Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login

Product Innovation and Growth: The Case of Integrated Circuits

Contents:

Author Info

  • Marco Corsino

Abstract

A puzzling evidence stemming from the applied research on growth and innovation is that successful innovations do not appear to have a significant effect on sales growth rates, at odds with the expectation that successful innovators will prosper at the expenses of their less able competitors. The present paper tests a research hypothesis claiming that the level of observation at which applied research is typically conducted hampers the identification of a significant association between innovation and sales growth rates. Exploiting a unique and original database comprising detailed information on product innovations by leading semiconductor companies, we find components commercialized in the nearest past to positively affect the stream of corporate revenues.

Download Info

If 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.
File URL: http://www.lem.sssup.it/WPLem/files/2008-02.pdf
Download Restriction: no

Bibliographic Info

Paper provided by Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy in its series LEM Papers Series with number 2008/02.

as in new window
Length:
Date of creation: 07 Feb 2008
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:ssa:lemwps:2008/02

Contact details of provider:
Postal: Piazza dei Martiri della Liberta, 33, 56127 Pisa
Phone: +39-50-883343
Fax: +39-50-883344
Email:
Web page: http://www.lem.sssup.it/
More information through EDIRC

Related research

Keywords: Firm Growth; Product Innovation; Semiconductor industry;

Other versions of this item:

Find related papers by JEL classification:

This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

References

References listed on IDEAS
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.:
as in new window
  1. Chesbrough, Henry W., 2003. "Environmental influences upon firm entry into new sub-markets: Evidence from the worldwide hard disk drive industry conditionally," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 659-678, April.
  2. Geroski, Paul A & Samiei, Hossein & Urga, Giovanni, 1997. "Are Differences in Firm Size Transitory or Permanent?," CEPR Discussion Papers 1691, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  3. Klette, Tor Jakob & Griliches, Zvi, 2000. "Empirical Patterns of Firm Growth and R&D Investment: A Quality Ladder Model Interpretation," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 110(463), pages 363-87, April.
  4. Arellano, Manuel & Bover, Olympia, 1995. "Another look at the instrumental variable estimation of error-components models," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 68(1), pages 29-51, July.
  5. Aghion, P. & Howitt, P., 1990. "A Model Of Growth Through Creative Destruction," DELTA Working Papers 90-12, DELTA (Ecole normale supérieure).
  6. Blandina Oliveira & Adelino Fortunato, 2003. "Testing Gibrat’s Law: Empirical Evidence from a Panel of Portuguese Manufacturing Firms," GEMF Working Papers 2003-07, GEMF - Faculdade de Economia, Universidade de Coimbra.
  7. Paul Geroski & Mariana Mazzucato, 2002. "Learning and the sources of corporate growth," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, vol. 11(4), pages 623-644, August.
  8. Dosi, Giovanni, 1988. "Sources, Procedures, and Microeconomic Effects of Innovation," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 26(3), pages 1120-71, September.
  9. Giulio Bottazzi & Giovanni Dosi & Marco Lippi & Fabio Pammolli & Massimo Riccaboni, 2001. "Innovation and Corporate Growth in the Evolution of the Drug Industry," LEM Papers Series 2001/02, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.
  10. 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.
  11. Hans Loof & Almas Heshmati, 2006. "On the relationship between innovation and performance: A sensitivity analysis," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor and Francis Journals, vol. 15(4-5), pages 317-344.
  12. Richard Blundell & Steve Bond, 1995. "Initial conditions and moment restrictions in dynamic panel data models," IFS Working Papers W95/17, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
  13. Coombs, R. & Narandren, P. & Richards, A., 1996. "A literature-based innovation output indicator," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 403-413, May.
  14. Chesher, Andrew, 1979. "Testing the Law of Proportionate Effect," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(4), pages 403-11, June.
  15. Goddard, John & Wilson, John & Blandon, Peter, 2002. "Panel tests of Gibrat's Law for Japanese manufacturing," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 20(3), pages 415-433, March.
  16. Growiec, Jakub & Pammolli, Fabio & Riccaboni, Massimo & Stanley, H. Eugene, 2008. "On the size distribution of business firms," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 98(2), pages 207-212, February.
  17. Tether, B. S., 1998. "Small and large firms: sources of unequal innovations?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(7), pages 725-745, November.
  18. P. A. Geroski, 2005. "Understanding the implications of empirical work on corporate growth rates," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(2), pages 129-138.
  19. repec:fth:inseep:9833 is not listed on IDEAS
  20. Steve Bond & Céline Nauges & Frank Windmeijer, 2005. "Unit roots: identification and testing in micro panels," CeMMAP working papers CWP07/05, Centre for Microdata Methods and Practice, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
  21. Klette, Tor Jakob & Kortum, Samuel S, 2002. "Innovating Firms and Aggregate Innovation," CEPR Discussion Papers 3248, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  22. Blundell, Richard & Griffith, Rachel & van Reenen, John, 1999. "Market Share, Market Value and Innovation in a Panel of British Manufacturing Firms," Review of Economic Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 66(3), pages 529-54, July.
  23. Marco Corsino, 2008. "Product Innovation and Growth: The Case of Integrated Circuits," LEM Papers Series 2008/02, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.
  24. Peter E Hart & Nicholas Oulton, . "Growth and size of firms," NIESR Discussion Papers 77, National Institute of Economic and Social Research.
  25. Paul Geroski & Steve Machin & John Van Reenen, 1993. "The Profitability of Innovating Firms," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 24(2), pages 198-211, Summer.
  26. Hagedoorn, John & Cloodt, Myriam, 2003. "Measuring innovative performance: is there an advantage in using multiple indicators?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(8), pages 1365-1379, September.
  27. Giulio Cainelli & Rinaldo Evangelista & Maria Savona, 2006. "Innovation and economic performance in services: a firm-level analysis," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 30(3), pages 435-458, May.
  28. Alfred Kleinknecht & Kees Van Montfort & Erik Brouwer, 2002. "The Non-Trivial Choice between Innovation Indicators," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor and Francis Journals, vol. 11(2), pages 109-121.
  29. Cohen, Wesley M & Klepper, Steven, 1996. "A Reprise of Size and R&D," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 106(437), pages 925-51, July.
  30. P. Geroski, 1998. "An Applied Econometrician's View of Large Company Performance," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer, vol. 13(3), pages 271-294, June.
  31. Del Monte, Alfredo & Papagni, Erasmo, 2003. "R&D and the growth of firms: empirical analysis of a panel of Italian firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(6), pages 1003-1014, June.
  32. Bruno Crépon & Emmanuel Duguet & Jacques Mairesse, 1998. "Research, Innovation and Productivity : An Econometric Analysis at the Firm Level," Working Papers 98-33, Centre de Recherche en Economie et Statistique.
  33. Im, Kyung So & Pesaran, M. Hashem & Shin, Yongcheol, 2003. "Testing for unit roots in heterogeneous panels," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 115(1), pages 53-74, July.
  34. Hagedoorn, John & Cloodt, Myriam, 2003. "Measuring innovative performance: is there an advantage in using multiple indicators?," Open Access publications from Maastricht University urn:nbn:nl:ui:27-4270, Maastricht University.
  35. Banerjee, Anindya, 1999. " Panel Data Unit Roots and Cointegration: An Overview," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 61(0), pages 607-29, Special I.
  36. Luuk Klomp & George Van Leeuwen, 2001. "Linking Innovation and Firm Performance: A New Approach," International Journal of the Economics of Business, Taylor and Francis Journals, vol. 8(3), pages 343-364.
  37. Tether, B S & Massini, S, 1998. " Employment Creation in Small Technological and Design Innovators in the U.K. during the 1980s," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 11(4), pages 353-70, December.
  38. Richard C. Levin & Alvin K. Klevorick & Richard R. Nelson & Sidney G. Winter, 1987. "Appropriating the Returns from Industrial Research and Development," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, vol. 18(3), pages 783-832.
  39. Rosenberg, Nathan & Steinmueller, W Edward, 1988. "Why Are Americans Such Poor Imitators?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 78(2), pages 229-34, May.
  40. Geroski, Paul A & Machin, Stephen & Walters, Christopher F, 1997. "Corporate Growth and Profitability," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 45(2), pages 171-89, June.
  41. Flor, M. L. & Oltra, M. J., 2004. "Identification of innovating firms through technological innovation indicators: an application to the Spanish ceramic tile industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 323-336, March.
  42. Steve Bond, 2002. "Dynamic panel data models: a guide to microdata methods and practice," CeMMAP working papers CWP09/02, Centre for Microdata Methods and Practice, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
  43. William T. Robinson, 1990. "Product Innovation and Start-Up Business Market Share Performance," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(10), pages 1279-1289, October.
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 in new window

Cited by:
  1. Marco Corsino, 2008. "Product Innovation and Growth: The Case of Integrated Circuits," LEM Papers Series 2008/02, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.

Lists

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

Statistics

Access and download statistics

Corrections

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ssa:lemwps:2008/02

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ().

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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