IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/vfsc14/100412.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Governance, Firm Size and Innovative Capacity: Regional Empirical Evidence for Germany

Author

Listed:
  • Jahn, Vera
  • Berlemann, Michael

Abstract

Successful innovation is a precondition for economic prosperity. While various potential determinants of innovative activity have been considered, little empirical evidence is yet available for the influence of firm governance issues. This paper aims at filling this gap in the literature by studying whether the relative importance of owner-managed small and medium sized enterprises has an effect on regional innovative capacity. We therefore combine patent data with data from the firm database of Creditreform, containing information on the governance structure of regional operating enterprises. Using a cross section of German NUTS-3-regions, we identify a significantly positive relation between the relative importance of owner-managed SMEs and innovative capacity. This finding is highly robust when controlling for various sorts of spatial correlation.

Suggested Citation

  • Jahn, Vera & Berlemann, Michael, 2014. "Governance, Firm Size and Innovative Capacity: Regional Empirical Evidence for Germany," Annual Conference 2014 (Hamburg): Evidence-based Economic Policy 100412, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
  • Handle: RePEc:zbw:vfsc14:100412
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/100412/1/VfS_2014_pid_621.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Holmstrom, Bengt, 1989. "Agency costs and innovation," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 305-327, December.
    2. Michael Berlemann & Vera Jahn, 2014. "Relative Innovative Capacity of German Regions: Is East Germany Still Lagging Behind?," CESifo Forum, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, vol. 14(4), pages 42-50, January.
    3. repec:fth:harver:1473 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. repec:wip:wpaper:5 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Nicolas Classen & Martin Carree & Anita Gils & Bettina Peters, 2014. "Innovation in family and non-family SMEs: an exploratory analysis," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 42(3), pages 595-609, March.
    6. Dixit, Avinash K & Stiglitz, Joseph E, 1977. "Monopolistic Competition and Optimum Product Diversity," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 67(3), pages 297-308, June.
    7. Aghion, Philippe & Howitt, Peter, 1992. "A Model of Growth through Creative Destruction," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 60(2), pages 323-351, March.
    8. Buesa, Mikel & Heijs, Joost & Baumert, Thomas, 2010. "The determinants of regional innovation in Europe: A combined factorial and regression knowledge production function approach," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 722-735, July.
    9. Travis J. Lybbert & Nikolas J. Zolas, 2012. "Getting Patents & Economic Data to Speak to Each Other: An ‘Algorithmic Links with Probabilities’ Approach for Joint Analyses of Patenting & Economic Activity," WIPO Economic Research Working Papers 05, World Intellectual Property Organization - Economics and Statistics Division, revised Oct 2012.
    10. Holmström, Bengt, 1989. "Agency Costs and Innovation," Working Paper Series 214, Research Institute of Industrial Economics.
    11. Dirk Czarnitzki & Kornelius Kraft, 2004. "Management Control and Innovative Activity," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 24(1), pages 1-24, February.
    12. David Audretsch & Max Keilbach, 2004. "Entrepreneurship and regional growth: an evolutionary interpretation," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 14(5), pages 605-616, December.
    13. Audretsch, David B & Vivarelli, Marco, 1996. "Firms Size and R&D Spillovers: Evidence from Italy," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 8(3), pages 249-258, June.
    14. Oliver W. Lerbs & Christian A. Oberst, 2014. "Explaining the Spatial Variation in Homeownership Rates: Results for German Regions," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 48(5), pages 844-865, May.
    15. Petra Moser & Alessandra Voena, 2012. "Compulsory Licensing: Evidence from the Trading with the Enemy Act," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(1), pages 396-427, February.
    16. Roberta Piergiovanni & Enrico Santarelli, 2001. "Patents and the Geographic Localization of R&D Spillovers in French Manufacturing," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 35(8), pages 697-702.
    17. Hans-Friedrich Eckey & Reinhold Kosfeld & Matthias Türck, 2007. "Regionale Entwicklung mit und ohne räumliche Spillover-Effekte," Review of Regional Research: Jahrbuch für Regionalwissenschaft, Springer;Gesellschaft für Regionalforschung (GfR), vol. 27(1), pages 23-42, February.
    18. Kraft, Kornelius, 1989. "Market Structure, Firm Characteristics and Innovative Activity," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(3), pages 329-336, March.
    19. Falck, Oliver & Gold, Robert & Heblich, Stephan, . "Entrepreneurship education," Chapters in Economics, University of Munich, Department of Economics.
    20. Thomä, Jörg & Bizer, Kilian, 2013. "To protect or not to protect? Modes of appropriability in the small enterprise sector," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 35-49.
    21. Wenyi Chu, 2009. "The influence of family ownership on SME performance: evidence from public firms in Taiwan," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 33(3), pages 353-373, October.
    22. Lybbert, Travis J. & Zolas, Nikolas J., 2014. "Getting patents and economic data to speak to each other: An ‘Algorithmic Links with Probabilities’ approach for joint analyses of patenting and economic activity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 530-542.
    23. Acs, Zoltan J. & Anselin, Luc & Varga, Attila, 2002. "Patents and innovation counts as measures of regional production of new knowledge," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(7), pages 1069-1085, September.
    24. J. Barkley Rosser, 2009. "Introduction," Chapters,in: Handbook of Research on Complexity, chapter 1 Edward Elgar Publishing.
    25. Attila Varga & Hans Schalk, 2004. "Knowledge Spillovers, Agglomeration and Macroeconomic Growth: An Empirical Approach," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 38(8), pages 977-989.
    26. 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 678-690, September.
    27. Faber, Jan & Hesen, Anneloes Barbara, 2004. "Innovation capabilities of European nations: Cross-national analyses of patents and sales of product innovations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 193-207, March.
    28. 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.
    29. Romer, Paul M, 1990. "Endogenous Technological Change," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 98(5), pages 71-102, October.
    30. Paul Elhorst & Solmaria Halleck Vega, 2013. "On spatial econometric models, spillover effects, and W," ERSA conference papers ersa13p222, European Regional Science Association.
    31. Fritsch, Michael & Franke, Grit, 2004. "Innovation, regional knowledge spillovers and R&D cooperation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 245-255, March.
    32. Tom Broekel & Thomas Brenner, 2011. "Regional factors and innovativeness: an empirical analysis of four German industries," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 47(1), pages 169-194, August.
    33. Romer, Paul M, 1987. "Growth Based on Increasing Returns Due to Specialization," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 77(2), pages 56-62, May.
    34. José González-Pernía & Iñaki Peña-Legazkue & Ferran Vendrell-Herrero, 2012. "Innovation, entrepreneurial activity and competitiveness at a sub-national level," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 39(3), pages 561-574, October.
    35. Nagaoka, Sadao & Motohashi, Kazuyuki & Goto, Akira, 2010. "Patent Statistics as an Innovation Indicator," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, Elsevier.
    36. Fama, Eugene F & Jensen, Michael C, 1983. "Separation of Ownership and Control," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 26(2), pages 301-325, June.
    37. James LeSage & R. Kelley Pace, 2010. "Spatial Econometrics," Book Chapters,in: Web Book of Regional Science Regional Research Institute, West Virginia University.
    38. J. Elhorst, 2010. "Applied Spatial Econometrics: Raising the Bar," Spatial Economic Analysis, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 5(1), pages 9-28.
    39. Zoltan Acs & David Audretsch & Pontus Braunerhjelm & Bo Carlsson, 2012. "Growth and entrepreneurship," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 39(2), pages 289-300, September.
    40. 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.
    41. Petra Moser, 2013. "Patents and Innovation: Evidence from Economic History," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 27(1), pages 23-44, Winter.
    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. Michael Berlemann & Vera Jahn, 2014. "Ist der deutsche Mittelstand tatsächlich ein Innovationsmotor?," ifo Schnelldienst, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, vol. 67(17), pages 22-28, September.
    2. Jahn, Vera, 2015. "The Importance of Mittelstand Firms for Regional Apprenticeship Activity - Lessons for Policy -," Working Paper 158/2015, Helmut Schmidt University, Hamburg.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • O31 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives
    • C21 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Single Equation Models; Single Variables - - - Cross-Sectional Models; Spatial Models; Treatment Effect Models
    • D23 - Microeconomics - - Production and Organizations - - - Organizational Behavior; Transaction Costs; Property Rights

    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:zbw:vfsc14:100412. 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: (ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/vfsocea.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.