The Democratization of U.S. Research and Development after 1980
AbstractUsing Compustat data, we document that prior to 1980, large R&D per-forming firms had higher R&D intensity (R&D/Sales) than small firms in the same industries. Over the course of the next two decades, in these same in-dustries, small firms came to rival and even surpass large firms in terms of R&D intensity. During this period, corporate R&D intensity nearly doubled and most of the aggregate increase is due to the substantial increase in R&D intensity among small firms. Little of the change in composition is explained by changes in the industrial distribution of R&D. Why did small firms increase their R&D after 1980 and not before? We argue that, after 1980, small firms were able to compete on better terms in industries already dominated by large firms. We show that the patterns we observe in the data are consistent with a straightforward dynamic model of R&D with falling barriers to entry. But what barriers fell? We argue the shift in R&D intensity by small firms was largely due to the electronics revolution. Prior to the 1980s, a large corporate sales and clerical force was an essential factor for the rapid and widespread distribution of new products. This technology clearly favored large, established firms. But the electronics revolution obviated the need for these factors, making entry easier.
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 Society for Economic Dynamics in its series 2006 Meeting Papers with number 121.
Date of creation: 03 Dec 2006
Date of revision:
Contact details of provider:
Postal: Society for Economic Dynamics Christian Zimmermann Economic Research Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis PO Box 442 St. Louis MO 63166-0442 USA
Web page: http://www.EconomicDynamics.org/society.htm
More information through EDIRC
R&D; barriers to entry; innovation;
Find related papers by JEL classification:
- O3 - Economic Development, Technological Change, and Growth - - Technological Change; Research and Development; Intellectual Property Rights
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
- NEP-ALL-2007-01-13 (All new papers)
- NEP-ENT-2007-01-13 (Entrepreneurship)
- NEP-HIS-2007-01-13 (Business, Economic & Financial History)
- NEP-INO-2007-01-13 (Innovation)
- NEP-MIC-2007-01-13 (Microeconomics)
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.:
- Cockburn, Iain & Henderson, Rebecca, 1994.
"Racing to Invest? The Dynamics of Competition in Ethical Drug Discovery,"
Journal of Economics & Management Strategy,
Wiley Blackwell, vol. 3(3), pages 481-519, Fall.
- Cockburn, Iain. & Henderson, Iain., 1994. "Racing to invest? : the dynamics of competition in ethical drug discovery," Working papers 3710-94., Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
- John Y. Campbell & Martin Lettau & Burton G. Malkiel & Yexiao Xu, 2000.
"Have Individual Stocks Become More Volatile? An Empirical Exploration of Idiosyncratic Risk,"
NBER Working Papers
7590, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- John Y. Campbell, 2001. "Have Individual Stocks Become More Volatile? An Empirical Exploration of Idiosyncratic Risk," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 56(1), pages 1-43, 02.
- Malkiel, Burton & Campbell, John & Lettau, Martin & Xu, Yexiao, 2001. "Have Individual Stocks Become More Volatile? An Empirical Exploration of Idiosyncratic Risk," Scholarly Articles 3128707, Harvard University Department of Economics.
- Philippe Aghion & Nicholas Bloom & Richard Blundell & Rachel Griffith & Peter Howitt, 2002.
"Competition and Innovation: An Inverted U Relationship,"
NBER Working Papers
9269, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Philippe Aghion & Nick Bloom & Richard Blundell & Rachel Griffith & Peter Howitt, 2005. "Competition and Innovation: An Inverted-U Relationship," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 120(2), pages 701-728, May.
- Philippe Aghion & Nicholas Bloom & Richard Blundell & Rachel Griffith & Peter Howitt, 2002. "Competition and innovation: an inverted U relationship," IFS Working Papers W02/04, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
- Howitt, Peter & Griffith, Rachel & Aghion, Philippe & Blundell, Richard & Bloom, Nick, 2005. "Competition and Innovation: An Inverted-U Relationship," Scholarly Articles 4481507, Harvard University Department of Economics.
- Bronwyn, H.H., 1993. "Industrial Research During the 1980s: Did the Rate of Return Fall?," Working Papers e-93-10, Hoover Institution, Stanford University.
- Diego A. Comin & Thomas Philippon, 2006.
"The Rise in Firm-Level Volatility: Causes and Consequences,"
in: NBER Macroeconomics Annual 2005, Volume 20, pages 167-228
National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Diego Comin & Thomas Philippon, 2005. "The Rise in Firm-Level Volatility: Causes and Consequences," NBER Working Papers 11388, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Grabowski, Henry G & Baxter, Nevins D, 1973. "Rivalry in Industrial Research and Development," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(3), pages 209-35, July.
- Saunoris, James W. & Payne, James E., 2011. "An Empirical Note on R&D Growth Models with Regional Implications," Journal of Regional Analysis and Policy, Mid-Continent Regional Science Association, vol. 41(1).
- Robert M. Hunt, 2007. "Economics and the design of patent systems," Working Papers 07-6, Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Christian Zimmermann).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.