Technological Regimes and Firm Survival

This paper investigates whether the type of technological regime moderates the effects of entry timing, entry size (i.e., initial resources), and active (post-entry) learning on firm survival. By analyzing a unique dataset of newly founded Korean manufacturing firms, we find that the effects of the factors influencing firm survival differ substantially across technological regimes. Specifically, entry size has the greatest positive effect on firm survival under the regime characterized by low technological opportunity and high R&D appropriability, under which opportunities for disruptive innovation are stagnant and the advantages of initial resources are more likely to persist. Post-entry active learning through R&D, on the contrary, has the greatest effect on firm survival under the regime of high technological opportunity and low R&D appropriability, under which active learning through contemporaneous R&D effort is more crucial for firm survival than initial resource advantages mostly due to the possibility of creative destruction.

[1]  Michael Gort,et al.  Firm and Product Life Cycles and Firm Survival , 2002 .

[2]  Steven Klepper,et al.  Industry shakeouts and technological change , 2005 .

[3]  Boyan Jovanovic.  Selection and the evolution of industry , 1981 .

[4]  Margaret A. Peteraf.  The cornerstones of competitive advantage: A resource‐based view , 1993 .

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

[6]  B. Wernerfelt,et al.  A Resource-Based View of the Firm , 1984 .

[7]  S. Klepper,et al.  Time Paths in the Diffusion of Product Innovations , 1982 .

[8]  David B. Audretsch,et al.  New-Firm Survival and the Technological Regime , 1991 .

[9]  Matthias Almus,et al.  Testing "Gibrat's Law" for Young Firms – Empirical Results for West Germany , 2000 .

[10]  Mario Cleves,et al.  An Introduction To Survival Analysis Using Stata Third | , 2012 .

[11]  L. Nesta,et al.  Product Innovation and Survival in a High-Tech Industry , 2009 .

[12]  Chang‐Yang Lee.  Firm Density and Industry R & D Intensity: Theory and Evidence , 2003 .

[13]  John R. Baldwin,et al.  Selection Versus Evolutionary Adaptation: Learning and Post- Entry Performance , 1995 .

[14]  Anand Swaminathan,et al.  Entry timing, exploration, and firm survival in the early U.S. bicycle industry , 2006 .

[15]  David B. Audretsch,et al.  Industry Evolution , 2004 .

[16]  F. Lotti,et al.  Does Gibrat's Law hold among young, small firms? , 2003 .

[17]  Kathleen M. Eisenhardt,et al.  DYNAMIC CAPABILITIES, WHAT ARE THEY? , 2000 .

[18]  Zvi Griliches,et al.  Empirical Patterns of Firm Growth and R&D Investment: A Quality Ladder Model Interpretation , 1997 .

[19]  Clayton M. Christensen,et al.  Strategies for Survival in Fast-Changing Industries , 1998 .

[20]  Fernando F. Suarez,et al.  The Role of Environmental Dynamics in Building a First Mover Advantage Theory , 2007 .

[21]  Chang-Yang Lee,et al.  Schumpeter's legacy: A new perspective on the relationship between firm size and R&D , 2005 .

[22]  Will Mitchell,et al.  When is more better? The impact of business scale and scope on long-term business survival, while controlling for profitability , 2007 .

[23]  Clayton M. Christensen.  The Innovator's Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail , 2013 .

[24]  Glenn R. Carroll,et al.  The fates of De Novo and De Alio producers in the American Automobile Industry 1885–1981 , 2007 .

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

[26]  April M. Franco,et al.  Swift and Smart: The Moderating Effects of Technological Capabilities on the Market Pioneering-Firm Survival Relationship , 2009, Manag. Sci..

[27]  Fulvio Castellacci,et al.  Technological regimes and sectoral differences in productivity growth , 2007 .

[28]  D. B. Montgomery,et al.  First-mover (dis)advantages: Retrospective and link with the resource-based view , 1998 .

[29]  Sidney G. Winter,et al.  Schumpeterian Competition in Alternative Technological Regimes , 1983 .

[30]  S. Winter,et al.  Appropriating the Returns from Industrial Research and Development , 1987 .

[31]  O. Marsili,et al.  Survivor: The Role of Innovation in Firms' Survival , 2006 .

[32]  Daniel A. Levinthal,et al.  ABSORPTIVE CAPACITY: A NEW PERSPECTIVE ON LEARNING AND INNOVATION , 1990 .

[33]  G. Carroll,et al.  The Liability of Newness: Age Dependence in Organizational Death Rates , 1983 .

[34]  Elena Cefis,et al.  A Matter of Life and Death: Innovation and Firm Survival , 2005 .

[35]  R. Prentice,et al.  Regression analysis of grouped survival data with application to breast cancer data. , 1978, Biometrics.

[36]  Karel Cool,et al.  Asset stock accumulation and sustainability of competitive advantage , 1989 .

[37]  W. Mitchell,et al.  When do first entrants become first survivors , 2013 .

[38]  David B. Audretsch,et al.  The rate of hazard confronting new firms and plants in U.S. manufacturing , 1994 .

[39]  J. Mata,et al.  The survival of new plants: Start-up conditions and post-entry evolution , 1995 .

[40]  D. Audretsch.  Innovation and Industry Evolution , 1995 .

[41]  Chang‐Yang Lee,et al.  Technological regimes and the persistence of first-mover advantages , 2011 .

[42]  A. Pakes,et al.  Empirical Implications of Alternative Models of Firm Dynamics , 1989 .

[43]  M. Sarkar,et al.  The conditioning effect of time on firm survival: An industry life cycle approach , 2002 .

[44]  Warren Boeker,et al.  ENTREPRENEURIAL TRANSITIONS: FACTORS INFLUENCING FOUNDER DEPARTURE , 2002 .

[45]  David B. Audretsch,et al.  New Firm Survival: New Results Using a Hazard Function , 1995 .

[46]  Guido Buenstorf,et al.  Evolution on the Shoulders of Giants: Entrepreneurship and Firm Survival in the German Laser Industry , 2007 .

[47]  James M. Utterback,et al.  Dominant Designs and the Survival of Firms , 1995 .

[48]  David B. Audretsch,et al.  Innovation, growth and survival , 1995 .

[49]  C. Prahalad,et al.  The Core Competence of the Corporation , 1990 .

[50]  D. Teece,et al.  The Dynamic Capabilities of Firms: an Introduction , 1994 .

[51]  Silviano Esteve-Pérez,et al.  The Resource-Based Theory of the Firm and Firm Survival , 2008 .

[52]  J. Sutton.  Gibrat's Legacy , 1996 .

[53]  Paul Geroski,et al.  INNOVATION, TECHNOLOGICAL OPPORTUNITY, AND MARKET STRUCTURE , 1990 .

[54]  Bruce D. Meyer.  Unemployment Insurance and Unemployment Spells , 1988 .

[55]  David S. Evans.  The Relationship between Firm Growth, Size, and Age: Estimates for 100 Manufacturing Industries. , 1987 .

[56]  Wesley M. Cohen.  Fifty Years of Empirical Studies of Innovative Activity and Performance , 2010 .

[57]  P. Geroski.  What do we know about entry , 1995 .

[58]  D. Teece,et al.  DYNAMIC CAPABILITIES AND STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT , 1997 .

[59]  Murray Z. Frank.  An Intertemporal Model of Industrial Exit , 1988 .

[60]  Scott Berkun,et al.  The myths of innovation , 2007 .

[61]  Luís M. B. Cabral,et al.  Sunk Costs, Firm Size and Firm Growth , 1995 .

[62]  Fulvio Castellacci,et al.  Technological regimes, Schumpeterian patterns of innovation and firm level productivity growth , 2010 .

[63]  F. Malerba,et al.  Technological Regimes and Schumpeterian Patterns of Innovation , 2000 .

[64]  Andrea Fosfuri,et al.  Entry-timing strategies: The road ahead , 2013 .

[65]  M. Peneder.  Technological regimes and the variety of innovation behaviour: Creating integrated taxonomies of firms and sectors , 2010 .

[66]  Franco Malerba,et al.  Technological Regimes and Sectoral Patterns of Innovative Activities , 1997 .

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

[68]  M. Tushman,et al.  Technological Discontinuities and Dominant Designs: A Cyclical Model of Technological Change , 1990 .

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

[70]  W. Mitchell.  Dual clocks: Entry order influences on incumbent and newcomer market share and survival when specialized assets retain their value , 1991 .

[71]  R. Caves.  Industrial Organization and New Findings on the Turnover and Mobility of Firms , 1998 .

[72]  Wesley M. Cohen,et al.  R&D Appropriability, Opportunity, and Market Structure: New Evidence on Some Schumpeterian Hypotheses , 1985 .

[73]  Lori Rosenkopf,et al.  Startup size and the mechanisms of external learning: increasing opportunity and decreasing ability? , 2003 .

[74]  F. Malerba,et al.  Technological Regimes and Firm Bebavior , 1993 .

[75]  Steven Klepper,et al.  Firm Survival and the Evolution of Oligopoly , 2002 .

[76]  David B. Audretsch,et al.  Does Entry Size Matter? The Impact of the Life Cycle and Technology on Firm Survival , 2001 .

[77]  M. Lieberman.  The learning curve, diffusion, and competitive strategy , 1987 .

[78]  D. B. Montgomery,et al.  First‐mover advantages , 1988 .