IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/tpr/restat/v92y2010i3p495-504.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Persistence of Innovation in Dutch Manufacturing: Is It Spurious?

Author

Listed:
  • Wladimir Raymond

    (University of Maastricht)

  • Pierre Mohnen

    (University of Maastricht, UNU-MERIT and CIRANO)

  • Franz Palm

    (University of Maastricht and CESifo)

  • Sybrand Schim van der Loeff

    (University of Maastricht)

Abstract

This paper studies the persistence of innovation in Dutch manufacturing using an unbalanced panel of firm data from four waves of the Community Innovation Survey between 1994 and 2002. We estimate by maximum likelihood a dynamic type 2 tobit model accounting for individual effects and handling the initial conditions problem. We find true persistence in the probability of innovating in the high-tech category of industries and spurious persistence in the low-tech category. Furthermore, past innovation output intensity affects, albeit to a small extent, current innovation output intensity in the high-tech category, while no such evidence is found in the low-tech category. © 2010 The President and Fellows of Harvard College and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Suggested Citation

  • Wladimir Raymond & Pierre Mohnen & Franz Palm & Sybrand Schim van der Loeff, 2010. "Persistence of Innovation in Dutch Manufacturing: Is It Spurious?," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 92(3), pages 495-504, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:tpr:restat:v:92:y:2010:i:3:p:495-504
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/REST_a_00004
    File Function: link to full text
    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. Cefis, Elena & Orsenigo, Luigi, 2001. "The persistence of innovative activities: A cross-countries and cross-sectors comparative analysis," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(7), pages 1139-1158, August.
    2. Jeffrey M. Wooldridge, 2005. "Simple solutions to the initial conditions problem in dynamic, nonlinear panel data models with unobserved heterogeneity," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(1), pages 39-54, January.
    3. Bettina Peters, 2009. "Persistence of innovation: stylised facts and panel data evidence," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 34(2), pages 226-243, April.
    4. 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.
    5. repec:fth:harver:1473 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Peters, Bettina & Lööf, Hans & Janz, Norbert, 2003. "Firm Level Innovation and Productivity: Is there a Common Story Across Countries?," ZEW Discussion Papers 03-26, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. Bruno Crepon & Emmanuel Duguet & Jacques Mairesse, 1998. "Research, Innovation And Productivity: An Econometric Analysis At The Firm Level," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 7(2), pages 115-158.
    10. Amemiya, Takeshi, 1984. "Tobit models: A survey," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 24(1-2), pages 3-61.
    11. Ekaterini Kyriazidou, 2001. "Estimation of Dynamic Panel Data Sample Selection Models," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 68(3), pages 543-572.
    12. Ahn, Seung C. & Schmidt, Peter, 1995. "Efficient estimation of models for dynamic panel data," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 68(1), pages 5-27, July.
    13. Geroski, Paul A, 1989. "Entry, Innovation and Productivity Growth," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 71(4), pages 572-578, November.
    14. Crepon, Bruno & Duguet, Emmanuel, 1997. "Estimating the Innovation Function from Patent Numbers: GMM on Count Panel Data," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(3), pages 243-263, May-June.
    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. Luuk Klomp & George Van Leeuwen, 2001. "Linking Innovation and Firm Performance: A New Approach," International Journal of the Economics of Business, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(3), pages 343-364.
    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. Bettina Peters, 2009. "Persistence of innovation: stylised facts and panel data evidence," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 34(2), pages 226-243, April.
    2. Wladimir Raymond & Pierre Mohnen & Franz Palm & Sybrand Schim van der Loeff, 2009. "Innovative Sales, R&D and Total Innovation Expenditures: Panel Evidence on their Dynamics," CESifo Working Paper Series 2716, CESifo.
    3. Mañez, J.A. & Love, J.H., 2020. "Quantifying sunk costs and learning effects in R&D persistence," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(7).
    4. Mairesse, Jacques & Mohnen, Pierre, 2010. "Using Innovation Surveys for Econometric Analysis," 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 1129-1155, Elsevier.
    5. Juan Máñez & María Rochina-Barrachina & Amparo Sanchis-Llopis & Juan Sanchis-Llopis, 2015. "The determinants of R&D persistence in SMEs," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 44(3), pages 505-528, March.
    6. 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).
    7. Cefis, Elena & Marsili, Orietta, 2015. "Crossing the innovation threshold through mergers and acquisitions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(3), pages 698-710.
    8. Pere Arqué-Castells, 2013. "Persistence in R&D Performance and its Implications for the Granting of Subsidies," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 43(3), pages 193-220, November.
    9. Cappelen, Ådne & Raknerud, Arvid & Rybalka, Marina, 2012. "The effects of R&D tax credits on patenting and innovations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 334-345.
    10. Triguero, Ángela & Córcoles, David, 2013. "Understanding innovation: An analysis of persistence for Spanish manufacturing firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(2), pages 340-352.
    11. Labeaga, José M. & Martínez-Ros, Ester & Sanchis, Amparo & Sanchis, Juan A., 2021. "Does persistence in using R&D tax credits help to achieve product innovations?," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    12. Bettina Peters & Christian Rammer, 2013. "Innovation panel surveys in Germany," Chapters, in: Fred Gault (ed.), Handbook of Innovation Indicators and Measurement, chapter 6, pages 135-177, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    13. Tavassoli, Sam & Karlsson, Charlie, 2015. "Persistence of various types of innovation analyzed and explained," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(10), pages 1887-1901.
    14. Raymond, Wladimir & Mairesse, Jacques & Mohnen, Pierre & Palm, Franz, 2015. "Dynamic models of R & D, innovation and productivity: Panel data evidence for Dutch and French manufacturing," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 285-306.
    15. Marco Capasso & Tania Treibich & Bart Verspagen, 2015. "The medium-term effect of R&D on firm growth," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 45(1), pages 39-62, June.
    16. Bronwyn Hall & Francesca Lotti & Jacques Mairesse, 2009. "Innovation and productivity in SMEs: empirical evidence for Italy," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 33(1), pages 13-33, June.
    17. Davide Antonioli & Sandro Montresor, 2021. "Innovation persistence in times of crisis: an analysis of Italian firms," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 56(4), pages 1739-1764, April.
    18. Anna Laura Baraldi & Claudia Cantabene & Giulio Perani, 2014. "Reverse causality in the R&D-patents relationship: an interpretation of the innovation persistence," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(3), pages 304-326, April.
    19. Elena Huergo & Lourdes Moreno, 2011. "Does history matter for the relationship between R&D, innovation, and productivity?," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, vol. 20(5), pages 1335-1368, October.
    20. Mulkay, Benoît, 2019. "How does competition affect innovation behaviour in french firms?," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 237-251.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • C33 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Multiple or Simultaneous Equation Models; Multiple Variables - - - Models with Panel Data; Spatio-temporal Models
    • C34 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Multiple or Simultaneous Equation Models; Multiple Variables - - - Truncated and Censored Models; Switching Regression Models
    • O31 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives

    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:tpr:restat:v:92:y:2010:i:3:p:495-504. 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: . General contact details of provider: https://direct.mit.edu/journals .

    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: Ann Olson (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://direct.mit.edu/journals .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.