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

Is innovation persistent at the firm Level . An econometric examination comparing the propensity score and regression methods

At the macroeconomic level, the persistence of technological change allows sustainable growth. But do the innovations come from the same set of firms or from a continuous renewal of innovators? On this point, the assumptions underlying the endogenous growth models differ and innovation persistence at the macroeconomic level can be supported by different firm-level behavioural assumptions. The aim of this article is threefold. Firstly, we evaluate a measure of the degree of innovation persistence at the firm level. Secondly, we analyze the factors underpinning the innovation persistence by testing the theoretical explanations that have been proposed in the literature. Lastly, we examine the robustness of the standard econometric methods used in innovation economics. We show that the persistence of innovation is strong at the firm level and that the right theoretical modelling depends on the size of the firm. While the small firms reveals strong learning-by-doing effects in the production of innovation, the persistence of innovation in the large firms relies on the persistence of formal research and development investments.

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: ftp://mse.univ-paris1.fr/pub/mse/cahiers2004/V04075.pdf
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1) in its series Cahiers de la Maison des Sciences Economiques with number v04075.

as
in new window

Length: 36 pages
Date of creation: Jul 2004
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:mse:wpsorb:v04075
Contact details of provider: Postal: 106 - 112 boulevard de l'Hôpital, 75647 Paris cedex 13
Phone: 01 44 07 81 00
Fax: 01 44 07 81 09
Web page: http://mse.univ-paris1.fr/
Email:


More information through EDIRC

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. Reinganum, Jennifer R., 1982. "Uncertain Innovation and the Persistence of Monopoly," Working Papers 431, California Institute of Technology, Division of the Humanities and Social Sciences.
  2. Emmanuel Duguet & Megan MacGarvie, 2005. "How well do patent citations measure flows of technology? Evidence from French innovation surveys," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(5), pages 375-393.
  3. Audretsch, David B. & Elston, Julie Ann, 2000. "Does firm size matter? Evidence on the impact of liquidity constraint on firm investment behavior in Germany," HWWA Discussion Papers 113, Hamburg Institute of International Economics (HWWA).
  4. Paul M Romer, 1999. "Endogenous Technological Change," Levine's Working Paper Archive 2135, David K. Levine.
  5. Heckman, James J & Ichimura, Hidehiko & Todd, Petra E, 1997. "Matching as an Econometric Evaluation Estimator: Evidence from Evaluating a Job Training Programme," Review of Economic Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 64(4), pages 605-54, October.
  6. Rajeev H. Dehejia & Sadek Wahba, 1998. "Causal Effects in Non-Experimental Studies: Re-Evaluating the Evaluation of Training Programs," NBER Working Papers 6586, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  7. 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.
  8. Rebecca Henderson & Iain Cockburn, 1996. "Scale, Scope, and Spillovers: The Determinants of Research Productivity in Drug Discovery," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 27(1), pages 32-59, Spring.
  9. Aghion, Philippe & Harris, Christopher & Vickers, John, 1997. "Competition and growth with step-by-step innovation: An example," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 41(3-5), pages 771-782, April.
  10. 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.
  11. David Encaoua & Abraham Hollander, 2002. "Competition Policy and Innovation," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) halshs-00185360, HAL.
  12. repec:fth:harver:1473 is not listed on IDEAS
  13. White, Halbert, 1980. "A Heteroskedasticity-Consistent Covariance Matrix Estimator and a Direct Test for Heteroskedasticity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 48(4), pages 817-38, May.
  14. David Encaoua & David Ulph, 2005. "Catching-up or Leapfrogging: The effects of competition on innovation and growth," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) halshs-00177643, HAL.
  15. 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.
  16. Hall, Bronwyn H., 1992. "Investment and Research and Development at the Firm Level: Does the Source of Financing Matter?," Department of Economics, Working Paper Series qt5j59j6x3, Department of Economics, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
  17. Cohen, Wesley M & Klepper, Steven, 1996. "A Reprise of Size and R&D," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 106(437), pages 925-51, July.
  18. Arundel, Anthony & Kabla, Isabelle, 1998. "What percentage of innovations are patented? empirical estimates for European firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 127-141, June.
  19. Gilbert, Richard J & Newbery, David M G, 1982. "Preemptive Patenting and the Persistence of Monopoly," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 72(3), pages 514-26, June.
  20. Duguet, Emmanuel & StÈphanie Monjon, 2002. "Creative Destruction and Innovative Core: Is Innovation Persistent at the Firm Level? An empirical reexamination from CIS data comparing the propensity score and regression methods," Royal Economic Society Annual Conference 2002 68, Royal Economic Society.
  21. Cohen, Wesley M. & Levin, Richard C., 1989. "Empirical studies of innovation and market structure," Handbook of Industrial Organization, in: R. Schmalensee & R. Willig (ed.), Handbook of Industrial Organization, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 18, pages 1059-1107 Elsevier.
  22. 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.
  23. 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 243-63, May-June.
  24. Gruber, Harald, 1992. "Persistence of Leadership in Product Innovation," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 40(4), pages 359-75, December.
  25. Henry Chesbrough, 1999. "Arrested development: the experience of European hard disk drive firms in comparison with US and Japanese firms," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 9(3), pages 287-329.
  26. Kenneth Arrow, 1962. "Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention," NBER Chapters, in: The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors, pages 609-626 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  27. Hall, Bronwyn & Van Reenen, John, 2000. "How effective are fiscal incentives for R&D? A review of the evidence," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(4-5), pages 449-469, April.
  28. Stein, Jeremy C, 1997. "Waves of Creative Destruction: Firm-Specific Learning-by-Doing and the Dynamics of Innovation," Review of Economic Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 64(2), pages 265-88, April.
  29. Corinne BARLET & Emmanuel DUGUET & David ENCAOUA & Jacqueline PRADEL, 1998. "The Commercial Success of Innovations: an Econometric Analysis at the Firm Lebel in French Manufacturing," Annales d'Economie et de Statistique, ENSAE, issue 49-50, pages 457-478.
  30. Geroski, Paul A & Samiei, Hossein & Van Reenen, John, 1996. "How Persistently do Firms Innovate?," CEPR Discussion Papers 1433, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  31. Arora, Ashish & Gambardella, Alfonso & Pammolli, Fabio & Riccaboni, Massimo, 2000. "The Nature and the Extent of the Market for Technology in Biopharmaceuticals," MPRA Paper 15977, University Library of Munich, Germany.
  32. Audretsch, David B & Elston, Julie Ann, 1994. "Does Firm Size Matter? Evidence on the Impacts of Liquidity Constraints on Firm Investment Behaviour in Germany," CEPR Discussion Papers 1072, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  33. Geroski, Paul A, 1989. "Entry, Innovation and Productivity Growth," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 71(4), pages 572-78, November.
  34. Aghion, Philippe & Howitt, Peter, 1992. "A Model of Growth Through Creative Destruction," Scholarly Articles 12490578, Harvard University Department of Economics.
  35. Nightingale, Paul, 2000. "Economies of Scale in Experimentation: Knowledge and Technology in Pharmaceutical R&D," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, vol. 9(2), pages 315-59, June.
  36. Crepon, B. & Duguet, E. & Kabla, I., 1995. "A Moderate Support to Schumpeterian Conjectures from Various Innovation Measures," Papiers d'Economie Mathématique et Applications 95.06, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1).
  37. Denicolo, Vincenzo, 2001. "Growth with non-drastic innovations and the persistence of leadership," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 45(8), pages 1399-1413, August.
  38. Emmanuel DUGUET & Isabelle KABLA, 1998. "Appropriation Strategy and the Motivations to Use the Patent System: An Econometric Analysis at the Firm Level in French Manufacturing," Annales d'Economie et de Statistique, ENSAE, issue 49-50, pages 289-327.
  39. 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 678-90, September.
  40. Hall, Bronwyn H & Griliches, Zvi & Hausman, Jerry A, 1986. "Patents and R and D: Is There a Lag?," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 27(2), pages 265-83, June.
  41. Donald W. K. Andrews & Moshe Buchinsky, 2000. "A Three-Step Method for Choosing the Number of Bootstrap Repetitions," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 68(1), pages 23-52, January.
  42. Kleinknecht, Alfred & Reijnen, Jeroen O. N., 1991. "More evidence on the undercounting of small firm R&D," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 20(6), pages 579-587, December.
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:mse:wpsorb:v04075. 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: (Lucie Label)

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.