IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/2205.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Firm Size and R&D Intensity: A Re-Examination

Author

Listed:
  • Wesley M. Cohen
  • Richard C. Levin
  • David C. Mowery

Abstract

Using data from the Federal Trade Commission's Line of Business Program and survey measures of technological opportunity and appropriability conditions, this paper finds that overall firm size has a very small, statistically in- significant effect on business unit R & D intensity when either fixed industry effects or measured industry characteristics are taken into account. Business unit size has no effect on the R & D intensity of business units that perform R & D, but it affects the probability of conducting R & D. Business unit and firm size jointly explain less than one per cent of the variance in R & D intensity; industry effects explain nearly half the variance.

Suggested Citation

  • Wesley M. Cohen & Richard C. Levin & David C. Mowery, 1987. "Firm Size and R&D Intensity: A Re-Examination," NBER Working Papers 2205, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    • Handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:2205
    Note: PR
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w2205.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jacques Cremer & Marvin A. Sirbu JR, 1978. "Une analyse économétrique de l'effort de recherche et développement de l'industrie française," Revue Économique, Programme National Persée, vol. 29(5), pages 940-957.
    2. Harvey, A C, 1976. "Estimating Regression Models with Multiplicative Heteroscedasticity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 44(3), pages 461-465, May.
    3. John Bound & Clint Cummins & Zvi Griliches & Bronwyn H. Hall & Adam B. Jaffe, 1984. "Who Does R&D and Who Patents?," NBER Chapters, in: R&D, Patents, and Productivity, pages 21-54, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Fisher, Franklin M & Temin, Peter, 1973. "Returns to Scale in Research and Development: What Does the Schumpeterian Hypothesis Imply ?," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 81(1), pages 56-70, Jan.-Feb..
    5. Gary Chamberlain, 1980. "Analysis of Covariance with Qualitative Data," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 47(1), pages 225-238.
    6. James Tobin, 1956. "Estimation of Relationships for Limited Dependent Variables," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 3R, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
    7. Zvi Griliches, 1984. "R&D, Patents, and Productivity," NBER Books, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, number gril84-1, May.
    8. McDonald, John F & Moffitt, Robert A, 1980. "The Uses of Tobit Analysis," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 62(2), pages 318-321, May.
    9. Kamien,Morton I. & Schwartz,Nancy L., 1982. "Market Structure and Innovation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521293853, December.
    10. Levin, Richard C & Cohen, Wesley M & Mowery, David C, 1985. "R&D Appropriability, Opportunity, and Market Structure: New Evidence on Some Schumpeterian Hypotheses," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 75(2), pages 20-24, May.
    11. John Scott, 1984. "Firm versus Industry Variability in R&D Intensity," NBER Chapters, in: R&D, Patents, and Productivity, pages 233-248, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    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. Cuervo-Cazurra, Alvaro & Un, C. Annique, 2007. "Regional economic integration and R&D investment," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 227-246, March.
    2. Cohen, Wesley M., 2010. "Fifty Years of Empirical Studies of Innovative Activity and Performance," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 129-213, Elsevier.
    3. Tang, Jianmin, 2006. "Competition and innovation behaviour," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 68-82, February.
    4. Mohieddine Rahmouni & Murat Yildizoglu, 2011. "Motivations and determinants of technological innovations. A theoretical survey (In French)," Cahiers du GREThA (2007-2019) 2011-10, Groupe de Recherche en Economie Théorique et Appliquée (GREThA).
    5. William Griffiths & Elizabeth Webster, 2009. "What Governs Firm-Level R&D: Internal or External Factors?," Melbourne Institute Working Paper Series wp2009n13, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, The University of Melbourne.
    6. Ester Martínez Ros & Vicente Salas Fumás, "undated". "The effect of innovation activity on innovating quasi-rents: an empirical application," Studies on the Spanish Economy 03, FEDEA.
    7. Konstantinos Konstantakis & Panayotis G. Michaelides & Theofanis Papageorgiou, 2014. "Sector size, technical change and stability in the USA (1957-2006): a Schumpeterian approach," International Journal of Social Economics, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 41(10), pages 956-974, October.
    8. Karbowski Adam, 2016. "The Elasticity-Based Approach to Enterprise Innovation," International Journal of Management and Economics, Warsaw School of Economics, Collegium of World Economy, vol. 49(1), pages 58-78, March.
    9. Chia Lin, CHANG & Stephane, ROBIN, 2004. "Doing R&D and Importing Technology : an Empirical Investigation on Taiwan’s manufacturing firms," LIDAM Discussion Papers IRES 2004006, Université catholique de Louvain, Institut de Recherches Economiques et Sociales (IRES).
    10. Martínez Ros, Ester, 1998. "Explaining the decisions to carry out product and process innovations: the Spanish case," DEE - Working Papers. Business Economics. WB 6525, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid. Departamento de Economía de la Empresa.
    11. Anne Marie Knott & Hart E. Posen, 2009. "Firm R&D Behavior and Evolving Technology in Established Industries," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(2), pages 352-367, April.
    12. Waheed, Abdul, 2011. "Size, competition, and innovative activities: a developing world perspective," MERIT Working Papers 2011-052, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    13. Un, C. Annique & Cuervo-Cazurra, Alvaro, 2008. "Do subsidiaries of foreign MNEs invest more in R&D than domestic firms?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(10), pages 1812-1828, December.
    14. 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.
    15. Michael L. Katz & Howard A. Shelanski, 2005. "Merger Policy and Innovation: Must Enforcement Change to Account for Technological Change?," NBER Chapters, in: Innovation Policy and the Economy, Volume 5, pages 109-165, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    16. Veugelers, Reinhilde, 1997. "Internal R & D expenditures and external technology sourcing," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 303-315, October.
    17. Kornelius Kraft & Jörg Stank & Ralf Dewenter, 2011. "Co-determination and innovation," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 35(1), pages 145-172.
    18. Ufuk Akcigit, 2009. "Firm Size, Innovation Dynamics and Growth," 2009 Meeting Papers 1267, Society for Economic Dynamics.
    19. Coad, Alex, 2019. "Persistent heterogeneity of R&D intensities within sectors: Evidence and policy implications," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 37-50.
    20. Hai Wu & Anne-Maree Thomas & Sue Wright, 2020. "Using the R&D capitalisation choice to explain the scale benefits of R&D investment," Australian Journal of Management, Australian School of Business, vol. 45(4), pages 579-606, November.

    More about this item

    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:nbr:nberwo:2205. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/nberrus.html .

    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.