nach oben

Small Business Economics

Erschienen in:

01.09.2010

Firm size, age, industrial networking, and growth: a case of the Korean manufacturing industry

verfasst von: Younsuk Park, Jaeun Shin, Taejong Kim

Erschienen in: Small Business Economics | Ausgabe 2/2010

Einloggen

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

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

This paper investigates the roles of firm size, age, and industrial networking in determining firm growth. Analyses using the 2-year panel data of 7,889 Korean manufacturing firms between 1994 and 2003 confirm that firm size and age have significant negative effects on firm growth and significant positive impacts on firm survival. R&D and export activities are found to facilitate both firm growth and survival. The primary focus of this study is to examine the effects of industrial networking, such as subcontracting and clustering, on firm growth. The results show that subcontracting does not yield any positive effect for firm growth, but encumbers survival, which may be accounted for by the high subcontracting intensity among small firms. Clustering, on the other hand, is found to promote firm growth and survival. There is, however, little evidence that such a positive effect of clustering is derived from network externalities through cooperation and competition among firms in a cluster per se.

Vorheriger Artikel One or more growth processes? Evidence from new Italian firms

Nächster Artikel Generic strategies and firm performance in SMEs: a longitudinal study of Austrian 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

In this paper, establishments, plants, and firms are used interchangeably.

For a review, see Sutton (1997) and Audretsch et al. (2004). There are exceptions against this conventional wisdom. Acs and Audretsch (1990), Audretsch et al. (2004), and Delmar et al. (2003) reported that Gibrat’s law on a firm's size-growth relationship cannot be rejected. Wagner (1992) found no strong evidence that smaller firms tend to grow faster than larger firms. Lotti et al. (2003) suggested that smaller firms are likely to grow faster only in the early stage of their life cycle, while in the subsequent years the Gibrat’s law cannot be rejected. Das (1995) suggested a strong positive effect of firm age on growth in the case of an infant computer hardware industry in India. Heshmati (2001) found a positive firm age-growth relationship in terms of assets and sales, while negative in the employment model of firm growth.

In this paper, clustering, industrial complex, and industrial districts are used interchangeably.

Korea means South Korea, unless otherwise noted.

These big business conglomerates are often called chaebols. Among developed countries, Japan shares similar industrial structure with Korea, in which large firms play a leading role in the economy (Johnson 1982).

For details on Gibrat’s law and follow-up studies, see Sutton (1997) and Caves (1998).

There are more relevant studies using data from European, Asian, and African countries: Dunne and Hughes (1994); Hart and Oulton (1996); Kumar (1985), and Reid (1993) using UK data; Contini and Revelli (1989) for Italian firms; Almus and Nerlinger (2000); Harhoff et al. (1998), and Wagner (1992) using West German data; Mata (1994) for Portuguese manufacturing firms; Weiss (1998) for Austrian firms; Liu et al. (1999) using Taiwan data; Yasuda (2005) for Japan, and finally, McPherson (1996) using data on five countries in Southern Africa.

Jovanovic (1982) proposes the special assumptions under which Gibrat’s law still holds. If the distribution of firm efficiency is lognormal, firm growth is independent of size for firms of the same age. If firm costs are Cobb-Douglas with decreasing returns to scale, firm size is not relevant for age. If firm costs are Cobb-Douglas with decreasing returns to scale, firm size is not relevant for mature firms. However, these assumptions fail to be proved in Evans (1987a).

Geroski et al. (2003), Del Monte and Papagni (2003), and Goddard et al. (2005) have shown results in support of Gibrat’s law. In contrast, Goddard et al. (2002), Chen and Lu (2003), Oliveira and Fortunato (2006) and Aslan (2008) demonstrated that Gibrat’s law does not hold.

For example, Mansfield (1962) finds that the successfully innovating firms grow about twice as rapidly as other comparable firms. The rewards for successful innovation seem to have been substantial for the short-term growth of smaller firms.

Other difficulties in relation to subcontracting transactions include the receipt of irregular and unexpected orders (47.2%) and sudden curtailment of delivery terms (39.2%) (Korea Federation of Small and Medium Business 2007).

In 2004, more than half of subcontracted firms partly or totally re-subcontracted their work to other firms (Korea Federation of Small and Medium Business 2005). The gap between big firms and SMEs in terms of the profit rate and productivity has become wider (ibid.).

The Korean government conceals information of certain firms for the purpose of confidentiality. For example, if a firm is the only one to run the business of a particular industry in an administration district, data on this company are missing. In order to secure as much data as possible, the two-digit industry code is used instead of the five-digit one following the Korea Standard Industrial Classification.

Usually, “exit” of a firm means that the firm fails and disappears during the observation period. However, in this paper, firms in which the number of employees has shrunk below five are also regarded as the exiting firms due to the survey design.

There are alternative ways to measure the extent of firm growth, such as sales or employment of a firm. According to Delmar (1997), 30.9% of the previous studies on firm growth relied on the sales variable, while 29.1% of studies used the number of employees of a firm as the measure of firm growth. However, the employment size is regarded as most reliable in terms of data quality compared to alterative measures (Liu et al. 1999). Using the size of employment as the proxy of firm size, we were able to compare the case of Korean manufacturing firms with other studies on developed countries without facing with the measurement incompatibility across studies (Acs and Audretsch 1990; Evans 1987a, b; Farinos and Moreno 2000; Harhoff et al. 1998; Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development 2002).

The major industry is defined as the industry of the highest concentration ratio within a cluster. The concentration ratio of an industry within a cluster is calculated by dividing the number of employees in a given industry into that of all firms in a given cluster. The variable of “major industry” is used as the indicator for the density of networking among firms in the same industry within a cluster. Industry is classified according to the two-digit Korean Standard Industrial Classification.

Results of Table 1 on differences in characteristics between surviving firms and all firms are all statistically significant at the 5% level by the mean equivalence test.

Details on how to obtain the LQ variable may be derived from Bennet et al. (1999) and Fingleton et al. (2004).

This issue is acknowledged and empirically investigated in many studies related to Gibrat’s law using US and European countries, such as Dunne and Hughes (1994), Hall (1987), Harhoff et al. (1998), Mata (1994), and Weiss (1998).

As it is not easy to directly investigate the relationships among firm size, age, and growth due to their quadratic and interaction coefficients, the percentage of firms of which partial derivatives of the growth function with respect to size and age are positive (or negative) is computed using the estimates of model (4): for 96.3% of all firms, size effects were negative, and for 93.5% of all firms, age effects were negative. This result shows that, in most firms, firm size and age have a negative effect on firm growth, which confirms the result of most previous studies, including Evans (1987a, b).

Insignificance of subcontracting effect on growth is also inconsistent with Song et al. (2004), who suggest that the subcontracting firm is less likely to grow due to excessive price-cut demand from the parent company.

Technically, different data sources and variable definitions may also bring on ambiguity in empirical results. Yasuda’s study (2005) is based on Japanese manufacturing firms with 50 employees or more and subcontracting firms for only one parent company. This paper, on the other hand, deals with Korean firms with five employees or more, and subcontracting is limited to the form that the parent company provides material for subcontractors.

According to a staff member of the Korea Industrial Complex Managing Corporation, positive externalities through industrial networking itself may be weak in the case of the Korean industrial complex. Nevertheless, comparative advantages of clustered firms certainly are derived from well-established infrastructure. He also mentioned that policy supports, mainly tax exemption and subsidy, played a role in firm growth and survival in a cluster (interviewed on 16 February 2006).

Acs, Z. J., & Audretsch, D. B. (1990). Innovation and small firms. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Almus, M., & Nerlinger, E. A. (2000). Testing Gibrat’s Law for young firms—empirical results for West Germany. Small Business Economics, 15(1), 1–12.CrossRef

Altenburg, T., & Meyer-stamer, J. (1999). How to promote clusters: Policy experiences from Latin America. World Development, 27(9), 1693–1713.CrossRef

Aslan, A. (2008). Testing Gibrat’s law: Empirical evidence from panel unit root tests of Turkish firms. International Research Journal of Finance and Economies, 16, 137–142.

Audretsch, D. B., Klomp, L., Santarelli, E., & Thurik, A. R. (2004). Gibrat’s law: Are the services different? Review of Industrial Organization, 24(3), 301–324.CrossRef

Bennet, R. J., Graham, D. J., & Bratton, W. (1999). The location and concentration of business in Britain: Business clusters, business services, market coverage and local economic development. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, New Series, 24, 393–420.CrossRef

Berry, A. (1997). SME competitiveness: The power of networking and subcontracting. Washington, DC: Inter-American Development Bank.

Bok, D. K., Koh, J. M., Shim, S. M., & Koh, Y. S. (2002). Strategies for developing industrial clusters and related Korean and overseas case. Seoul: Samsung Economics Research Institute (in Korean).

Caves, R. (1998). Industrial organization and new findings on the turnover and mobility of firms. Journal of Economic Literature, 36(4), 1947–1982.

Chen, M. C. (2002). Industrial district and social capital in Taiwan’s economic development. Ph.D. Dissertation, Yale University.

Chen, J., & Lu, W. (2003). Panel unit root tests of firm size and its growth. Applied Economics Letters, 10(6), 343–345.CrossRef

Cho, Y. S. (2005). Forecasting on the shape of innovative cluster in Seoul digital complex and policy theme. Korean Regional Development Association Paper, 17(1), 73–90 (in Korean).

Contini, B., & Revelli, R. (1989). The relationship between firm growth and labor demand. Small Business Economics, 1(4), 309–314.CrossRef

Das, S. (1995). Size, age and firm growth in an infant industry: The computer hardware industry in India. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 13(1), 111–125.CrossRef

DeCarolis, D. M., & Deeds, D. L. (1999). The impact of stocks and flows of organizational knowledge on firm performance: An empirical investigation of the biotechnology industry. Strategic Management Journal, 20(10), 953–968.CrossRef

Del Monte, A., & Papagni, E. (2003). R&D and the growth of firms: An empirical analysis of a panel of Italian firms. Research Policy, 32(6), 1003–1014.CrossRef

Delmar, F. (1997). Measuring growth: Methodological considerations and empirical results. In D. Donckels & A. Miettinen (Eds.), Entrepreneurship and SME Research: On its way to the next millennium. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.

Delmar, F., Davidsson, P., & Gartner, W. (2003). Arriving at the high-growth firm. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(2), 189–216.CrossRef

Doms, M., Dunne, T., & Roberts, M. J. (1995). The role of technology use in the survival and growth of manufacturing plants. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 13, 523–542.CrossRef

Dore, R. (1983). Goodwill and the sprit of market capitalism. British Journal of Society, 34, 459–482.CrossRef

Dunne, P., & Hughes, A. (1994). Age, size, growth and survival: UK companies in the 1980s. Journal of Industrial Economics, 42(2), 115–140.CrossRef

Dunne, T., Roberts, M. J., & Samuelson, L. (1989). The growth and failure of manufacturing plants. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 104, 671–698.CrossRef

Ericson, R., & Pakes, A. (1995). Markov-perfect industry dynamics: A framework for empirical work. The Review of Economics Studies, 62(1), 53–82.CrossRef

Evans, D. S. (1987a). Tests of alternative theories of firm growth. Journal of Political Economy, 95(4), 657–674.CrossRef

Evans, D. S. (1987b). The relationship between firm growth, size and age: Estimates for 100 manufacturing industries. Journal of Industrial Economics, 35(4), 567–581.CrossRef

Farinos, J. C., & Moreno, L. (2000). Firms’ growth, size and age: A nonparametric approach. Review of Industrial Organization, 17, 249–265.CrossRef

Fingleton, B., Igliori, C., & Moore, B. (2004). Employment growth of small high-technology firms and the role of horizontal clustering: Evidence from computing services and R&D in Great Britain, 1991–2000. Urban Studies, 41(4), 773–799.CrossRef

FitzRoy, F. R., & Kraft, K. (1991). Firm size, growth and innovation: Some evidence from West Germany. In Z. J. Acs & D. B. Audretsch (Eds.), Innovation and technological change: An international comparison. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

Friedman, D. (1988). The misunderstood miracle: Industrial development and political change in Japan. New York: Cornell University Press.

Geroski, P. A. (1995). What do we know about entry? International Journal of Industrial Organization, 13(4), 421–440.CrossRef

Geroski, P. A., Lazarova, S., Urga, G., & Walters, F. (2003). Are differences in firm size transitory or permanent? Journal of Applied Econometrics, 18(1), 47–59.CrossRef

Gibrat, R. (1931). Les Inegalites Economiques. Paris: Librairie du Recueil Sirey.

Goddard, J., McKillop, D., & Wilson, J. (2005). Panel unit root tests of the size and growth of large US credit unions. Managerial Finance, 31(11), 36–49.CrossRef

Goddard, J., Wilson, J., & Blandon, P. (2002). Panel tests of Gibrat’s law for Japanese manufacturing. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 20(3), 415–433.CrossRef

Grabher, G. (1993). The embedded firm: On the socioeconomics of industrial networks. London: Routledge.

Hall, B. H. (1987). The relationship between firm size and firm growth in the US manufacturing sector. Journal of Industrial Economics, 35(4), 583–606.CrossRef

Harhoff, D., Stahl, K., & Woywode, M. (1998). Legal form, growth and exit of West German firms–empirical results for manufacturing, construction, trade and service industries. Journal of Industrial Economics, 46(4), 453–488.CrossRef

Hart, P. E., & Oulton, N. (1996). Growth and size of firms. Economic Journal, 106(3), 1242–1252.CrossRef

Hassink, R. (2001). Towards regionally embedded innovation support systems in South Korea? Case studies from kyongbuk-taegu and kyonggi. Urban Studies, 38(8), 1373–1395.

Hayashi, M. (2005). SMEs, subcontracting and economic development in Indonesia: With reference to Japan’s experience. Tokyo: Japan International Cooperation Publishing.

Heckman, J. (1979). Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica, 47(1), 153–161.CrossRef

Heshmati, A. (2001). On the growth of micro and small firms: Evidence from Sweden. Small Business Economics, 17, 213–228.CrossRef

Hill, J., & Naroff, J. L. (1984). The effect of location on the performance of high-technology firms. Financial Management, 13, 27–36.CrossRef

Hymer, S., & Pashigian, P. (1962). Firm size and rate of growth. Journal of Political Economy, 52, 556–569.CrossRef

Iammarino, S., & McCann, P. (2006). The structure and evolution of industrial clusters: Transactions, technology and knowledge spillovers. Research Policy, 35(7), 1018–1036.CrossRef

Im, K., Pesaran, H., & Shin, Y. (2003). Testing for unit roots in heterogeneous panels. Journal of Econometrics, 115, 53–74.CrossRef

Johnson, C. (1982). MITI and the Japanese miracle: The growth of industrial policy (pp. 1925–1975). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Jovanovic, B. (1982). Selection and evolution of industry. Econometrica, 50, 649–670.CrossRef

Koh, S. C. (2004). The formation of innovative clusters and schemes for developing them in Korea. Korean Regional Development Association, presented at the summer science meeting (in Korean).

Korea Federation of Small and Medium Business. (2005). Survey of small and medium enterprises. Seoul: KFSB (in Korean).

Korea Federation of Small and Medium Business. (2007). Survey of small and medium enterprises. Seoul: KFSB (in Korean).

Korea Ministry of Commerce, Industry, Energy, and Korea Industrial Complex Corporation. (2008). Statistics on industrial complex in Korea. Seoul: KICC (in Korean).

Korea National Statistical Office. (2004). The report on Industrial Census 2003. Seoul: KNSO (in Korean).

Kumar, M. S. (1985). Growth, acquisition activity and firm size: Evidence from the United Kingdom. Journal of Industrial Economics, 33(3), 327–338.CrossRef

Liu, J. T., Tsou, M. W., & Hammitt, J. K. (1999). Do small plants grow faster? Evidence from the Taiwan electronics industry. Economics Letters, 65(1), 121–129.CrossRef

Lotti, F., Santarelli, E., & Vivarelli, M. (2003). Does Gibrat’s Law hold among young, small firms? Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 13(3), 213–235.CrossRef

Mansfield, E. (1962). Entry, Gibart’s law, innovation, and the growth of firms. American Economic Review, 52(5), 1023–1051.

Marshall, A. (1920). Principles of economics. London: Macmillan.

Mata, J. (1994). Firm growth during infancy. Small Business Economics, 6, 27–93.CrossRef

McDougall, P. P., & Oviatt, B. M. (1997). International entrepreneurship literature in 1990s and directions for future research. In D. L. Sexton & R. W. Smilor (Eds.), Entrepreneurship 2000 (pp. 291–320). Chicago, IL: Upstart.

McPherson, M. A. (1996). Growth of micro and small enterprises in Southern Africa. Journal of Development Economics, 48(2), 253–277.CrossRef

Narula, R., & Santangelo, G. (forthcoming). Location, collocation and R&D alliances in the European ICT industry. Research Policy.

Nishiguchi, T. (1994). Strategic industrial sourcing: The Japanese advantage. New York: Oxford University Press.

Nugent, J. B. (1996). What explains the trend reversal in the size distribution of Korean manufacturing establishments? Journal of Development Economics, 48, 225–251.CrossRef

Nugent, J. B., & Yhee, S. J. (2002). Small and medium enterprises in Korea: Achievements, constraints and policy issues. Small Business Economics, 18(1), 85–119.CrossRef

Oliveira, B., & Fortunato, A. (2006). Testing Gibrat’s law: Empirical evidence from a panel of Portuguese manufacturing firms. International Journal of the Economics of Business, 13(1), 65–81.CrossRef

Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. (1999). Boosting innovation: The cluster approach. Paris: OECD.

Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2001). Innovative clusters: Drivers of national innovation systems. Paris: OECD.

Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2002). High-growth SMEs and employment. Paris: OECD.

Park, Y. (2006). Essays on industrial networking and small and medium firms. Ph.D. Dissertation, KDI School of Public Policy and Management.

Pavitt, K. (1987). On the nature of technology. Mimeo, Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex.

Piore, M. J., & Sabel, C. F. (1984). The second industrial divide: Possibilities for prosperity. New York: Basic Books.

Porter, M. (1990). The competitive advantage of nations. New York: The Free Press.

Porter, M. (1998). On competition. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Powell, W. (1990). Neither market nor hierarchy: Network forms of organization. Research in Organizational Behavior, 12, 295–336.

Rauch, J. E. (1999). Networks versus markets in international trade. Journal of International Economics, 48, 7–35.CrossRef

Reid, G. C. (1993). Growth and its determinants. In Small business enterprises: An economic analysis (pp. 187–207). New York, NY: Routledge.

Samuels, J. M. (1965). Size and growth of firms. Review of Economic Studies, 32(1), 105–112.

Saxenian, A. L. (1994). Regional advantage: Culture and competition in silicon valley and Route 128. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Seo, J. D., & Park, S. C. (2003). A study for the development of the Korean industrial complex. Seoul: Korea Small Business Institute (in Korean).

Simon, H. A., & Bonini, C. P. (1958). The size distribution of business firms. American Economic Review, 48(4), 607–617.

Singh, A., & Whittington, G. (1975). The size and growth of firms. Review of Economic Studies, 42(1), 15–26.CrossRef

Song, C. J., et al. (2004). A study for developing cooperative business model between large and small companies. Seoul: Korean Small Business Institute (in Korean).

Sutton, J. (1997). Gibrat’s legacy. Journal of Economic Literature, 35(1), 40–59.

Wagner, J. (1992). Firm size, firm growth, and persistence of chance: Testing Gibrat’s Law with establishment data from lower Saxony. Small Business Economics, 4(2), 125–131.CrossRef

Weiss, C. R. (1998). Size, growth, and survival in the upper Austrian farm sector. Small Business Economics, 10(4), 305–312.CrossRef

White, H. (1980). A Heteroscedasticity—consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test for heteroscedasticity. Econometrica, 48(4), 817–838.CrossRef

Wynarczyk, P., & Watson, R. (2005). Firm growth and supply chain partnerships: An empirical analysis of U. K. SME subcontractors. Small Business Economics, 24(1), 39–51.CrossRef

Yasuda, T. (2005). Firm growth, size, age and behavior in Japanese manufacturing. Small Business Economics, 24(1), 1–15.CrossRef

Titel: Firm size, age, industrial networking, and growth: a case of the Korean manufacturing industry
verfasst von: Younsuk Park
Jaeun Shin
Taejong Kim
Publikationsdatum: 01.09.2010
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: Small Business Economics / Ausgabe 2/2010
Print ISSN: 0921-898X
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-0913
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-009-9177-7

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 2/2010

Gazelles as job creators: a survey and interpretation of the evidence

Gibrat’s law and persistence of growth in Greek manufacturing

What happens to gazelles? The importance of dynamic management strategy

One or more growth processes? Evidence from new Italian firms

Generic strategies and firm performance in SMEs: a longitudinal study of Austrian SMEs

Growth beyond Gibrat: firm growth processes and strategies

Premium Partner