive in EE. Bank credit is found negatively significant in both the industries. Market share of firms and industry concentration ratio (CR4) although inconsistently are the other significant determinants of firms’ performance. Firms’ market value (Q) is found positively significant for both the industries. This signifies that high market value of firms reflects their goodwill, knowledge stock and prospective investment opportunities which positively influence the firms’ performance. The significance of having high brand equity which the corporate firms thrive for becomes apparent. Interestingly, the impact of size is affected by firms’ market value: firm size positively affects profitability both in Steel and EE. Furthermore, ineffectiveness of Law of Proportionate Effect is strengthened when tested over the combined data of Steel and EE firms. The short-run dynamism in firm performance is also impacted by presence of Tobin’s Q.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by University Library of Munich, Germany in its series MPRA Paper with number 13029.
Date of creation: 09 Jan 2009
Date of revision:
Gibrat’s law; firm size; profitability; Tobin’s Q; manufacturing firms;
Find related papers by JEL classification:
- L6 - Industrial Organization - - Industry Studies: Manufacturing
- M21 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting - - Business Economics - - - Business Economics
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
- NEP-ALL-2009-05-23 (All new papers)
- NEP-COM-2009-05-23 (Industrial Competition)
- NEP-CSE-2009-05-23 (Economics of Strategic Management)
- NEP-CWA-2009-05-23 (Central & Western Asia)
- NEP-EFF-2009-05-23 (Efficiency & Productivity)
- NEP-ENT-2009-05-23 (Entrepreneurship)
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Audretsch, D.B. & Klomp, L. & Thurik, A.R., 2002.
"Gibrat's Law: are the services different?,"
ERIM Report Series Research in Management
ERS-2002-04-STR, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus Uni.
- Gale, Bradley T, 1972. "Market Share and Rate of Return," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 54(4), pages 412-23, November.
- Chesher, Andrew, 1979. "Testing the Law of Proportionate Effect," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(4), pages 403-11, June.
- Evans, David S., 1986.
"The Relationship Between Firm Growth, Size, and Age: Estimates for 100 Manufacturing Industries,"
86-33, C.V. Starr Center for Applied Economics, New York University.
- Evans, David S, 1987. "The Relationship between Firm Growth, Size, and Age: Estimates for 100 Manufacturing Industries," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(4), pages 567-81, June.
- Hall, Bronwyn H, 1987.
"The Relationship between Firm Size and Firm Growth in the U.S. Manufacturing Sector,"
Journal of Industrial Economics,
Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(4), pages 583-606, June.
- Bronwyn H. Hall, 1988. "The Relationship Between Firm Size and Firm Growth in the U.S. Manufacturing Sector," NBER Working Papers 1965, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Breusch, T S & Pagan, A R, 1979. "A Simple Test for Heteroscedasticity and Random Coefficient Variation," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(5), pages 1287-94, September.
- Saleh Amirkhalkhali & Arun K. Mukhopadhyay, 1993. "The Influence of Size and R&D on the Growth of Firms in the U.S," Eastern Economic Journal, Eastern Economic Association, vol. 19(2), pages 223-233, Spring.
- Pramod, Kumar Naik & Krishnan, Narayanan & Puja, Padhi, 2012. "R&D intensity and market valuation of firm: a study of R&D incurring manufacturing firms in India," MPRA Paper 37299, University Library of Munich, Germany.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Ekkehart Schlicht).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.