Revisiting Gibrat's law using panel SURADF tests

In this study, the newly-developed Panel SURADF tests advanced by Breuer et al. (2001) are used to investigate whether the growth rate of electronics firms is independent of their size, as postulated by Gibrat's (1931) Law of Proportionate Effects. Time-series data for the total assets of 48 electronic firms in Taiwan during the 1995–2004 period are used. Whereas other panel-based unit root tests are joint tests of a unit root for all members of a panel and are incapable of determining the mix of I(0) and I(1) series in a panel setting, the Panel SURADF tests investigate a separate unit root null hypothesis for each individual panel member and are, therefore, able to identify how many and which series in the panel are stationary processes. The empirical results from several panel-based unit root tests indicate that the total assets of all firms studied here are nonstationary, implying that Gibrat's Law holds for all 48 firms; however, Breuer et al.'s (2001) Panel SURADF tests unequivocally indicate that Gibrat's Law is only valid for 27 of those firms.

[1]  J. S. Clark,et al.  Gibrat's Law and the Growth of Canadian Cities , 1991 .

[2]  A. Tschoegl,et al.  Size, Growth, and Transnationality among the World's Largest Banks , 1983 .

[3]  Richard D. F. Harris,et al.  Plant-Level Analysis Using the Ard: Another Look at Gibrat's Law , 2005 .

[4]  Robert McNown,et al.  Misleading Inferences from Panel Unit‐Root Tests with an Illustration from Purchasing Power Parity , 2001 .

[5]  Edwin Mansfield,et al.  ENTRY, GIBRAT'S LAW, INNOVATION, AND THE GROWTH OF FIRMS , 1962 .

[6]  D. Vining.  Autocorrelated Growth Rates and the Pareto Law: A Further Analysis , 1976, Journal of Political Economy.

[7]  G. Maddala,et al.  A Comparative Study of Unit Root Tests with Panel Data and a New Simple Test , 1999 .

[8]  A. Z. Baharumshah,et al.  Purchasing power parity in Central and Eastern European countries , 2008 .

[9]  Andrew T. Levin,et al.  Unit root tests in panel data: asymptotic and finite-sample properties , 2002 .

[10]  Alfredo Del Monte,et al.  R&D and the growth of firms: empirical analysis of a panel of Italian firms ☆ , 2003 .

[11]  M. Pesaran,et al.  Testing for unit roots in heterogeneous panels , 2003 .

[12]  M. S. Kumar,et al.  GROWTH, ACQUISITION ACTIVITY AND FIRM SIZE: EVIDENCE FROM THE UNITED KINGDOM* , 1985 .

[13]  Wen-Cheng Lu,et al.  Panel unit root tests of firm size and its growth , 2003 .

[14]  Nicholas Oulton,et al.  Growth and Size of Firms , 1996 .

[15]  Bronwyn H Hall,et al.  The Relationship between Firm Size and Firm Growth in the U.S. Manufacturing Sector , 1986 .

[16]  Unit roots and the dynamics of market shares: an analysis using an Italian banking micro-panel , 2015 .

[17]  G. Whittington,et al.  The Size and Growth of Firms , 1975 .

[18]  Mark P. Taylor,et al.  The behavior of real exchange rates during the post-Bretton Woods period , 1998 .

[19]  P. O'Connell.  The overvaluation of purchasing power parity , 1998 .

[20]  M. Utton.  The Effect of Mergers on Concentration: U.K. Manufacturing Industry, 1954-65 , 1971 .

[21]  P. Perron,et al.  The Great Crash, The Oil Price Shock And The Unit Root Hypothesis , 1989 .

[22]  David S. Evans.  Tests of Alternative Theories of Firm Growth , 1987, Journal of Political Economy.

[23]  Kaddour Hadri,et al.  Testing for Stationarity in Heterogeneous Panel Data , 2000 .