IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

Technological Regimes and Firm Survival: Evidence across Sectors and over Time

Registered author(s):

    In addition to the usual variables representing firm- and industry-specific features that impact the firm’s survival, this paper uses three R&D related variables to reflect two Schumpeterian technological regimes: creative destruction (the entrepreneurial regime) and creative accumulation (the routinized regime). After controlling for age, size, entry barriers, capital intensity, the profit margin, the concentration ratio, the profit-cost ratio and entry rates, the empirical results confirm the theoretical relationship between technological regimes and the survival rate of new firms: new firms are more likely to survive under the entrepreneurial regime. Moreover, this effect is larger within the younger cohorts of firms than within the older ones.

    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:
    Download Restriction: no

    Paper provided by Institute of Economics, Academia Sinica, Taipei, Taiwan in its series IEAS Working Paper : academic research with number 06-A012.

    in new window

    Length: 22 pages
    Date of creation: Nov 2006
    Date of revision:
    Handle: RePEc:sin:wpaper:06-a012
    Contact details of provider: Phone: 886-2-27822791
    Fax: 886-2-27853946
    Web page:

    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. Geroski, P. A., 1995. "What do we know about entry?," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 13(4), pages 421-440, December.
    2. 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.
    3. Malerba, Franco & Orsenigo, Luigi, 1995. "Schumpeterian Patterns of Innovation," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 19(1), pages 47-65, February.
    4. Richard E. Caves, 1998. "Industrial Organization and New Findings on the Turnover and Mobility of Firms," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 36(4), pages 1947-1982, December.
    5. Richard Ericson & Ariel Pakes, 1995. "Markov-Perfect Industry Dynamics: A Framework for Empirical Work," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 62(1), pages 53-82.
    6. Pakes, A. & Ericson, R., 1990. "Empirical Implications Of Alternative Models Of Firm Dynamics," Papers 594, Yale - Economic Growth Center.
    7. Evans, David S., 1986. "Tests of Alternative Theories of Firm Growth," Working Papers 86-36, C.V. Starr Center for Applied Economics, New York University.
    8. Marco Vivarelli, 2004. "Are All the Potential Entrepreneurs So Good?," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 23(1), pages 41-49, 08.
    9. Francesca Lotti & Enrico Santarelli & Marco Vivarelli, 2003. "Does Gibrat's Law hold among young, small firms?," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 13(3), pages 213-235, August.
    10. Dunne, Paul & Hughes, Alan, 1994. "Age, Size, Growth and Survival: UK Companies in the 1980s," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 42(2), pages 115-40, June.
    11. Anthony Endres & Christine Woods, 2006. "Modern Theories of Entrepreneurial Behavior: A Comparison and Appraisal," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 26(2), pages 189-202, 03.
    12. Reid, Gavin C., 1991. "Staying in business," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 9(4), pages 545-556, December.
    13. Timothy Dunne & Mark J. Roberts & Larry Samuelson, 1989. "The Growth and Failure of U. S. Manufacturing Plants," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 104(4), pages 671-698.
    14. Hall, Bronwyn H, 1987. "The Relationship between Firm Size and Firm Growth in the U.S. Manufacturing Sector," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(4), pages 583-606, June.
    15. Bates, Timothy, 1990. "Entrepreneur Human Capital Inputs and Small Business Longevity," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 72(4), pages 551-59, November.
    16. Robert Cressy, 2006. "Why do Most Firms Die Young?," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 26(2), pages 103-116, 03.
    17. Winter, Sidney G., 1984. "Schumpeterian competition in alternative technological regimes," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 5(3-4), pages 287-320.
    18. Audretsch, David B. & Santarelli, Enrico & Vivarelli, Marco, 1999. "Start-up size and industrial dynamics: some evidence from Italian manufacturing," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 17(7), pages 965-983, October.
    19. Satu Nurmi, 2006. "Sectoral Differences in Plant Start-up Size in the Finnish Economy," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 26(1), pages 39-60, 02.
    20. Audretsch, David B., 1995. "Innovation, growth and survival," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 13(4), pages 441-457, December.
    21. Evans, David S, 1987. "The Relationship between Firm Growth, Size, and Age: Estimates for 100 Manufacturing Industries," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(4), pages 567-81, June.
    22. Cabral, Luís M B, 1997. "Entry Mistakes," CEPR Discussion Papers 1729, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    23. Tatsuyoshi Masuda, 2006. "The Determinants of Latent Entrepreneurship in Japan," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 26(3), pages 227-240, 04.
    24. van Dijk, Machiel, 2000. "Technological Regimes and Industrial Dynamics: The Evidence from Dutch Manufacturing," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, vol. 9(2), pages 173-94, June.
    25. Agarwal, Rajshree & Audretsch, David B., 1999. "The two views of small firms in industry dynamics: a reconciliation," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 62(2), pages 245-251, February.
    26. Foti, Alessandro & Vivarelli, Marco, 1994. " An Econometric Test of the Self-Employment Model: The Case of Italy," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 6(2), pages 81-93, April.
    27. Breschi, Stefano & Malerba, Franco & Orsenigo, Luigi, 2000. "Technological Regimes and Schumpeterian Patterns of Innovation," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 110(463), pages 388-410, April.
    28. Geroski, Paul A, 1989. "Entry, Innovation and Productivity Growth," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 71(4), pages 572-78, November.
    29. William Norton & William Moore, 2006. "The Influence of Entrepreneurial Risk Assessment on Venture Launch or Growth Decisions," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 26(3), pages 215-226, 04.
    30. Jovanovic, Boyan, 1982. "Selection and the Evolution of Industry," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(3), pages 649-70, May.
    31. Cabral, Luis, 1995. "Sunk Costs, Firm Size and Firm Growth," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(2), pages 161-72, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sin:wpaper:06-a012. 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: (HsiaoyunLiu)

    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.