IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Persistence of innovation: stylised facts and panel data evidence

  • Bettina Peters

    ()

This paper investigates whether firms innovate persistently or discontinuously over time using an innovation panel data set on German manufacturing and service firms for the period 1994–2002. It turns out that innovation behaviour is permanent at the firm–level to a very large extent. Using a dynamic random effects discrete choice model and a new estimator recently proposed by Wooldrigde (2005), I further shed some light on the driving forces for this phenomenon. The econometric results show that past innovation experience is an important determinant for manufacturing as well as for service sector firms, and hence confirm the hypothesis of true state dependence. In addition, the results highlight the important role of knowledge provided by skilled employees and unobserved individual heterogeneity in explaining the persistence of innovation.

(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

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://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s10961-007-9072-9
Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Article provided by Springer in its journal The Journal of Technology Transfer.

Volume (Year): 34 (2009)
Issue (Month): 2 (April)
Pages: 226-243

as
in new window

Handle: RePEc:kap:jtecht:v:34:y:2009:i:2:p:226-243
Contact details of provider: Web page: http://www.springerlink.com/link.asp?id=104998

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. Jeffrey M Wooldridge, 2002. "Simple solutions to the initial conditions problem in dynamic, nonlinear panel data models with unobserved heterogeneity," CeMMAP working papers CWP18/02, Centre for Microdata Methods and Practice, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
  2. Mohnen, Pierre & Schim van der Loeff, S. & Palm, Franz & Raymond, Wladimir, 2006. "Persistence of Innovation in Dutch Manufacturing: Is it Spurious?," MERIT Working Papers 011, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
  3. Janz, Norbert & Lööf, Hans & Peters, Bettina, 2004. "Firm Level Innovation and Productivity - Is there a Common Story Across Countries?," Working Paper Series in Economics and Institutions of Innovation 24, Royal Institute of Technology, CESIS - Centre of Excellence for Science and Innovation Studies.
  4. Jacques MAIRESSE & Bronwyn H. HALL & Benoît MULKAY, 1999. "Firm-Level Investment in France and the United States: An Exploration of What We Have Learned in Twenty Years," Annales d'Economie et de Statistique, ENSAE, issue 55-56, pages 27-67.
  5. Martin Biewen, 2004. "Measuring State Dependence in Individual Poverty Status: Are there Feedback Effects to Employment Decisions and Household Composition?," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 429, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
  6. Eric J. Bartelsman & Mark Doms, 2000. "Understanding productivity: lessons from longitudinal microdata," Finance and Economics Discussion Series 2000-19, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (U.S.).
  7. repec:fth:inseep:9833 is not listed on IDEAS
  8. Carro, Jesus M., 2007. "Estimating dynamic panel data discrete choice models with fixed effects," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 140(2), pages 503-528, October.
  9. Martin Kukuk & Manfred Stadler, 2001. "Financing Constraints and the Timing of Innovations in the German Services Sector," Empirica, Springer, vol. 28(3), pages 277-292, September.
  10. Paul M Romer, 1999. "Endogenous Technological Change," Levine's Working Paper Archive 2135, David K. Levine.
  11. Flaig, Gebhard & Stadler, Manfred, 1994. "Success breeds success. The dynamics of the innovation process," Munich Reprints in Economics 20366, University of Munich, Department of Economics.
  12. repec:fth:harver:1473 is not listed on IDEAS
  13. Aghion, P. & Howitt, P., 1989. "A Model Of Growth Through Creative Destruction," UWO Department of Economics Working Papers 8904, University of Western Ontario, Department of Economics.
  14. Kaiser, Ulrich & Kongsted, Hans Christian, 2004. "True Versus Spurious State Dependence in Firm Performance: The Case of West German Exports," ZEW Discussion Papers 04-81, ZEW - Zentrum für Europäische Wirtschaftsforschung / Center for European Economic Research.
  15. Bo E. Honoré & Ekaterini Kyriazidou, 2000. "Panel Data Discrete Choice Models with Lagged Dependent Variables," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 68(4), pages 839-874, July.
  16. Loof, Hans & Heshmati, Almas, 2002. "Knowledge capital and performance heterogeneity: : A firm-level innovation study," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 76(1), pages 61-85, March.
  17. Judd, Kenneth L, 1985. "On the Performance of Patents," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 53(3), pages 567-85, May.
  18. Mark Rogers, 2004. "Networks, Firm Size and Innovation," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 22(2), pages 141-153, 03.
  19. 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.
  20. Jensen, Michael C. & Meckling, William H., 1976. "Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 305-360, October.
  21. Reinganum, Jennifer F, 1983. "Uncertain Innovation and the Persistence of Monopoly," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 73(4), pages 741-48, September.
  22. Love, James H. & Roper, Stephen, 2001. "Location and network effects on innovation success: evidence for UK, German and Irish manufacturing plants," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 643-661, April.
  23. König, Heinz & Laisney, François & Lechner, Michael & Pohlmeier, Winfried, 1993. "On the dynamics of process innovative activity: an empirical investigation using panel data," ZEW Discussion Papers 93-08, ZEW - Zentrum für Europäische Wirtschaftsforschung / Center for European Economic Research.
  24. Elena Cefis & Luigi Orsenigo, 1998. "The Persistence of Innovative Activities. A Cross-Countries and Cross-Sectors Comparative Analysis," Department of Economics Working Papers 9804, Department of Economics, University of Trento, Italia.
  25. repec:cup:macdyn:v:2:y:1998:i:3:p:322-44 is not listed on IDEAS
  26. Blundell, Richard & Griffith, Rachel & Van Reenen, John, 1995. "Dynamic Count Data Models of Technological Innovation," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 105(429), pages 333-44, March.
  27. Zvi Griliches, 1990. "Patent Statistics as Economic Indicators: A Survey," NBER Working Papers 3301, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  28. Chamberlain, Gary, 1980. "Analysis of Covariance with Qualitative Data," Review of Economic Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(1), pages 225-38, January.
  29. Aghion, Philippe & Howitt, Peter, 1992. "A Model of Growth Through Creative Destruction," Scholarly Articles 12490578, Harvard University Department of Economics.
  30. Paul Bishop & Nick Wiseman, 1999. "External ownership and innovation in the United Kingdom," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 31(4), pages 443-450.
  31. Kamien, Morton I & Schwartz, Nancy L, 1975. "Market Structure and Innovation: A Survey," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 13(1), pages 1-37, March.
  32. Arthur Lewbel, 2005. "Simple Endogenous Binary Choice and Selection Panel Model Estimators," Boston College Working Papers in Economics 613, Boston College Department of Economics, revised 04 Sep 2006.
  33. Stiglitz, Joseph E & Weiss, Andrew, 1981. "Credit Rationing in Markets with Imperfect Information," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 71(3), pages 393-410, June.
  34. Richard Blundell & Rachel Griffith & John Van Reenen, 1993. "Knowledge stocks, persistent innovation and market dominance: evidence from a panel of British manufacturing firms," IFS Working Papers W93/19, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
  35. Geroski, P. A. & Van Reenen, J. & Walters, C. F., 1997. "How persistently do firms innovate?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 33-48, March.
  36. Aghion, Philippe & Saint-Paul, Gilles, 1998. "VIRTUES OF BAD TIMES Interaction Between Productivity Growth and Economic Fluctuations," Macroeconomic Dynamics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 2(03), pages 322-344, September.
  37. Cefis, Elena, 2003. "Is there persistence in innovative activities?," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 21(4), pages 489-515, April.
  38. Geroski, P. A., 1995. "What do we know about entry?," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 13(4), pages 421-440, December.
  39. Steen Winther Blindum, 2003. "Relaxing the Strict Exogeneity Assumption in a Dynamic Random Probit Model," CAM Working Papers 2003-04, University of Copenhagen. Department of Economics. Centre for Applied Microeconometrics.
  40. Kleinknecht, Alfred, 1990. "Are There Schumpeterian Waves of Innovations?," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 14(1), pages 81-92, March.
  41. Malerba, Franco & Orsenigo, Luigi, 1999. "Technological entry, exit and survival: an empirical analysis of patent data," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 28(6), pages 643-660, August.
  42. Emmanuel Duguet & Stéphanie Monjon, 2004. "Is innovation persistent at the firm Level . An econometric examination comparing the propensity score and regression methods," Cahiers de la Maison des Sciences Economiques v04075, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1).
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is featured on the following reading lists or Wikipedia pages:

  1. Socio-Economics of Innovation

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:jtecht:v:34:y:2009:i:2:p:226-243. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

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

or (Christopher F. Baum)

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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.