IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ivi/wpasec/2009-12.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Do process innovations boost SMEs productivity growth?

Author

Listed:
  • Juan Antonio Máñez Castillejo

    () (Universitat de València)

  • Amparo Sanchis Llopis

    (Universitat de València)

  • Juan A. Sanchis Llopis

    (Universitat de València)

  • María Engracia Rochina Barrachina

    (Universitat de València)

Abstract

In this paper we explore in depth the effect of process innovations on total factor productivity growth for small and medium enterprises (SMEs), taking into account the potential endogeneity problem that may be caused by self selection into these activities. First, we analyse whether the ex-ante most productive SMEs are those that start introducing process innovations; then, we test whether process innovations boost SMEs productivity growth using matching techniques to control for the possibility that selection into introducing process innovations may not be a random process. We use a sample of Spanish manufacturing SMEs for the period 1991-2002, drawn from the Encuesta sobre Estrategias Empresariales. Our results show that the introduction of process innovations by a first-time process innovator yields an extra productivity growth as compared to a non-process innovator, and that the life span of this extra productivity growth has an inverted U-shaped form. En este artículo se exploran los posibles efectos de la introducción de innovaciones de proceso en el crecimiento de la productividad de las pequeñas y medianas empresas (PYMES). Para ello se presta especial atención a la existencia de un problema de selección no aleatorio en la implementación de tales innovaciones. En primer lugar, se analiza si son aquellas empresas ex-ante más productivas las que introducen innovaciones de proceso. A continuación, se utilizan técnicas de matching para contrastar si la implementación de innovaciones de proceso acelera el crecimiento de la productividad de las PYMES. La utilización de técnicas de matching permite controlar la posible existencia de un proceso de selección no aleatorio en la implementación de innovaciones de proceso. El análisis empírico se lleva cabo usando una muestra de PYMES manufactureras españolas extraída de la Encuesta sobre Estrategias Empresariales. Nuestros resultados muestran que la implementación de innovaciones de proceso por parte de PYMES sin experiencia previa en la introducción de tales innovaciones, produce un crecimiento extra de la productividad de estas PYMES en comparación con el de aquellas PYMES que no implementan innovaciones de proceso. Adicionalmente, nuestros resultados sugieren la existencia de una relación en forma de U invertida entre el crecimiento extra de la productividad y el tiempo transcurrido desde la introducción de la innovación de proceso.

Suggested Citation

  • Juan Antonio Máñez Castillejo & Amparo Sanchis Llopis & Juan A. Sanchis Llopis & María Engracia Rochina Barrachina, 2009. "Do process innovations boost SMEs productivity growth?," Working Papers. Serie EC 2009-12, Instituto Valenciano de Investigaciones Económicas, S.A. (Ivie).
  • Handle: RePEc:ivi:wpasec:2009-12
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.ivie.es/downloads/docs/wpasec/wpasec-2009-12.pdf
    File Function: Fisrt version / Primera version, 2009
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lee, Chang-Yang & Sung, Taeyoon, 2005. "Schumpeter's legacy: A new perspective on the relationship between firm size and R&D," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(6), pages 914-931, August.
    2. Bronwyn Hall, 2004. "The financing of research and development," Chapters,in: Financial Systems, Corporate Investment in Innovation, and Venture Capital, chapter 2 Edward Elgar Publishing.
    3. Crepon, B. & Duguet, E. & Mairesse, J., 1998. "Research Investment, Innovation and Productivity: An Econometric Analysis at the Firm Level," Papiers d'Economie Mathématique et Applications 98.15, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1).
    4. Aghion, Philippe & Howitt, Peter, 1992. "A Model of Growth through Creative Destruction," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 60(2), pages 323-351, March.
    5. Andrea Ichino & Fabrizia Mealli & Tommaso Nannicini, 2008. "From temporary help jobs to permanent employment: what can we learn from matching estimators and their sensitivity?," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 23(3), pages 305-327.
    6. Sascha Becker & Peter Egger, 2013. "Endogenous product versus process innovation and a firm’s propensity to export," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 44(1), pages 329-354, February.
    7. Marcos Vera-Hernández & Aida Galiano Martínez, 2008. "Health shocks, household consumption, and child nutrition," Working Papers. Serie EC 2008-14, Instituto Valenciano de Investigaciones Económicas, S.A. (Ivie).
    8. Good, D. & Nadiri, M.I. & Sickles, R., 1996. "Index Number and Factor Demand Approaches to the Estimarion of Productivity," Working Papers 96-34, C.V. Starr Center for Applied Economics, New York University.
    9. Rachel Griffith & Elena Huergo & Jacques Mairesse & Bettina Peters, 2006. "Innovation and Productivity Across Four European Countries," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 22(4), pages 483-498, Winter.
    10. Tommaso Nannicini, 2007. "Simulation-based sensitivity analysis for matching estimators," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 7(3), pages 334-350, September.
    11. Caves, Douglas W & Christensen, Laurits R & Diewert, W Erwin, 1982. "Multilateral Comparisons of Output, Input, and Productivity Using Superlative Index Numbers," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 92(365), pages 73-86, March.
    12. Romer, Paul M, 1990. "Endogenous Technological Change," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 98(5), pages 71-102, October.
    13. Jacques Mairesse & Pierre Mohnen, 2005. "The Importance of R&D for Innovation: A Reassessment Using French Survey Data," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 30(2_2), pages 183-197, January.
    14. Davies, Stephen W., 1979. "Inter-firm diffusion of process innovations," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 12(4), pages 299-317, October.
    15. Alberto Abadie & Guido W. Imbens, 2008. "On the Failure of the Bootstrap for Matching Estimators," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 76(6), pages 1537-1557, November.
    16. Francisco José Goerlich Gisbert & Rafael Pinilla Pallejà, 2009. "Esperanzas de vida libres de discapacidad por sexo y comunidad autónoma: 2004-2006," Working Papers. Serie EC 2009-13, Instituto Valenciano de Investigaciones Económicas, S.A. (Ivie).
    17. Juan A. Máñez & María E. Rochina-Barrachina & Amparo Sanchis & Juan A. Sanchis, 2009. "THE ROLE OF SUNK COSTS IN THE DECISION TO INVEST IN R&D -super-," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 57(4), pages 712-735, December.
    18. Dasgupta, Partha & Stiglitz, Joseph, 1980. "Industrial Structure and the Nature of Innovative Activity," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 90(358), pages 266-293, June.
    19. repec:adr:anecst:y:1998:i:49-50:p:15 is not listed on IDEAS
    20. Alberto Abadie & David Drukker & Jane Leber Herr & Guido W. Imbens, 2004. "Implementing matching estimators for average treatment effects in Stata," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 4(3), pages 290-311, September.
    21. Huergo, Elena & Jaumandreu, Jordi, 2004. "Firms' age, process innovation and productivity growth," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 22(4), pages 541-559, April.
    22. Smolny, Werner, 1998. "Innovations, Prices and Employment: A Theoretical Model and an Empirical Application for West German Manufacturing Firms," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(3), pages 359-381, September.
    23. Zoltan Acs & David Audretsch, 1990. "Innovation and Small Firms," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262011131, November.
    24. Bartel, Ann P & Lichtenberg, Frank R, 1987. "The Comparative Advantage of Educated Workers in Implementing New Technology," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 69(1), pages 1-11, February.
    25. Barbara Sianesi, 2004. "An Evaluation of the Swedish System of Active Labor Market Programs in the 1990s," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 86(1), pages 133-155, February.
    26. Russell Davidson & Jean-Yves Duclos, 2000. "Statistical Inference for Stochastic Dominance and for the Measurement of Poverty and Inequality," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 68(6), pages 1435-1464, November.
    27. Pakes, Ariel & Ericson, Richard, 1998. "Empirical Implications of Alternative Models of Firm Dynamics," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 79(1), pages 1-45, March.
    28. 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.
    29. Xulia Gonz·lez & Jordi Jaumandreu, "undated". "Threshold effects in product R&D decisions: theoretical framework and empirical analysis," Studies on the Spanish Economy 78, FEDEA.
    30. Pavitt, Keith & Robson, Michael & Townsend, Joe, 1987. "The Size Distribution of Innovating Firms in the UK: 1945-1983," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(3), pages 297-316, March.
    31. Cohen, Wesley M & Klepper, Steven, 1996. "Firm Size and the Nature of Innovation within Industries: The Case of Process and Product R&D," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 78(2), pages 232-243, May.
    32. repec:crs:wpaper:9833 is not listed on IDEAS
    33. María Rochina-Barrachina & Juan Mañez & Juan Sanchis-Llopis, 2010. "Process innovations and firm productivity growth," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 34(2), pages 147-166, February.
    34. Edwin Leuven & Barbara Sianesi, 2003. "PSMATCH2: Stata module to perform full Mahalanobis and propensity score matching, common support graphing, and covariate imbalance testing," Statistical Software Components S432001, Boston College Department of Economics, revised 01 Feb 2018.
    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. Hidemichi Fujii & Kazuma Edamura & Koichi Sumikura & Yoko Furusawa & Naomi Fukuzawa & Shunsuke Managi, 2015. "How enterprise strategies are related to innovation and productivity change: an empirical study of Japanese manufacturing firms," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(3), pages 248-262, April.
    2. Lin, Chia-Ling & Lin, Hui-Lin & Lin, Eric S., 2016. "Is There A Complementary Relationship Between Product And Process Innovation On Productivity In Taiwanese Manufacturing Firms?," Hitotsubashi Journal of Economics, Hitotsubashi University, vol. 57(2), pages 139-173, December.
    3. repec:oup:oxecpp:v:69:y:2017:i:4:p:1032-1053. is not listed on IDEAS

    More about this item

    Keywords

    innovaciones de proceso; PTF; dominancia estocástica; técnicas de matching. process innovations; TFP; stochastic dominance; matching techniques.;

    JEL classification:

    • C12 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General - - - Hypothesis Testing: General
    • C14 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General - - - Semiparametric and Nonparametric Methods: General
    • D2 - Microeconomics - - Production and Organizations
    • D24 - Microeconomics - - Production and Organizations - - - Production; Cost; Capital; Capital, Total Factor, and Multifactor Productivity; Capacity
    • L6 - Industrial Organization - - Industry Studies: Manufacturing
    • O3 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights
    • L26 - Industrial Organization - - Firm Objectives, Organization, and Behavior - - - Entrepreneurship

    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:ivi:wpasec:2009-12. 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: (Departamento de Edición). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/ievages.html .

    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 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.

    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.