nach oben

Small Business Economics

Erschienen in:

01.06.2015

Productivity growth persistence: firm strategies, size and system properties

verfasst von: Cristiano Antonelli, Francesco Crespi, Giuseppe Scellato

Erschienen in: Small Business Economics | Ausgabe 1/2015

Einloggen

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

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

This paper investigates the dynamics of productivity in a large sample of Italian manufacturing firms, focusing on the determinants of firm-level persistence in time of high total factor productivity (TFP) growth rates relative to the corresponding sectoral distributions. In particular, we assess the impact of both the internal characteristics of companies, including size and management strategies, and external systemic conditions, including business cycles and regional innovation performance. In order to disentangle the effects of the mix of internal and systemic factors in shaping firm-level persistence, we implement both transition probability matrices and dynamic probit models. Results reveal the presence of significant persistence in TFP growth rates. Such persistence turns out to be path-dependent since it is shaped by a number of complementary and contingent factors that locally affect the dynamics of the process.

Vorheriger Artikel Entrepreneurship, innovation and regional growth: a network theory

Nächster Artikel Financial reporting quality and the cost of debt of SMEs

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

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

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

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

Our previous analyses studied persistence in innovation (Antonelli Crespi Scellato 2012), whereas this paper focuses specifically on the determinants of persistence in productivity growth taking into account in the analysis the role of firm characteristics such as size, their evolving internal capabilities and management strategies, on the one hand, and systems properties such as the macroeconomic, sectoral and regional contexts into which persistence displays its effects, on the other.

The level of yearly depreciation of physical capital was chosen following the approach applied in previous studies that applied perpetual inventory techniques to estimate yearly fixed capital levels, adopting depreciation parameters in the 5–10 % range for physical capital. Since the adopted depreciation parameter is constant across industries, changes should not be expected in the significance of estimate coefficients for slight changes in δ.

This measure of persistence is substantially different from the one adopted in Antonelli et al. (2013). As in the previous study, the state variable simply reflected the existence of positive changes in TFP over time.

Let P _ij and \(\hat{P}_{ij}\) denote the population and sample probabilities of a transition of a company from status i to status j. This transition process can also be seen as the outcome of a binomial distribution. Hence, standard errors of the estimated transition probabilities can be calculated as a binomial standard deviation: \(\sqrt {P_{ij} \times (1 - P_{ij} )/N}\) where N equals the number of companies in status i. As N increases, \(\hat{P}_{ij}\) tends to P _ij.

Sectors were divided into High-Tech and Low-Tech according to the Italian 3 digit ATECO industry classification.

In order to simplify the description of results, we report only the probability associated with persistent top performers. Moreover, to be consistent with subsequent econometric models, controlling for the same-system level factors in productivity persistence, we consider the same selection criteria to identify top performers, i.e., the first 15 % in the sectoral distribution of TFP growth rates. Persistency patterns do not significantly change with respect to different thresholds. All results are available upon request from the authors.

We carried out a sensitivity analysis to investigate whether, and to what extent, the results are related to the selected threshold. Results are largely confirmed for different thresholds and are available upon request from the authors.

This intuition is particularly relevant given that the sample is composed of manufacturing companies that operate to a large extent in traditional sectors and that during the observed years have carried out significant restructuring outsourcing of the production activities.

The empirical evidence on the relationship between profitability measures and productivity is mixed, even when taking into account operative profitability (ROI or ROA). In general, the identification of linear effects appears to be difficult (See Antonelli and Scellato (2011) for a discussion).

We also tested different specifications for the growth rate of TFP, using both a two-year and a four-year interval. Results were not affected.

Given that the effects of relevant control variables do not largely differ across estimates produced on different samples, we do not report results for all estimated coefficient in order to save space. All results are available upon request from authors.

See Antonelli et al. (2014) and Antonelli and Scellato (2015) for complementary evidence. This interpretation for which we acknowledge the suggestion of one of the anonymous referees might be the object of further empirical investigations on a comparative basis.

Abramovsky, L., & Griffith, R. (2006). Outsourcing and offshoring of business services: How important is ICT? Journal of the European Economic Association, 4(2–3), 594–601.CrossRef

Adams, J. (2006). Learning internal research and spillovers. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 15, 5–36.CrossRef

Aghion, P., & Howitt, P. (1997). Endogenous growth theory. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Ahn, S. (2000), Firm dynamics and productivity growth: A review of micro evidence from OECD countries, OECD Economic Department WP 297.

Amiti, M., & Wei, S. (2009). Service offshoring and productivity: Evidence from the US. World Economy, 32(2), 203–220.CrossRef

Antonelli, C. (1997). The economics of path-dependence in industrial organization. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 15, 643–675.CrossRef

Antonelli, C. (2011). The economic complexity of technological change: Knowledge interactions and path dependence. In C. Antonelli (Ed.), Handbook on the economic complexity of technological change (pp. 1–62). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRef

Antonelli, C., Amidei, F. B., & Fassio, C. (2014). The mechanisms of knowledge governance: State owned corporations and Italian economic growth, 1950-1994. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 31, 43–63.CrossRef

Antonelli, C., Crespi, F., & Scellato, G. (2012). Inside innovation persistence: New evidence from Italian micro-data. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 23(4), 341–353.CrossRef

Antonelli, C., Crespi, F., & Scellato, G. (2013). Internal and external factors in innovation persistence. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 22, 256–280.CrossRef

Antonelli, C., & Scellato, G. (2011). Out of equilibrium profits and innovation. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 20, 405–421.CrossRef

Antonelli, C., & Scellato, G. (2015). Firms size and directed technical change. Small Business Economics, 44(1), 207–218.CrossRef

Arrighetti, A., Landini, F., & Lasagni, A. (2014). Intangible assets and firm heterogeneity: Evidence from Italy. Research Policy, 43, 202–213.CrossRef

Baily, C., Hulten, D., Campbell, T. Bresnahan, & Caves, R. E. (1992). Productivity dynamics in manufacturing plants, Brooking Papers on Economic activity. Microeconomics (pp 187–249).

Bartelsman, E., & Dhrymes, P. (1998). Productivity dynamics: U.S. manufacturing plants 1972–1986. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 9(1), 5–34.CrossRef

Bartelsman, E., & Doms, M. (2000). Understanding productivity: Lessons from longitudinal microdata. Journal of Economic Literature, 38(3), 569–594.CrossRef

Bartelsman, E., Haltiwanger, J., & Scarpetta, S. (2009). Cross country differences in productivity: The role of allocation and selection. NBER Working Paper 15490.

Bergek, A., Berggren, C., Magnusson, T., & Hobday, M. (2013). Technological discontinuities and the challenge for incumbent firms: Destruction, disruption or creative accumulation? Research Policy, 42, 1210–1224.CrossRef

Bloom, N., & Van Reenen, J. (2007). Measuring and explaining management practices across firms and countries. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 122(4), 1351–1408.CrossRef

Bloom, N., & Van Reenen, J. (2010). Why do management practices differ across firms and countries? Journal of economic perspectives, 24(1), 203–224.CrossRef

Bontempi, M., & Mairesse, J. (2008), Intangible capital and productivity: An exploration on a panel of Italian manufacturing firms, Working Papers 14108, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, NBER.

Bottazzi, G., Secchi, A., & Tamagni, F. (2008). Productivity, profitability and financial performance. Industrial and Corporate Change, 17, 711–751.CrossRef

Bou, J. C., & Satorra, A. (2007). The persistence of abnormal returns at industry and firm levels: Evidence from Spain. Strategic Management Journal, 28, 707–722.CrossRef

Broedner, P., Kinkel, S., & Lay, G. (2009). Productivity effects of outsourcing: New evidence on the strategic importance of vertical integration decisions. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 29(2), 127–150.CrossRef

Brynjolffson, E., & Hitt, L. M. (2000). Beyond computation: Information technology, organizational transformation and business performance. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 14(4), 23–48.CrossRef

Cefis, E. (2003). Is there persistence in innovative activities? International Journal of Industrial Organization, 21, 489–515.CrossRef

Cefis, E., & Orsenigo, L. (2001). The persistence of innovative activities. A cross-countries and cross-sectors comparative analysis. Research Policy, 30, 1139–1158.CrossRef

Chandler, A. D. (1977). The visible hand: The managerial revolution in American business. Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Chandler, A. D. (1990). Scale and scope: The dynamics of industrial capitalism. Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Clausen, T., Pohjola, M., Sapprasert, K., & Verspagen, B. (2012). Innovation strategies as a source of persistent innovation. Industrial and Corporate Change, 21, 553–585.CrossRef

Cohen, W. M., & Klepper, S. (1996). A reprise of size and R&D. Economic Journal, 106(437), 25–51.CrossRef

Colombelli, A., Krafft, J., & Quatraro, F. (2014). High growth firms and technological knowledge: Do gazelles follow exploration or exploitation strategies? Industrial and Corporate Change, 23, 261–291.CrossRef

Colombelli, A., & von Tunzelmann, N. G. (2011). The persistence of innovation and path dependence. In C. Antonelli (Ed.), The handbook of the system dynamics of technological change (pp. 105–119). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Corrado, C., Hulten, C., & Sichel, D. (2009). Intangible capital and economic growth. The Review of Income and Wealth, 55(3), 661–685.CrossRef

Crépon, B., Duguet, E., & Mairesse, J. (1998). Research and development, innovation and productivity: An econometric analysis at the firm level. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 7, 115–158.CrossRef

Crespi, F. (2007). IT services and productivity in European industries. In H. L. M. Kox & L. Rubalcaba (Eds.), Business services in European economic growth. London: Palgrave Mac Millan.

Crespi, F., & Scellato, G. (2014). Knowledge cumulability and path dependence in innovation persistence. In C. Antonelli & A. Link (Eds.), The routledge handbook of the economics of knowledge (pp. 116–134). London: Routledge.

David, P. A. (1985). Clio and the economics of QWERTY. American Economic Review, 75, 332–337.

David, P. A. (2007). Path dependence: A foundational concept for historical social science. Cliometrica: Journal of Historical Economics and Econometric History, 1, 91–114.CrossRef

Deschryvere, M. (2014). R&D, firm growth and the role of innovation persistence: An analysis of Finnish SMEs and large firms. Small Business Economics, 43(4), 767–785.CrossRef

Dobusch, L., & Schüler, E. (2013). Theorizing path dependence: A review of positive feedback mechanisms in technology markets, regional clusters, and organizations. Industrial and Corporate Change, 22, 617–647.CrossRef

Faggio, G., Salvanes, K. G., & Van Reenen, J. (2009). The evolution of inequality in productivity and wages: Panel data evidence, LSE Working Paper.

Foster, L., Haltiwanger, J., & Krizan, C. J. (2001). Aggregate productivity growth: Lessons from microeconomic evidence. In E. Dean, M. Harper, & C. Hulten (Eds.), New developments in productivity analysis (pp. 303–372). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRef

Galindo-Rueda, F., & Haskel, J. (2005). Skills, workforce characteristics and firm-level productivity in England, Report prepared for the Department of Trade and Industry, Department for Education and Skills, Office for National Statistics.

Geroski, P., Kretschmer, T., & Walters, C. (2009). Corporate productivity growth: Leaders and laggards. Economic Enquiry, 47(1), 1–17.CrossRef

Geroski, P., Lazarova, S., Urga, G., & Walters, C. F. (2003). Are difference in firm size transitory or permanent? Journal of Applied Econometrics, 18, 47–59.CrossRef

Giannangeli, S., & Gomez-Salvador, R. (2008). Evolution and sources of manufacturing productivity growth: Evidence from a panel of European countries. European Central Bank: Working Paper Series.

Gilley, K., & Rasheed, A. (2000). Making more by doing less: An analysis of outsourcing and its effects on firm performance. Journal of Management, 26(4), 763–790.CrossRef

Griliches, Z. (1979). Issues in assessing the contribution of research and development to productivity growth. Bell Journal of Economics, 10, 92–116.CrossRef

Grossman, G., & Helpman, E. (2005). Outsourcing in a global economy. Review of Economic Studies, 72(250), 135–159.CrossRef

Harper, D. A., & Lewis, P. (2012). New perspectives on emergence in economics. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 82, 329–337.CrossRef

Heckman, J. J. (1981). The incidental parameters problem and the problem of initial conditions in estimating a discrete time: Discrete data stochastic process. In C. F. Manski & D. McFadden (Eds.), Structural analysis of discrete data with econometric applications (pp. 179–195). Cambridge: MIT Press.

Henrekson, M., & Johansson, D. (2010). Gazelles as job creators: A survey and interpretation of the evidence. Small Business Economics, 35, 227–244.CrossRef

Heshmati, A. (2003). Productivity growth, efficiency and outsourcing in manufacturing and service industries. Journal of Economic Surveys, 17(1), 79–112.CrossRef

Hölzl, W. (2009). Is the R&D behaviour of fast-growing SMEs different? Evidence from CIS III data for 16 countries. Small Business Economics, 33(1), 59–75.CrossRef

Ilmakunnas, P., Maliranta, M., & Vainiomäki, J. (2004). The roles of employer and employee characteristics for plant productivity. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 21(3), 249–276.CrossRef

Ito, K., & Lechevalier, S. (2010). Why some firms persistently out-perform others: Investigating the interactions between innovation and exporting strategies. Industrial and Corporate Change, 19, 1997–2039.CrossRef

Johansson, B., & Lööf, H. (2008). Innovation activities explained by firm attributes and location. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 16, 533–552.CrossRef

Kim, J., & Chang-Yang, L. (2011). Technological regimes and the persistence of first-mover advantages. Industrial and Corporate Change, 20, 1305–1333.CrossRef

Le Bas, C., & Scellato, G. (2014). Firms innovation persistence: A fresh look at the framework of analysis. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 23(5–6), 423–446.CrossRef

Loasby, B. J. (2010). Capabilities and strategy: Problems and prospects. Industrial and Corporate Change, 19, 1301–1316.CrossRef

Lokshin, B., Belderbos, R., & Carree, M. (2008). The productivity effects of internal and external R&D: Evidence from a dynamic panel data model. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 70(3), 399–413.CrossRef

Lopez-Garzia, P., & Puente, S. (2012). What makes a high growth firm? A dynamic probit analysis using Spanish firm-level data, Small Business Economics, 39, 1029–1041.

Malerba, F., Orsenigo, L., & Petretto, P. (1997). Persistence of innovative activities sectoral patters of innovation and international technological specialization. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 15, 801–826.CrossRef

Máñez, J., Rochina-Barrachina, M., & Sanchis-Llopis, A. (2014). The determinants of R&D persistence in SMEs. Small Business Economics,. doi:10.1007/s11187-014-9611-3.

Marrocu, E., Paci, R., & Pontis, M. (2012). Intangible capital and firms’ productivity. Industrial and Corporate Change, 21(2), 377–402.CrossRef

McEvily, S. K., & Chakravarthy, B. (2002). The persistence of knowledge-based advantage: An empirical test for product performance and technological knowledge. Strategic Management Journal, 23(4), 285–305.CrossRef

Merino, F., & Rodríguez, D. (2007). Business services outsourcing by manufacturing firms. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16(6), 1147–1173.CrossRef

Mohnen, P., & Hall, B. H. (2013). Innovation and productivity: An update. Eurasian Business Review, 3(1), 47–65.

Nelson, R., & Winter, S. (1982). An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.

Parker, S., Storey, D., & van Witteloostuijn, A. (2010). What happens to gazelles? The importance of dynamic management strategy. Small Business Economics, 35, 203–226.CrossRef

Peters, B. (2009). Persistence of innovation: Stylized facts and panel data evidence. Journal of Technology Transfer, 36, 226–243.CrossRef

Raymond, W., Mairesse, J., Mohnen, P., & Palm, F. (2013). Dynamic Models of R&D, innovation and productivity: Panel data evidence for Dutch and French Manufacturing, NBER Working Paper N. 19074.

Roper, S., & Hewitt-Dundas, N. (2008). Innovation persistence: Survey and case-study evidence. Research Policy, 37, 149–162.CrossRef

Rothaermel, F. T., & Hess, A. M. (2007). Building dynamic capabilities. Organization Science, 18(6), 898–921.CrossRef

Santarelli, E., & Vivarelli, M. (2007). Entrepreneurship and the process of firms’ entry, survival and growth. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16(3), 455–488.CrossRef

Schumpeter, J. A. (1947). The creative response in economic history. Journal of Economic History, 7, 149–159.CrossRef

Suarez, D. (2014). Persistence of innovation in unstable environments: Continuity and change in the firm’s innovative behavior. Research Policy, 43, 726–736.CrossRef

Syverson, C. (2011). What determines productivity? Journal of Economic Literature, 49(2), 326–365.CrossRef

Teece, D. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13), 1319–1350.CrossRef

Teece, D., & Pisano, G. (1994). The dynamic capabilities of firms: An introduction. Industrial and Corporate Change, 3, 537–555.CrossRef

Triguero, A., & Corcoles, D. (2013). Understanding innovation: An analysis of persistence for Spanish manufacturing firms. Research Policy, 42, 340–352.CrossRef

Triguero, A., Corcoles, D., & Cuerva, M. C. (2014). Persistence of innovation and firm’s growth: Evidence from a panel of SME and large Spanish manufacturing firms. Small Business Economics, 43(4), 787–804.CrossRef

Vergne, J. P., & Durand, R. (2011). The path of most persistence: An evolutionary perspective on path dependence and dynamic capabilities. Organization Studies, 32, 365–382.CrossRef

Verona, G., & Ravasi, D. (2003). Unbundling dynamic capabilities: An exploratory study of continuous product innovation. Industrial and Corporate Change, 12(3), 577–607.CrossRef

Winter, S. G. (1987). Knowledge and competence as strategic assets. In D. J. Teece (Ed.), The competitive challenge: Strategies for industrial innovation and renewal (pp. 159–184). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.

Wooldridge, J. (2005). Simple solutions to the initial conditions. Dynamic nonlinear panel data models with unobserved heterogeneity. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 20, 39–54.CrossRef

Titel: Productivity growth persistence: firm strategies, size and system properties
verfasst von: Cristiano Antonelli
Francesco Crespi
Giuseppe Scellato
Publikationsdatum: 01.06.2015
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: Small Business Economics / Ausgabe 1/2015
Print ISSN: 0921-898X
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-0913
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-015-9644-2

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

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

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2015

Entrepreneurship, innovation and regional growth: a network theory

The medium-term effect of R&D on firm growth

ADHD-like behavior and entrepreneurial intentions

Corporate governance, credit ratings and the capital structure of Greek SME and large listed firms

Entry and exit dynamics of nascent business owners

Understanding the dynamics of entrepreneurship through framework approaches

Premium Partner