IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/fziddp/152010.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Windows of technological opportunity: do technological booms influence the relationship between firm size and innovativeness?

Author

Listed:
  • Degner, Harald

Abstract

Many papers have been written about the effect of firm size on innovativeness, revealing a positive, a negative or a mixed impact. To this day, the so-called Schumpeterian hypothesis of the above-average innovativeness of large firms has been neither confirmed nor rejected, often because of insufficient data or a too-short observation period. Many studies concentrate only on a specific region or a specific sector, or they analyze a very short time period. Windows of technological opportunities, providing technological booms for both firms and sectors, have not yet been investigated. An analysis of Germany’s chemical, metal and electronic-engineering sectors between 1877 and 1932 reveals that the sector-specific long-term relationship between firm size and innovativeness is negative, except during times of specific technological booms. In combination with firm-specific characteristics, this new aspect can contribute to a better understanding of the long-term relationship between firm size and innovativeness.

Suggested Citation

  • Degner, Harald, 2010. "Windows of technological opportunity: do technological booms influence the relationship between firm size and innovativeness?," FZID Discussion Papers 15-2010, University of Hohenheim, Center for Research on Innovation and Services (FZID).
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:fziddp:152010
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/30183/1/622459171.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Paolo Angelini & Andrea Generale, 2008. "On the Evolution of Firm Size Distributions," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 98(1), pages 426-438, March.
    2. Acs, Zoltan J & Audretsch, David B & Feldman, Maryann P, 1994. "R&D Spillovers and Recipient Firm Size," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 76(2), pages 336-340, May.
    3. Winter, Sidney G., 1984. "Schumpeterian competition in alternative technological regimes," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 5(3-4), pages 287-320.
    4. Andrea P. Bassanini & Giovanni Dosi, 2006. "Competing Technologies, Technological Monopolies and the Rate of Convergence to a Stable Market Structure," Chapters, in: Cristiano Antonelli & Dominique Foray & Bronwyn H. Hall & W. Edward Steinmueller (ed.), New Frontiers in the Economics of Innovation and New Technology, chapter 2, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    5. Kenneth L. Sokoloff, 1988. "Inventive Activity in Early Industrial America: Evidence From Patent Records, 1790 - 1846," NBER Working Papers 2707, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. Donald J. Smythe, 2010. "A Schumpeterian view of the Great Merger Movement in American manufacturing," Cliometrica, Journal of Historical Economics and Econometric History, Association Française de Cliométrie (AFC), vol. 4(2), pages 141-170, June.
    7. Alfred Kleinknecht & Kees Van Montfort & Erik Brouwer, 2002. "The Non-Trivial Choice between Innovation Indicators," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(2), pages 109-121.
    8. Kafouros, Mario I. & Buckley, Peter J., 2008. "Under what conditions do firms benefit from the research efforts of other organizations?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 225-239, March.
    9. Patrizio Pagano & Fabiano Schivardi, 2003. "Firm Size Distribution and Growth," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 105(2), pages 255-274, June.
    10. Thomas Brenner & Siegfried Greif, 2006. "The Dependence of Innovativeness on the Local Firm Population—An Empirical Study of German Patents," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(1), pages 21-39.
    11. Mark Freel, 2007. "Are Small Innovators Credit Rationed?," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 28(1), pages 23-35, January.
    12. Florence Jaumotte & Nigel Pain, 2005. "From Ideas to Development: The Determinants of R&D and Patenting," OECD Economics Department Working Papers 457, OECD Publishing.
    13. Streb, Jochen & Wallusch, Jacek & Yin, Shuxi, 2007. "Knowledge spill-over from new to old industries: The case of German synthetic dyes and textiles (1878-1913)," Explorations in Economic History, Elsevier, vol. 44(2), pages 203-223, April.
    14. Fagerberg, Jan & Srholec, Martin & Verspagen, Bart, 2010. "Innovation and Economic Development," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 0, pages 833-872, Elsevier.
    15. Jochen Streb & Jörg Baten & Shuxi Yin, 2006. "Technological and geographical knowledge spillover in the German empire 1877–1918," Economic History Review, Economic History Society, vol. 59(2), pages 347-373, May.
    16. Sullivan, Richard J, 1994. "Estimates of the Value of Patent Rights in Great Britain and Ireland, 1852-1876," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 61(241), pages 37-58, February.
    17. Geroski, P A, 1990. "Innovation, Technological Opportunity, and Market Structure," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 42(3), pages 586-602, July.
    18. Sokoloff, Kenneth L., 1988. "Inventive Activity in Early Industrial America: Evidence From Patent Records, 1790–1846," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 48(4), pages 813-850, December.
    19. Malerba, Franco, 2002. "Sectoral systems of innovation and production," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 247-264, February.
    20. Sharon Gifford, 1992. "Innovation, Firm Size and Growth in a Centralized Organization," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 23(2), pages 284-298, Summer.
    21. Acs, Zoltan J & Audretsch, David B, 1988. "Innovation in Large and Small Firms: An Empirical Analysis," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 78(4), pages 678-690, September.
    22. S. Broadberry & N. Crafts, 2001. "Competition and Innovation in 1950s Britain," Business History, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 43(1), pages 97-118.
    23. Dhawan, Rajeev, 2001. "Firm size and productivity differential: theory and evidence from a panel of US firms," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 44(3), pages 269-293, March.
    24. Gerhard Kling & Joerg Baten & Kirsten Labuske, 2011. "FDI of German Companies During Globalization and Deglobalization," Open Economies Review, Springer, vol. 22(2), pages 247-270, April.
    25. Donald J. Smythe, 2001. "The Great Merger Movement and the Diffusion of Electric Power Utilization in American Manufacturing, 1899-1909: A Simple Test of the Schumpeterian Hypothesis," Eastern Economic Journal, Eastern Economic Association, vol. 27(3), pages 253-266, Summer.
    26. Philippe Aghion, 2008. "Higher Education and Innovation," Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik, Verein für Socialpolitik, vol. 9(s1), pages 28-45, May.
    27. Joon-Woo Nahm, 2001. "Nonparametric quantile regression analysis of R&D-sales relationship for Korean firms," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 26(1), pages 259-270.
    28. Chris Freeman & Luc Soete, 1997. "The Economics of Industrial Innovation, 3rd Edition," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 3, volume 1, number 0262061953, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Tavassoli, Sam, 2015. "Innovation determinants over industry life cycle," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 18-32.
    2. Wilfred Dolfsma & Gerben Velde, 2014. "Industry innovativeness, firm size, and entrepreneurship: Schumpeter Mark III?," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 24(4), pages 713-736, September.
    3. Pellegrino, Gabriele & Piva, Mariacristina & Vivarelli, Marco, 2009. "How Do Young Innovative Companies Innovate?," IZA Discussion Papers 4301, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    4. Konstantinos Konstantakis & Panayotis G. Michaelides & Theofanis Papageorgiou, 2014. "Sector size, technical change and stability in the USA (1957-2006): a Schumpeterian approach," International Journal of Social Economics, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 41(10), pages 956-974, October.
    5. Francesco Cinnirella & Jochen Streb, 2013. "The Role of Human Capital and Innovation in Prussian Economic Development," CESifo Working Paper Series 4391, CESifo.
    6. Conte, Andrea & Vivarelli, Marco, 2005. "One or Many Knowledge Production Functions? Mapping Innovative Activity Using Microdata," IZA Discussion Papers 1878, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    7. Dosi, Giovanni & Nelson, Richard R., 2010. "Technical Change and Industrial Dynamics as Evolutionary Processes," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 51-127, Elsevier.
    8. Alexander Donges & Felix Selgert, 2019. "Technology transfer via foreign patents in Germany, 1843–77," Economic History Review, Economic History Society, vol. 72(1), pages 182-208, February.
    9. Dolfsma, Wilfred & van der Panne, Gerben, 2008. "Currents and sub-currents in innovation flows: Explaining innovativeness using new-product announcements," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(10), pages 1706-1716, December.
    10. Burak Dindaroglu, 2011. "R&D Productivity and Firm Size in Semiconductors and Pharmaceuticals: Evidence from Citation Yields," Working Papers 1101, Izmir University of Economics.
    11. Francesco Cinnirella & Jochen Streb, 2017. "The role of human capital and innovation in economic development: evidence from post-Malthusian Prussia," Journal of Economic Growth, Springer, vol. 22(2), pages 193-227, June.
    12. Rebecca Williams & Les Oxley, 2016. "The Geography of Inventiveness in the Primary Sector: Some Initial Results for New Zealand, 1880–1895," Australian Economic History Review, Economic History Society of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 56(2), pages 151-173, July.
    13. Kirsten Labuske & Jochen Streb, 2008. "Technological Creativity and Cheap Labour? Explaining the Growing International Competitiveness of German Mechanical Engineering before World War I," German Economic Review, Verein für Socialpolitik, vol. 9, pages 65-86, February.
    14. Raquel Ortega‐Argilés & Mariacristina Piva & Marco Vivarelli, 2014. "The transatlantic productivity gap: Is R&D the main culprit?," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 47(4), pages 1342-1371, November.
    15. Gabriele Pellegrino & Mariacristina Piva & Marco Vivarelli, 2015. "How do new entrepreneurs innovate?," Economia e Politica Industriale: Journal of Industrial and Business Economics, Springer;Associazione Amici di Economia e Politica Industriale, vol. 42(3), pages 323-341, September.
    16. Simon Wiederhold, 2012. "The Role of Public Procurement in Innovation: Theory and Empirical Evidence," ifo Beiträge zur Wirtschaftsforschung, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, number 43.
    17. Richter, Ralf & Streb, Jochen, 2011. "Catching-Up and Falling Behind: Knowledge Spillover from American to German Machine Toolmakers," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 71(4), pages 1006-1031, December.
    18. Alexander Donges & Jean-Marie Meier & Rui C. Silva, 2023. "The Impact of Institutions on Innovation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 69(4), pages 1951-1974, April.
    19. W.A. Dolfsma & G. van der Panne, 2007. "Innovations from SMEs or Large Firms? Sector Structure and Dynamics," Working Papers 07-30, Utrecht School of Economics.
    20. Pellegrino, Gabriele & Piva, Mariacristina & Vivarelli, Marco, 2012. "Young firms and innovation: A microeconometric analysis," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 23(4), pages 329-340.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Effect of firm size on innovativeness; technological boom; Schumpeterian hypothesis;
    All these keywords.

    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:zbw:fziddp:152010. 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/fihohde.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.