Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards MyNewsletter
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
Lackier- und Pulvertreff 2024

Nasslackieren und pulverbeschichten

Der Kongress am 15. / 16. Oktober 2024 in Heidelberg informiert umfassend über neue lack-, anlagen- und verfahrens­technische Entwicklungen und deren Umsetzung in die Praxis.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Eurasian Business Review
Erschienen in:

01.12.2016 | Original Paper

ICT and R&D as inputs or efficiency determinants? Analysing Italian manufacturing firms (2007–2009)

verfasst von: Graziella Bonanno

Erschienen in: Eurasian Business Review | Ausgabe 3/2016

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

Are Information and Communication Technology (ICT) and Research & Development (R&D) productive inputs or efficiency determinants? This is the topic of this paper, which analyses a sample of 2691 Italian manufacturing firms over the period 2007–2009. Data are from a merged EFIGE–AIDA dataset. The empirical setting is based on a production function estimated through the stochastic frontier approach. ICT and R&D are used once as inputs, once as efficiency determinants. The results show that the elasticities of production with respect to ICT and R&D investments are quite high (0.08 for ICT and 0.04 for R&D) when they enter into the model only as inputs. We also documented that ICT and R&D contribute positively to explain the efficiency scores.
Vorheriger Artikel Financial constraints and productivity growth across the size spectrum: microeconomic evidence from Morocco
Nächster Artikel Consumer’s comparison between local and imported organic products: a hedonic analysis of the Japanese table wine market

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren
Fußnoten
1
Solow (1987) states as follows: “… what everyone feels to have been a technological revolution, a drastic change in our productive lives, has been accompanied everywhere, including Japan, by a slowing-down of productivity growth, not by a step up. You can see the computer age everywhere but in the productivity statistics.”
 
2
The choice of using a short time period is because we want to use merged information deriving from both EFIGE and AIDA. We know that this can lead to bias problem even considering that in the analysed period covers years of crisis.
 
3
SF approach is preferred in this work also with respect to semiparametric methods proposed by Olley and Pakes (1996) and Levinsohn and Petrin (2003) and also to GMM estimations (Blundell and Bond 1998), because all these methods belong to the class of non-frontier techniques (Del Gatto et al. 2011). This implies all these methodologies share the assumption that production is always full efficient in terms of technology, while the SF approach allows to decompose the productivity in technological change and efficiency change.
It is worth noticing that one advantage of approach proposed by Olley and Pakes (1996) is the flexible characterization of productivity because it only assumes that it accords to a Markov process (van Biesebroeck 2008), but potential weakness is the nonparametric approximation. Moreover, the cited semiparametric method can produce estimates suffering from collinearity (Ackerberg et al. 2006). As regard the GMM method, it is flexible in generating instruments in order to avoid endogeneity problems. However, it need for a long panel, at least four time periods are required (we have only three periods in our empirical analysis) and, if instruments are weak, this method risk underestimating the coefficients (van Biesebroeck 2008).
 
4
We estimate also Cobb-Douglas production functions and, by implementing the LR test, we reject this specification in favour of the translog form.
 
5
The number of observations is determined by the no-missing values in 2007–2009 and by the fact that we use lagged variables in order to limit endogeneity problems.
 
6
See Gandhi et al. (2013) for the identification of the production function. This work analytically explains that raw materials do not enter in the production function when output is measured as value added.
 
7
We do not have information about ICT and R&D stocks.
 
8
We suppose that the percentages of ICT and R&D investments do not significantly change in consecutive years.
 
9
Given that we depart from a translog production function and in order to make it linear, all continuous variables are in logs.
 
10
The first model is the application of SF as proposed by Battese and Coelli (1992), the second one is the application of the specification as shown in Battese and Coelli (1995).
 
11
We do not report the results of these log-likelihood ratio (LR) tests that, however, are available on request.
 
12
Under the null hypothesis, there is the absence of inefficiency in the sample. The test-statistic LR is equal to {−2 ln[L(H0)/L(H1)]}. The degrees of freedom are given by the number of parameters exceeding in the alternative hypotheses with respect to the null one. The critical values are tabulated in Kodde and Palm (1986). We reject the null hypothesis at 1 % for all the models considered.
 
13
We use the Spearman rank correlation index.
 
14
We do not report the estimation of the nested model that is available on request.
 
Literatur
Acemoglu, D., Autor, D., Dorn, D., & Hanson, G. H. (2014). Return of the Solow Paradox? IT, Productivity and Employment in U.S. Manufacturing. NBER working paper no. 19837.
Ackerberg, D., Caves, K., & Frazer, G. (2006). Structural identification of production functions. Mimeo UCLA.
Aiello, F., & Castiglione, C. (2014). Being efficient to stay strong in a weak economy. The case of Calabrian manufacturing firms. Technology and Investment, 5(2), 95–105.CrossRef
Banker, R. D., Charnes, A., & Cooper, W. W. (1984). Some models for estimations of technical and scale inefficiencies in data envelopment analysis. Management Science, 30(9), 1078–1092.CrossRef
Battaglia, F., Farina, V., Fiordelisi, F., & Ricci, O. (2010). The efficiency of cooperative banks: The impact of environmental economic conditions. Applied Financial Economics, 20(17), 1363–1376.CrossRef
Battese, G. E., & Coelli, T. J. (1992). Frontier production functions, technical efficiency and panel data: With application to paddy farmers in India. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 3, 153–169.CrossRef
Battese, G. E., & Coelli, T. J. (1995). A model for technical inefficiency effects in a stochastic frontier production function for panel data. Empirical Economics, 20(2), 325–332.CrossRef
Battese, G. E., Coelli, T. J., Rao, D. S. P., & O’Donnell, C. J. (2005). An introduction to efficiency and productivity analysis. New York, NY: Springer.
Becchetti, L., Bedoya, D., & Paganetto, L. (2003). ICT investment, productivity and efficiency: Evidence at firm level using a stochastic frontier approach. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 20(2), 143–167.CrossRef
Benvenuti, M., Casolari, L., & Gennari, E. (2013). Metrics of innovation: Measuring the Italian gap. Questioni di Economia e Finanza—Banca d’Italia, Working paper no. 168.
Berghäll, P. E. (2012). R&D vs. other factor inputs in a high-tech industry. Industry and Innovation, 19(2), 127–153.CrossRef
Blundell, R. W., & Bond, S. R. (1998). Initial conditions and moment restrictions in dynamics panel data models. Journal of Econometrics, 87, 115–143.CrossRef
Bos, J. W. B., Heid, F., Koetter, M., Kolari, J. W., & Kool, C. J. M. (2005). Inefficient or just different? Effects of heterogeneity on bank efficiency scores. Deutsche Bundesbank, Working paper no. 15.
Brynjolfsson, E., & Hitt, L. M. (1995). Information technology as a factor of production: The role of differences among firms. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 3, 183–199.
Brynjolfsson, E., & Hitt, L. M. (1997). Information technology and internal firm organisation: An explanatory analysis. Journal of Management Information Systems, 14, 81–101.CrossRef
Brynjolfsson, E., Hitt, L. M., & Yang, S. (2002). Intangible assets: How the interaction of computers and organisational structure affects stock market valuations. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 33(1), 137–198.CrossRef
Brynjolfsson, E., & Yang, S. (1996). Information technology and productivity: A review of the literature. Advances in Computers, 43, 179–214.CrossRef
Bugamelli, M., Cannari, L., Lotti, F., & Magri, S. (2012). Il gap innovativo del sistema produttivo italiano: radici e possibili rimedi. Questioni di Economia e Finanza—Banca d’Italia no. 121.
Bugamelli, M., & Pagano, P. (2004). Barriers to investment in ICT. Applied Economics, 36(20), 2275–2286.CrossRef
Castiglione, C. (2012). Technical efficiency and ICT investment in Italian manufacturing firms. Applied Economics, 44(14), 1749–1763.CrossRef
Cerquera, D., & Klein, G. J. (2008). Endogenous firm heterogeneity, ICT and R&D incentives. ZEW no. 08-126.
Coelli, T. J., Perelman, S., & Romano, E. (1999). Accounting for environmental influences in stochastic frontier models: With application to international airlines. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 11, 251–273.CrossRef
Crepon, B., Duguet, E., & Mairesse, J. (1998). Research innovation and productivity: An econometric analysis at the firm level. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 7(2), 115–158.CrossRef
D’Este, P., Rentocchini, F., & Vega-Jurado, J. (2014). The role of human capital in lowering the barriers to engaging in innovation: Evidence from the Spanish innovation survey. Industry and Innovation, 21(1), 1–19.CrossRef
Del Gatto, M., Di Liberto, A., & Petraglia, C. (2011). Measuring productivity. Journal of Economic Surveys, 25(5), 952–1008.CrossRef
Fabiani, S., Schivardi, F., & Trento, S. (2005). ICT adoption in Italian manufacturing firm-level evidence. Industrial and Corporate Change, 12(2), 225–249.CrossRef
Gandhi, A., Navarro, S., & Rivers, D. (2013). On the identification of production functions: How heterogeneous is productivity? Meeting papers—society for economic dynamics no. 105.
Gholami, R., Moshiri, S., & Lee, S. Y. T. (2004). ICT and productivity of the manufacturing industries in Iran. Electronic Journal on Information System in Developing Countries, 19, 1–19.
Gilchrist, S., Gurbaxani, V., & Town, R. (2001). Productivity and the PC revolution. Irvine, CA: University of California.
Greene, W. (1993). The econometric approach to efficiency analysis. In H. Fried, K. Lovell, S. Schmidt (Eds.), The measurement of productive efficiency. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Grilli, L., & Murtinu, S. (2014). New technology-based firms in Europe: Market penetration, public venture capital and timing of investment. Industrial and Corporate Change, 24(5), 1109–1148.
Hall, H. B., Lotti, F., & Mairesse, J. (2013). Evidence on the impact of R&D and ICT investments on innovation and productivity in Italian firms. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, iFirst, 1–29.
Haller, S., & Siedschlag, I. (2011). Determinants of ICT adoption: Evidence from firm-level data. Applied Economics, 43(26), 3775–3788.CrossRef
Harris, S. E., & Katz, J. L. (1991). Organisational performance and information technology investment intensity in the insurance industry. Organisational Science, 2(3), 263–296.CrossRef
Imbriani, C., Pittiglio, R., Reganati, F., & Sica, E. (2011). How much do technological gap, firm size, and regional characteristics matter for the absorptive capacity of Italian enterprises? Economics of international trade (FIW). Working paper no. 73.
Kodde, D., & Palm, F. (1986). Wald criteria for jointly testing equality and inequality restrictions. Econometrica, 54(5), 1243–1248.CrossRef
Kumbhakar, S. C., & Lovell, C. A. K. (2000). Stochastic frontier analysis. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
Leibenstein, H. (1966). Allocative efficiency versus “X-efficiency”. American Economic Review, 56, 392–415.
Lensink, R., & Meesters, A. (2014). Institutions and bank performance: A stochastic frontier analysis. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics , 76, 67–92.
Levinsohn, J., & Petrin, A. (2003). Estimating production functions using inputs to control for unobservables. Review of Economic Studies, 70, 317–341.CrossRef
Mohnen, P., & Hall, B. H. (2013). Innovation and productivity: An update. Eurasian Business Review, 3(1), 47–65.
Moncada-Paternò-Castello, P., Ciupagea, C., Smith, K., Tübke, A., & Tubbs, M. (2009). Does Europe perform too little corporate R&D? A comparison of EU and non-EU corporate R&D performance. IPTS no. 11.
O’Sullivan, M. (2006). The EU’S R&D deficit and innovation policy. Report of the expert group of knowledge economists—DG Research—European Commission.
Olley, S., & Pakes, A. (1996). The dynamics of productivity in the telecommunications equipment industry. Econometrica, 64(6), 1263–1297.CrossRef
Paganetto, L., Becchetti, L., & Londono-Bedoya, D. A. L. (2001). Investimenti in information technology, produttività ed efficienza. In L. Paganetto & C. Pietrobelli (Eds.), Scienza, tecnologia e innovazione: Quali politiche?. Bologna: Il Mulino.
Parrilli, M. D., Aranguren, M. J., & Larrea, M. (2010). The role of interactive learning to close the “Innovation Gap” in SME-based local economies: A furniture cluster in the Basque Country and its key policy implications. European Planning Studies, 18(3), 351–370.CrossRef
Parsons, D. J., Gotlieb, C. C., & Denny, M. (1990). Productivity and computers in Canadian banking. University of Toronto—Department of Economics, Working paper no. 9012.
Pellegrino, G., & Piva, M. (2014). Do innovative inputs lead to different innovative outputs in mature and young firms? DISCE—Quaderni del Dipartimento di Scienze Economiche e Sociali, no. 1497.
Pellegrino, G., Piva, M., & Vivarelli, M. (2012). Young firms and innovation: A microeconometric analysis. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 23, 329–340.CrossRef
Piva, M., Santarelli, E., & Vivarelli, M. (2005). The skill bias effect of technological and organisational change: Evidence and policy implications. Research Policy, 34, 141–157.CrossRef
Polder, M., van Leeuwen, G., Mohnen, P., & Raymond, W. (2010). Product, process and organisational innovation: drivers, complementarity and productivity effects. MPRA, working paper no. 23719.
Rincon, A., Vecchi, M., & Venturini, F. (2013). ICT as general purpose technology: Spillovers, absorptive capacity and productivity performance. National Institute of Economic and Social Research, Working paper no. 416.
Samoilenko, S., & Osei-Bryson, K. M. (2008). An exploration of the effects of the interaction between ICT and labor force on economic growth in transition economies. International Journal of Production Economics, 115, 471–481.CrossRef
Shao, B. B. M., & Lin, W. T. (2001). Measuring the value of information technology in technical efficiency with stochastic production frontier. Information and Software Technology, 43, 447–456.CrossRef
Shao, B. B. M., & Lin, W. T. (2002). Technical efficiency analysis of information technology investments: A two-stage empirical investigation. Information and Management, 39, 391–401.CrossRef
Simar, L., & Wilson, P. W. (1998). Sensitivity analysis of efficiency scores: How to bootstrap in nonparametric frontier models. Management Science, 44, 49–61.CrossRef
Simar, L., & Wilson, P. W. (2000). A general methodology for bootstrapping in nonparametric frontier models. Journal of Applied Statistics, 27, 779–802.CrossRef
Solow, R. (1987). We’d better watch out. New York Times Book Review, July 12, 36.
Strassmann, P. A. (1985). Information payoff: The transformation of work in the electronic age. New York, NY: Free Press.
Strassmann, P. A. (1990). The business value of computers: An executive’s guide. New Canaan: Information Economics Press.
van Biesebroeck, J. (2008). The sensitivity of productivity estimates: Revisiting three important debates. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, 26(3), 311–328.CrossRef
Voigt, P., & Moncada-Paternò-Castello, P. (2012). Can fast growing R&D-intensive SMEs affect the economic structure of the EU economy?: a projection to the year 2020. Eurasian Business Review, 2(2), 96–128.
Wang, H. J., & Schmidt, P. (2002). One-step and two-step estimation of the effect of exogenous variables on technical efficiency levels. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 18, 129–144.CrossRef
Zand, F., van Beers, C., & van Leeuwen, G. (2011). Information technology, organisational change and productivity: A panel study of complementarity effects and clustering patterns in manufacturing and services. MPRA working paper no. 46469.
Metadaten
Titel
ICT and R&D as inputs or efficiency determinants? Analysing Italian manufacturing firms (2007–2009)
verfasst von
Graziella Bonanno
Publikationsdatum
01.12.2016
Verlag
Springer International Publishing
Erschienen in
Eurasian Business Review / Ausgabe 3/2016
Print ISSN: 1309-4297
Elektronische ISSN: 2147-4281
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40821-015-0035-z

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 3/2016

Eurasian Business Review 3/2016 Zur Ausgabe

Original Paper

Factors influencing the entrepreneurial engagement of opportunity and necessity entrepreneurs

Original Paper

Consumer’s comparison between local and imported organic products: a hedonic analysis of the Japanese table wine market

Original Paper

Financial constraints and productivity growth across the size spectrum: microeconomic evidence from Morocco

Original Paper

Entry, exit and net job creation in Tunisia: an exploratory analysis

Publisher's Erratum

Erratum to: Factors influencing the entrepreneurial engagement of opportunity and necessity entrepreneurs

Editorial Note

Editorial note

Premium Partner

    Bildnachweise