IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/oxecpp/v64y2012i1p176-196.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

R&D efficiency and barriers to entry: a two stage semi-parametric DEA approach

Author

Listed:
  • Astrid Cullmann
  • Jens Schmidt-Ehmcke
  • Petra Zloczysti

Abstract

This paper assesses the relative efficiency of knowledge production in the OECD using a nonparametric DEA approach. In general, resources allocated to R&D are limited and therefore must be used efficiently, given the institutional and legal constraints. The efficiency scores presented are based on an intertemporal frontier estimation for the period 1995 to 2004. We analyse the impact of the regulatory environment using a single bootstrap procedure. The empirical evidence supports our hypothesis that barriers to entry aimed at reducing competition actually lower R&D efficiency by attenuating the incentives to innovate and to allocate resources efficiently. Copyright 2012 Oxford University Press 2011 All rights reserved, Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Astrid Cullmann & Jens Schmidt-Ehmcke & Petra Zloczysti, 2012. "R&D efficiency and barriers to entry: a two stage semi-parametric DEA approach," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 64(1), pages 176-196, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:oxecpp:v:64:y:2012:i:1:p:176-196
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/oep/gpr015
    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 below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. de Rassenfosse, Gaetan & van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, Bruno, 2009. "A policy insight into the R&D-patent relationship," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(5), pages 779-792, June.
    2. David, Paul A. & Hall, Bronwyn H. & Toole, Andrew A., 2000. "Is public R&D a complement or substitute for private R&D? A review of the econometric evidence," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(4-5), pages 497-529, April.
    3. Zvi Griliches, 1998. "Patent Statistics as Economic Indicators: A Survey," NBER Chapters, in: R&D and Productivity: The Econometric Evidence, pages 287-343, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Harold Fried & Shelton Schmidt & Suthathip Yaisawarng, 1999. "Incorporating the Operating Environment Into a Nonparametric Measure of Technical Efficiency," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 12(3), pages 249-267, November.
    5. Geroski, P. A., 1995. "What do we know about entry?," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 13(4), pages 421-440, December.
    6. Battese, G E & Coelli, T J, 1995. "A Model for Technical Inefficiency Effects in a Stochastic Frontier Production Function for Panel Data," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 20(2), pages 325-332.
    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


    Cited by:

    1. Vladimír Holý & Karel Šafr, 2018. "Are economically advanced countries more efficient in basic and applied research?," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 26(4), pages 933-950, December.
    2. Xie, Luqun & Zhou, Jieyu & Zong, Qingqing & Lu, Qian, 2020. "Gender diversity in R&D teams and innovation efficiency: Role of the innovation context," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(1).
    3. Vitor Miguel Ribeiro & Celeste Varum & Ana Dias Daniel, 2021. "Introducing microeconomic foundation in data envelopment analysis: effects of the ex ante regulation principle on regional performance," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 12(3), pages 1215-1244, September.
    4. Bengoa, Marta & Román, Valeriano Martínez-San & Pérez, Patricio, 2017. "Do R&D activities matter for productivity? A regional spatial approach assessing the role of human and social capital," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 448-461.
    5. Uluc Aysun & Zeynep Yom, 2021. "R&D Characteristics, Innovation Spillover, and Technology-Driven Business Cycles," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 21(3), pages 339-365, September.
    6. Cullmann, Astrid & Zloczysti, Petra, 2013. "Towards an Efficient Use of R&D ? Accounting for Heterogeneity in the OECD," CEPR Discussion Papers 9345, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    7. Kyriakos Drivas & Claire Economidou & Efthymios G. Tsionas, 2018. "Production of output and ideas: efficiency and growth patterns in the United States," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 52(1), pages 105-118, January.
    8. Xionghe Qin & Debin Du & Mei-Po Kwan, 2019. "Spatial spillovers and value chain spillovers: evaluating regional R&D efficiency and its spillover effects in China," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 119(2), pages 721-747, May.
    9. Sungmin Park, 2015. "The R&D logic model: Does it really work? An empirical verification using successive binary logistic regression models," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 105(3), pages 1399-1439, December.
    10. Cai, Yuezhou & Hanley, Aoife, 2012. "Building BRICS: 2-Stage DEA analysis of R&D efficiency," Kiel Working Papers 1788, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    11. Siran Fang & Xiaoshan Xue & Ge Yin & Hong Fang & Jialin Li & Yongnian Zhang, 2020. "Evaluation and Improvement of Technological Innovation Efficiency of New Energy Vehicle Enterprises in China Based on DEA-Tobit Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(18), pages 1-22, September.
    12. Alessandro Fiorini, 2016. "Technical efficiency in a technological innovation system perspective: The case of bioenergy technologies R&D resources mobilisation in a sample from EU-28," ECONOMICS AND POLICY OF ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2016(2), pages 107-127.
    13. Ron Boschma & Simona Iammarino & Raffaele Paci & Jordy Suriñach & Corinne Autant-Bernard & Sylvie Chalaye & Elisa Gagliardini & Stefano Usai, 2017. "European Knowledge Neighbourhood: Knowledge Production in EU Neighbouring Countries and Intensity of the Relationship with EU Countries," Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, Royal Dutch Geographical Society KNAG, vol. 108(1), pages 52-75, February.
    14. Wang, Qunwei & Hang, Ye & Sun, Licheng & Zhao, Zengyao, 2016. "Two-stage innovation efficiency of new energy enterprises in China: A non-radial DEA approach," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 254-261.
    15. Massimo Filippini & Lin Zhang, 2013. "Measurement of the “Underlying energy efficiency” in Chinese provinces," CER-ETH Economics working paper series 13/183, CER-ETH - Center of Economic Research (CER-ETH) at ETH Zurich.
    16. Holý, Vladimír, 2024. "Ranking-based second stage in data envelopment analysis: An application to research efficiency in higher education," Operations Research Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 12(C).

    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. Wang, Eric C., 2007. "R&D efficiency and economic performance: A cross-country analysis using the stochastic frontier approach," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 345-360.
    2. Kamilia Loukil, 2016. "Innovation Policy and R&D Efficiency in Emerging Countries: a Stochastic Frontier Analysis," Eastern European Business and Economics Journal, Eastern European Business and Economics Studies Centre, vol. 2(3), pages 165-192.
    3. Eric Bartelsman & Andrea Bassanini & John Haltiwanger & Ron Jarmin & Stefano Scarpetta & Thorsten Schank, 2002. "The Spread of ICT and Productivity Growth: Is Europe Really Lagging Behind in the New Economy?," CEPN Working Papers halshs-00289168, HAL.
    4. Petros Gkotsis & Antonio Vezzani, 2019. "Heterogeneity of technology-specific R&D investments. Evidence from top R&D investors worldwide," JRC Working Papers on Corporate R&D and Innovation 2018-04, Joint Research Centre.
    5. Franz R. Hahn, 2007. "Determinants of Bank Efficiency in Europe. Assessing Bank Performance Across Markets," WIFO Studies, WIFO, number 31499, June.
    6. Aiello, Francesco & Albanese, Giuseppe & Piselli, Paolo, 2019. "Good value for public money? The case of R&D policy," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 41(6), pages 1057-1076.
    7. de Rassenfosse, Gaétan & Schoen, Anja & Wastyn, Annelies, 2014. "Selection bias in innovation studies: A simple test," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 287-299.
    8. Simar, Leopold & Wilson, Paul W., 2007. "Estimation and inference in two-stage, semi-parametric models of production processes," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 136(1), pages 31-64, January.
    9. Rajshree Agarwal & Barry L. Bayus, 2002. "The Market Evolution and Sales Takeoff of Product Innovations," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 48(8), pages 1024-1041, August.
    10. Stavins, Robert & Jaffe, Adam & Newell, Richard, 2000. "Technological Change and the Environment," Working Paper Series rwp00-002, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    11. Boeing, Philipp & Eberle, Jonathan & Howell, Anthony, 2022. "The impact of China's R&D subsidies on R&D investment, technological upgrading and economic growth," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 174(C).
    12. Tom Broekel & Lars Mewes, 2017. "Analyzing the impact of R&D policy on regional diversification," Papers in Evolutionary Economic Geography (PEEG) 1726, Utrecht University, Department of Human Geography and Spatial Planning, Group Economic Geography, revised Sep 2017.
    13. Nicola Lacetera, 2003. "Incentives and spillovers in R&D activities: an agency-theoretic analysis of industry-university relations," Microeconomics 0312004, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Dirk Czarnitzki & Cindy Lopes-Bento, 2014. "Innovation Subsidies: Does the Funding Source Matter for Innovation Intensity and Performance? Empirical Evidence from Germany," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(5), pages 380-409, July.
    15. Dirk Czarnitzki & Julie Delanote, 2017. "Incorporating innovation subsidies in the CDM framework: empirical evidence from Belgium," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(1-2), pages 78-92, February.
    16. Dirk Czarnitzki & Julie Delanote, 2015. "R&D policies for young SMEs: input and output effects," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 45(3), pages 465-485, October.
    17. Ugur, Mehmet & Trushin, Eshref, 2018. "Asymmetric information and heterogeneous effects of R&D subsidies: evidence on R&D investment and employment of R&D personel," Greenwich Papers in Political Economy 21943, University of Greenwich, Greenwich Political Economy Research Centre.
    18. de Rassenfosse, Gaétan & Dernis, Hélène & Guellec, Dominique & Picci, Lucio & van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, Bruno, 2013. "The worldwide count of priority patents: A new indicator of inventive activity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(3), pages 720-737.
    19. Lars Mewes & Tom Broekel, 2020. "Subsidized to change? The impact of R&D policy on regional technological diversification," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 65(1), pages 221-252, August.
    20. Cristian Barra & Nazzareno Ruggiero, 2022. "How do dimensions of institutional quality improve Italian regional innovation system efficiency? The Knowledge production function using SFA," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 32(2), pages 591-642, April.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • C14 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General - - - Semiparametric and Nonparametric Methods: General
    • C24 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Single Equation Models; Single Variables - - - Truncated and Censored Models; Switching Regression Models; Threshold Regression Models
    • L50 - Industrial Organization - - Regulation and Industrial Policy - - - General
    • O31 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives
    • O57 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economywide Country Studies - - - Comparative Studies of Countries

    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:oup:oxecpp:v:64:y:2012:i:1:p:176-196. 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/oep .

    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.