nach oben

Small Business Economics

Erschienen in:

01.06.2013

The dynamics of exports and R&D in SMEs

verfasst von: Silviano Esteve-Pérez, Diego Rodríguez

Erschienen in: Small Business Economics | Ausgabe 1/2013

Einloggen

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

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

A growing body of literature is exploring firm export and R&D activities. However, most studies examine the first one, whilst considering the second as an explanatory variable or vice versa. This paper contributes to this literature by exploring the joint dynamics of exports and R&D using data from a representative sample of small and medium-sized enterprises in Spanish manufacturing over the 1990–2006 period. The results confirm the existence of a strong interdependence between export and R&D activities. Indeed, engaging in export (R&D) activities will increase a firm’s chances of also engaging in R&D (export) activities. This, in turn, increases firms’ chances of succeeding in export (R&D) activities. Additionally, once we control for firm heterogeneity, strong persistence still remains in each activity due to true state dependence. The results are robust in the use of alternative measures of internationalization (i.e. imports) and innovative activities (product and process innovation).

Vorheriger Artikel Comment on Acs and Varga: Entrepreneurship, agglomeration and technological change

Nächster Artikel Unfair credit allocations

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

We are grateful to an anonymous referee for drawing our attention to this point.

In contrast to firm-level studies, global-economy models of endogenous innovation and growth have long pointed out a strong interdependence between export and technological activities (Grossman and Helpman 1991). Additionally, endogenous growth theory associates productivity to decisions, such as investments in R&D and innovation (Romer 1990).

The threshold size used to define SMEs is 200 employees, rather than 250 as in Eurostat. The reason is that the sampling procedure in ESEE is different for firms with more than 200 employees. In the latter case, firms are surveyed exhaustively, resulting in a response rate of approximately 60% of the population.

We choose 7 years because it is the average period in which a firm is in the survey over the 1990–2006 period. When two potential spells are available for the same firm, the larger one is selected. The analysis has also been carried out for different thresholds, and the results (available upon request from the authors) do not differ significantly.

More specifically, it is 86.2 for non R&D performers (93.1–6.9) and 86.7 (97.3–10.6) for R&D performers.

These figures are obtained as 73.3–3.2 for non-exporters and 85.1–7.7 for exporters.

Explanatory variables are lagged one period to reduce simultaneity problems.

In model (1), even when \( u_{it} \) are assumed to be serially independent, the composite error term \( \left( {\mu_{i} + u_{it} } \right) \) is correlated over time due to the individual-specific time invariant μ_i term.

Specifically, \( Corr\left( {y_{it} ,y_{it - 1} } \right) = \rho = \sigma_{\mu }^{2} /(\sigma_{\mu }^{2} + \sigma_{u}^{2} ) \).

Average sales and capital stock might also be considered. We have decided not to include them because they are highly correlated with total factor productivity (TFP) proxy for productivity.

R&D activities carried out by foreign affiliates in the host market are playing an increasing role. See Moncada-Paternó-Castelló et al. (2011) for an overview on the trends of internationalization of R&D activities.

We have not included the mean values of age and foreign ownership because they show very little within-individual variation. Most variation in these two variables is across individuals.

As is well known, the common approach with a probit is a random effects model because there is not a sufficient statistic for a conditional fixed effect model. A basic assumption of the random effects (RE) model is that errors are not correlated with the regressors. To deal with this, we parameterize the effect by augmenting the RE model with the Mundlak specification to allow for individual effects that are correlated with the within-individual means of the regressors.

We tested the stability of results using different quadrature points in reported regressions. Some initial instability led us to increase the number to 24. It improves the accuracy of results at the cost of slowing down convergence.

A potential shortcoming of the Wooldridge (2005) approach is that it specifies a complete model for the individual unobserved effects (see Eq. 2), so that the estimates could be sensitive to mis-specification of this effect. We have also carried out estimations using the two-step method proposed by Heckman (1981) to deal with the initial conditions problem. The Heckman estimator of dynamic random effects probit model has been obtained using the redpace Stata command by Stewart (2006), and the results are fairly similar to those reported in the paper.

As pointed out by one referee, the estimates of the impact of past participation on current participation implied by the bivariate probit model are larger than those obtained from the estimation of random effects probit (Table 5), because the former does not control for individual heterogeneity. Hence, the latter possibly provides a more reliable estimate of the size of state dependence.

Collaboration with clients (44.4%) and with universities and technological centres (37.2%) are other relevant ways of technological collaboration. Of less importance are collaboration with competitors (3.8%) and joint-ventures (5.6%).

Some authors have argued that R&D measures could be biased towards underestimating the innovative activities of SMEs. Roper (1998) argues that large firms undertake frequent research activities that require a larger degree of formality (i.e., laboratories), in which cost accounting may be simpler. However, costs related to more informal innovative activities could be considered as general costs by smaller firms, and they would not be reflected as R&D investments.

Nevertheless, Aw et al. (2005) argue that many studies that failed to find evidence of learning-by-exporting may have neglected a potentially important element of the process of productivity change, namely the investments made by firms to absorb and assimilate knowledge and expertise from foreign contacts (due to exporting). These activities are probably more related to R&D.

Some recent papers have incorporated imports to explain efficiency heterogeneity across firms (e.g., Kasahara and Rodrigue 2008; Altomonte and Békés 2008; Castellani et al. 2010, for Chilean, Hungarian, and Italian plants/firms, respectively). Similarly to exports, the argument hinges on the existence of sunk start-up costs associated with import activities. In principle, the argument that sunk costs is related to import activity is less compelling than in the case of exports. However, these costs may arise when either client–supplier relationship is the result of a matching process after which both parts establish stable sourcing relationships (see, for example, Grossman and Helpman 2002) or importers incur complementary costs to adapt intermediate import (and incorporated technologies) to their production processes.

Altomonte, C., & Bekes, G. (2008). Trading activities, firms and productivity. Mimeo: Hungarian Academy of Science.

Atkeson, A., & Burstein, A. (2010). Innovation, firm dynamics, and international trade. Journal of Political Economy, 118, 433–484.CrossRef

Aw, B. Y., Roberts, M. J., & Winston, T. (2005). The complementary role of exports and R&D investments as sources of productivity growth. NBER Working Papers No. 11774, Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.

Aw, B. Y., Roberts, M. J., & Winston, T. (2007). Export market participation, investments in R&D and worker training, and the evolution of firm productivity. The World Economy, 30, 83–104.CrossRef

Aw, B. Y., Roberts, M. J., & Xu, D. Y. (2008). R&D investments, exporting, and the evolution of firm productivity. American Economic Review: Papers and Proceedings, 98, 451–456.CrossRef

Aw, B. Y., Roberts, M. J., & Xu, D. Y. (2011). R&D investments, exporting, and productivity dynamics. American Economic Review, 101, 1312–1344.CrossRef

Becker, S., & Egger, P. (2009). Endogenous product versus process innovation and a firm’s propensity to export. Empirical Economics. doi:10.1007/s00181-009-0322-6.

Bernard, A. B., & Jensen, J. B. (1999). Exceptional exporter performance: Cause, effect, or both? Journal of International Economics, 47, 1–25.CrossRef

Bernard, A. B., & Jensen, J. B. (2004). Why some firms export. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 86, 561–569.CrossRef

Braunerhjelm, P. (1996). The relation between firm-specific intangibles and exports. Economic Letters, 53, 213–219.CrossRef

Bustos, P. (2011). Trade liberalization, exports and technology upgrading: Evidence on the impact of MERCOSUR on Argentinean firms. American Economic Review, 101, 304–340.CrossRef

Cameron, A. C., & Trivedi, P. K. (2005). Microeconometrics: Methods and applications. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef

Cassiman B., & Golovko, E. (2007), Innovation and the export-productivity link. CEPR Discussion Papers No. DP6411, London: CEPR.

Castellani, D., Serti, F., & Tomasi, C. (2010). Firms in international trade: Importers and exporters heterogeneity in the Italian manufacturing industry. The World Economy, 33, 424–457.CrossRef

Chamberlain G. (1984). Panel data, In Z. Griliches & M. D. Intriligator (Eds.), Handbook of Econometrics, vol. 2, Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Cohen, W. M., & Klepper, S. (1996). Firm size and the nature of innovation within industries: The case of process and product R&D. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 78, 232–243.CrossRef

Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. (1989). Innovation and learning: Two faces of R&D. Economic Journal, 99, 569–596.CrossRef

Constantini, J. A., & Melitz, M. J. (2008). The dynamics of firm-level adjustment to trade liberalization. In E. Helpman, D. Marin, & T. Verdier (Eds.), The organization of firms in a global economy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Dosi, G., & Malerba, F. (Eds.). (1996). Organization and strategy in the evolution of the enterprise. London: MacMillan.

Geroski, P. A., Van Reenen, J., & Walters, C. F. (1997). How persistently do firms innovate? Research Policy, 26, 33–48.CrossRef

Girma, S., Görg, H., & Hanley, A. (2008). R&D and exporting: A comparison of British and Irish firms. Review of World Economics, 144, 749–772.CrossRef

Gkypali A., Tsekouras K., & von Tunzelmann N. (2011). Endogeneity between internationalization and knowledge creation of global R&D leader firms: An econometric approach using Scoreboard data. Industrial and Corporate Change, doi:10.1093/icc/dtr057.

Grant, R. M. (1996). Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 109–122.CrossRef

Greenaway, D., & Kneller, R. (2007). Firm heterogeneity, exporting and foreign direct investment. Economic Journal, 117, F134–F161.CrossRef

Greene, W. (2008). Discrete Choice Modeling. In T. Mills & K. Patterson. The handbook of econometrics vol. 2, Applied econometrics, Part 4.2., ed, Palgrave, London.

Grossman, G. M., & Helpman, E. (1991). Innovation and growth in the global economy. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Grossman, G. M., & Helpman, E. (2002). Integration versus outsourcing in industry equilibrium. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 117, 85–120.CrossRef

Hall, B. H. (2002). The financing of Research and Development. Oxford Economic Review of Economic Policy, 18, 35–51.CrossRef

Heckman, 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. L. McFadden (Eds.), Structural analysis of discrete data with econometric applications (pp. 179–195). London: MIT Press.

Hirsch, S., & Bijaoui, I. (1985). R&D intensity and export performance: A micro view. Weltwirtschaftliches Archivies, 121, 238–251.CrossRef

Hummels, D., Ishii, J., & Yi, K. (2001). The nature and growth of vertical specialization in world trade. Journal of International Economics, 54, 75–96.CrossRef

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

Kaiser, U., & Kongsted, H. C. (2008). True versus spurious state dependence in firm performance: The case of German exports. Empirical Economics, 35, 207–228.CrossRef

Kampik, F., & Dachs, B. (2011). The innovative performance of German multinationals abroad: Evidence from the European community innovation survey. Industrial and Corporate Change, 20, 661–681.CrossRef

Kasahara, H., & Rodrigue, J. (2008). Does the use of imported intermediates increase productivity? Plant-level evidence. Journal of Development Economics, 87, 106–118.CrossRef

Klepper, S. (1996). Entry, exit, growth, and innovation over the product life cycle. American Economic Review, 86, 562–583.

Kumar, N., & Siddhartan, N. S. (1994). Technology, firm size and export behaviour in developing countries: the case of Indian enterprises. Journal of Development Studies, 31, 289–309.CrossRef

Levinsohn, J., & Petrin, A. (2003). Estimating production functions using inputs to control for unobservables. Review of Economic Studies, 70, 317–342.CrossRef

Lileeva, A., & Trefler, D. (2010). Improved access to foreign markets raises plant-level productivity… for some plants. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 125, 1051–1099.CrossRef

Mayer, T., & Ottaviano, G. (2008). The happy few: The internationalisation of European firms. New facts based on firm-level evidence. Intereconomics, 43, 135–148.CrossRef

Melitz, M. J. (2003). The impact of trade on intra-industry reallocations and aggregate industry productivity. Econometrica, 71, 1695–1725.CrossRef

Moncada-Paternó-Castelló, P., Vivarelli, M., & Voigt, P. (2011). Drivers and impacts in the globalization of corporate R&D: An introduction based on the European experience. Industrial and Corporate Change, 20, 585–603.CrossRef

Mundlak, Y. (1978). On the pooling of time series and cross sectional data. Econometrica, 46, 69–85.CrossRef

Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2002). OECD small and medium enterprise outlook. OECD, Paris.

Ortega-Argilés, R., Vivarelli, M., & Voigt, P. (2009). R&D in SMEs: A paradox? Small Business Economics, 33, 3–11.CrossRef

Peters, B. (2009). Persistence of innovation: Stylised facts and panel data evidence. Journal of Technology Transfer, 34, 226–243.CrossRef

Roberts, M. J., & Tybout, J. R. (1997). The decision to export in Colombia: An empirical model of entry with Sunk costs. American Economic Review, 87, 545–564.

Rogers, M. (2004). Networks, firm size and innovation. Small Business Economics, 22, 141–153.CrossRef

Romer, P. M. (1990). Endogenous technological change. Journal of Political Economy, 98, S71–S102.CrossRef

Roper, S. (1998). Under-reporting of R&D in small firms: The impact on international R&D comparisons. Small Business Economics, 12, 131–135.CrossRef

Salomon, R. M. (2006). Spillovers to foreign market participants: Assessing the impact of export strategies on innovative productivity. Strategic Organization, 4, 135–164.CrossRef

Stewart, M. (2006). Maximum simulated likelihood estimation of random-effects dynamic probit models with autocorrelated errors. The Stata Journal, 6, 256–272.

Van Beveren, I., & Vandenbussche, H. (2010). Product and process innovation and firms’ decision to export. Journal of Economic Policy Reform, 13, 3–24.CrossRef

Wagner, J. (2007). Exports and productivity: A survey of the evidence from firm-level data. The World Economy, 30, 60–82.CrossRef

Wakelin, K. (1998). Innovation and export behaviour at the firm level. Research Policy, 26, 829–841.CrossRef

Willmore, L. (1992). Transnationals and foreign trade: Evidence from Brazil. Journal of Development Studies, 28, 314–335.CrossRef

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

Wright, M., Westhead, P., & Ucbasaran, D. (2007). Internationalization of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and international entrepreneurship: A critique and policy implications. Regional Studies, 41, 1013–1030.CrossRef

Titel: The dynamics of exports and R&D in SMEs
verfasst von: Silviano Esteve-Pérez
Diego Rodríguez
Publikationsdatum: 01.06.2013
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: Small Business Economics / Ausgabe 1/2013
Print ISSN: 0921-898X
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-0913
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-012-9421-4

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 1/2013

Balanced skills among nascent entrepreneurs

Black–White gap in self-employment. Does intra-race heterogeneity exist?

Optimum pricing of mutual guarantees for credit

Modeling productive entrepreneurship in developing countries

Effectiveness and efficiency of SME innovation policy

Unfair credit allocations