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.

[1]  Paul Geroski,et al.  Entry, innovation and productivity growth , 1989 .

[2]  George Strauss,et al.  Tracking the Giant Corporation@@@Scale and Scope: The Dynamics of Industrial Capitalism. , 1991 .

[3]  Wesley M. Cohen,et al.  Empirical studies of innovation and market structure , 1989 .

[4]  Petra E. Todd,et al.  Matching As An Econometric Evaluation Estimator: Evidence from Evaluating a Job Training Programme , 1997 .

[5]  D. Rubin.  ASSIGNMENT TO TREATMENT GROUP ON THE BASIS OF A COVARIATE , 1976 .

[6]  Paul Geroski,et al.  HOW PERSISTENTLY DO FIRMS INNOVATE , 1997 .

[7]  J. Vickers,et al.  Competition, Imitation and Growth with Step-by-Step Innovation , 2001 .

[8]  P. Romer.  Endogenous Technological Change , 1989, Journal of Political Economy.

[9]  Alfred Kleinknecht,et al.  Determinants of innovation : the message from new indicators , 1996 .

[10]  Alfred Kleinknecht,et al.  More evidence on the undercounting of small firm R&D , 1991 .

[11]  Bronwyn H Hall.  Investment and Research and Development at the Firm Level: Does the Source of Financing Matter? , 1992 .

[12]  Emmanuel Duguet,et al.  Creative destruction and the innovative core: is innovation persistent at the firm level? , 2002 .

[13]  S. Winter,et al.  An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change.by Richard R. Nelson; Sidney G. Winter , 1987 .

[14]  D. Rubin,et al.  The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects , 1983 .

[15]  Franco Malerba,et al.  Technological entry, exit and survival: an empirical analysis of patent data , 1999 .

[16]  Alfred Kleinknecht,et al.  Measuring R&D in Small Firms: How Much Are We Missing? , 1987 .

[17]  Z. Griliches.  Patent Statistics as Economic Indicators: a Survey , 1990 .

[18]  Jennifer F. Reinganum.  Uncertain Innovation and the Persistence of Monopoly , 1982 .

[19]  Charles P. Himmelberg,et al.  R&D and internal finance: a panel study of small firms in high-tech industries , 1994 .

[20]  K. Arrow.  Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention , 1962 .

[21]  J. Stein.  Waves of Creative Destruction : Firm-Specific Learning-by-Doing and the Dynamics of Innovation , 1997 .

[22]  J. Heckman,et al.  The Economics and Econometrics of Active Labor Market Programs , 1999 .

[23]  Philippe Aghion,et al.  Competition and growth with step-by-step innovation: An example , 1997 .

[24]  Bruno Crépon,et al.  estimating the innovation function from patent numbers: gmm on count panel data ¤ , 1997 .

[25]  D. Encaoua,et al.  The commercial success of innovations : an econometric analysis at the firm level in French manufacturing , 1998 .

[26]  David B. Audretsch,et al.  Innovation in Large and Small Firms: An Empirical Analysis , 1988 .

[27]  D. Rubin.  Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomized and nonrandomized studies. , 1974 .

[28]  I. Cockburn,et al.  Scale, scope, and spillovers: the determinants of research productivity in drug discovery. , 1996, The Rand journal of economics.

[29]  Emmanuel Duguet,et al.  Appropriation Strategy and the Motivations to use the Patent System: an Econometric Analysis at the Firm Level in French Manufacturing , 2000 .

[30]  Stéphane Lhuillery.  L'innovation technologique dans l'industrie , 1996 .

[31]  D. Ulph,et al.  Catching Up or Leapfrogging? The Effects of Competition on Innovation and Growth , 2005 .

[32]  Harald Gruber.  Persistence of Leadership in Product Innovation , 1992 .

[33]  Massimo Riccaboni,et al.  The Nature and the Extent of the Market for Technology in Biopharmaceuticals , 2004 .

[34]  Daniel A. Levinthal,et al.  Innovation and Learning: The Two Faces of R&D , 1989 .

[35]  James Joyce,et al.  Perspectives on technology , 1977, Medical History.

[36]  D. Andrews,et al.  A Three-Step Method for Choosing the Number of Bootstrap Repetitions , 2000 .

[37]  Henry Chesbrough.  Arrested Development: The Experience of European Hard Disk Drive Firms in Comparison with Us and Japanese Firms , 1999 .

[38]  A. Arundel,et al.  What percentage of innovations are patented? empirical estimates for European firms , 1998 .

[39]  Emmanuel Duguet,et al.  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 , 2002 .

[40]  D. Audretsch,et al.  Does Firm Size Matter ? Evidence on the Impact of Liquidity Constraints of Firm Investment Behavior in Germany , 2000 .

[41]  Steven Klepper,et al.  A Reprise of Size and R & D , 1996 .

[42]  D. Rubin.  Assignment to Treatment Group on the Basis of a Covariate , 1976 .

[43]  D. Newbery,et al.  Preemptive Patenting and the Persistence of Monopoly , 1982 .

[44]  L. Kim.  The Dynamics of Samsung's Technological Learning in Semiconductors , 1997 .

[45]  Z. Griliches,et al.  Patents and R and D: Is There a Lag? , 1986 .

[46]  Bruno Crépon,et al.  Schumpeterian Conjectures: A Moderate Support from Various Innovation Measures , 1996 .

[47]  T. Klette.  R&D, Scope Economies, and Plant Performance , 1996 .

[48]  Growth with non-drastic innovations and the persistence of leadership , 2001 .

[49]  Paul Nightingale,et al.  Economies of Scale in Experimentation: Knowledge and Technology in Pharmaceutical R&D , 2000 .

[50]  P. Schmidt,et al.  Limited-Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics. , 1984 .

[51]  Luigi Orsenigo,et al.  The persistence of innovative activities: A cross-countries and cross-sectors comparative analysis , 2001 .

[52]  H. White.  A Heteroskedasticity-Consistent Covariance Matrix Estimator and a Direct Test for Heteroskedasticity , 1980 .

[53]  D. Encaoua,et al.  Competition Policy and Innovation , 2002 .

[54]  Megan MacGarvie,et al.  How well do patent citations measure flows of technology? Evidence from French innovation surveys , 2005 .

[55]  Bruno Crépon,et al.  A Moderate Support to Schumpeterian Conjectures from Various Innovation Measures , 1995 .