nach oben

Small Business Economics

Erschienen in:

01.02.2015

Are high-growth firms one-hit wonders? Evidence from Sweden

verfasst von: Sven-Olov Daunfeldt, Daniel Halvarsson

Erschienen in: Small Business Economics | Ausgabe 2/2015

Einloggen

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

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

Most firms do not grow, and a small number of high-growth firms seem to create most new jobs. These firms have therefore received increasing attention among policymakers. The question is whether high-growth tends to persist? We investigate this question using firm-level data from Sweden during 1997–2008. We find that high-growth firms had declining growth rates in the previous 3-year period, and their probability of repeating high growth rates was very low. Thus, these are essentially “one-hit wonders,” and it is doubtful whether policymakers can improve economic outcomes by targeting them.

Vorheriger Artikel Transnational activities of immigrant-owned firms and their performances in the USA

Nächster Artikel Leverage and firm performance of small businesses: evidence from Japan

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

Previous studies using quantile regression have not incorporated firm-specific fixed effects.

Note that HGFs are identified over 3-year periods, which means that our analysis mainly is focused toward the 1999–2008 period.

Daunfeldt et al. (2014) discuss implications of using different growth indicators to identify HGFs. Their results indicated that the results were not sensitive to whether employment or sales were used as growth indicator, but they found a clear trade-off between employment growth and productivity growth. Policies that are targeted toward promoting firms that grow fast in terms of number of employees might thus come at the cost of reduced productivity growth.

We can formalize the definition by relating the set of HGFs to the probability distribution of growth rates. We define HGFs as the subset of all firms with growth rates higher than some \(x\), which correspond to growth rates with a probability of at most \(1-\tau\). The lower bound \(x\) to high growth is thus given by \(\inf \{x:F(x)\ge \tau \}=F^{-1}(\tau ) \quad {\mathrm{for}} \quad \tau \in (0,1),\) where \(F(x)=P(g\le x)\) is the cumulative distribution of growth rates \(g\). To identify the 1 % fastest growing firms we set \(\tau =0.99\), then HGFs are all firms with growth rates higher than \(F^{-1}\left( 0.99\right)\), which coincides with the 99th percentile.

The expression (3) derives from the relationship between arithmetic and geometric means: \({\displaystyle {\mathrm{ln}}\left( \prod\nolimits_{i=1}^{n}E_{i}\right) ^{\frac{1}{n}}=\frac{1}{n}\sum\nolimits_{i=1}^{n}{\mathrm{ln}}\left( E_{i}\right) }\)

In Sect. 7, for comparison and robustness, we also present results when growth rates have been calculated annually.

All results remain qualitatively similar if we instead adopt a forward-looking or backward-looking approach when defining firm subsamples based on size. The results are available from the authors upon request.

Logarithmic growth rates are good approximation of percentage growth rates in this range.

Note that Hölzl (2014) only calculates the probability that a employment-HGF will remain a HGF in the next period, whereas we estimate transition probabilities for eight different growth categories and use both number of employees and sales as growth indicators.

The expression \(\gamma _{k}\) follows from the two moment conditions \({\mathbb {E}}{{\left( \upsilon _{i,t}^{2}\right) }} =\upsigma _{\varepsilon }^{2}/\left( 1-\beta ^{2}\right)\) and \(\mathbb {E}{\left( \upsilon _{i,t}\upsilon _{i,t-k}\right) }= \beta ^{k}\sigma _{\varepsilon }^{2}/\left( 1-\beta ^{2}\right)\) (see Han and Phillips 2010 for further details).

Because of a tent-shaped distribution in the error term, quantile regressions are often advocated over OLS (see e.g., Reichstein et al. 2010). While OLS traditionally do not account for heavier than Gaussian tails of \(\varepsilon _{i,t}\) in (7), the Han and Phillips (2010) estimator does not presuppose a Gaussian distribution, but only that the fourth moment of \(\varepsilon _{i,t}\) is finite. Even if a higher forth moment does affect the variance \((\sigma _{FDLS}^{2})\), the FDLS estimator is still consistent.

For the standard OLS estimator of (7), it can be shown that the bias is inversely related to \(\beta\) and vanishes as \(\beta \rightarrow 1\). Madsen (2010) even argues that OLS can yield superior estimates even when \(\beta <1\), provided that the variation in \(\alpha _{i}\) is relatively low and that \(\sigma (\alpha _{i})<\sigma (\varepsilon _{i,t})\), which Hall and Mairesse (2005) argue are likely for short panels of firm data.

We have also analyzed alternative consecutive 3-year periods during 1998–2007 and 1997–2006, and only firms that belong to a business group. All results remain qualitatively similar.

In contrast to the results presented from the FDLS estimator, we cannot control for firm-specific fixed effects here. In this regard, the results from estimating the quantile autocorrelation function should be considered with more caution.

Results are similar if we use annual growth rates, although confidence intervals are narrower due to more observations.

The first number correspond to the estimated autocorrelation coefficient when number of employees is used as growth indicator (Table 12), while sales is used as growth indicator in the latter case (Table 13).

We also examined whether growth persistence differed by business group member or not, since we know that much firm growth is non-organic (i.e., through acquisitions). However, all results are very similar to the ones reported in the paper and are available upon request.

Acs, Z. J. (2011). High-impact firms: Gazelles revisited. In M. Fritsch (Ed.), Handbook of research on entrepreneurship and regional development: National and regional perspectives (pp. 133–174). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Acs, Z. J., & Mueller, P. (2008). Employment effects of business dynamics: Mice. Gazelles and Elephants. Small Business Economics, 30(1), 85–100. doi:10.1007/s11187-007-9052-3.CrossRef

Anderson, T., & Hsiao, C. (1982). Formulation and estimation of dynamic models using panel data. Journal of Econometrics, 18(1), 47–82. doi:10.1016/0304-4076(82)90095-1.CrossRef

Antonelli, C. (1997). The economics of path-dependence in industrial organization. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 15(6), 643–675. doi:10.1016/S0167-7187(97)00006-4.CrossRef

Arellano, M., & Bond, S. (1991). Some tests of specification for panel data: Monte Carlo evidence and an application to employment equations. The Review of Economic Studies, 58(2), 277–297. doi:10.2307/2297968.CrossRef

Audretsch, D., Klomp, L., Santarelli, E., & Thurik, A. (2004). Gibrat’s law: Are the services different? Review of Industrial Organization, 24(3), 301–324. doi:10.1023/B:REIO.0000038273.50622.ec.CrossRef

Baker, D. D., & Cullen, J. B. (1993). Administrative reorganization and configurational context: The contingent effects of age, size, and change in size. Academy of Management Journal, 36(6), 1251–1277. doi:10.2307/256811.CrossRef

Birch, D., & Medoff, J. (1994). Gazelles. In C. S. Lewis & R. L. Alec (Eds.), Labor markets, employment policy and job creation (pp. 159–167). Boulder: Westview Press.

Bjuggren, C., Daunfeldt, S., & Johansson, D. (2013). Ownership and high-growth firms. Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship, 26, 365–385. doi:10.1080/08276331.2013.821765.CrossRef

Blundell, R., & Bond, S. (1998). Initial conditions and moment restrictions in dynamic panel data models. Journal of Econometrics, 87(1), 115–143. doi:10.1016/S0304-4076(98)00009-8.CrossRef

Boeri, T. (1989). Does firm size matter? Giornale degli Economisti e Annali di Economia, 48(9), 477–95.

Bond, S. (2002). Dynamic panel data models: A guide to micro data methods and practice. Portuguese Economic Journal, 1(2), 141–162. doi:10.1007/s10258-002-0009-9.CrossRef

Bottazzi, G. (2002). Corporate growth and industrial structures: Some evidence from the Italian manufacturing industry. Industrial and Corporate Change, 11(4), 705–723. doi:10.1093/icc/11.4.705.CrossRef

Bottazzi, G., & Secchi, A. (2003a). Common properties and sectoral specificities in the dynamics of U.S. manufacturing companies. Review of Industrial Organization, 23(3/4), 217–232. doi:10.1023/B:REIO.0000031366.28559.c1.CrossRef

Bottazzi, G., & Secchi, A. (2003b). Why are distributions of firm growth rates tent-shaped? Economics Letters, 80(3), 415–420. doi:10.1016/S0165-1765(03)00142-3.CrossRef

Bottazzi, G., Coad, A., Jacoby, N., & Secchi, A. (2011). Corporate growth and industrial dynamics: Evidence from french manufacturing. Applied Economics, 43(1), 103–116. doi:10.1080/00036840802400454.CrossRef

Bravo-Biosca, A. (2010). Growth dynamics exploring business growth and contraction in Europe and the US. NESTA: Research report November.

Brüderl, J., & Preisendörfer, P. (2000). Fast growing businesses: Empirical evidence from a German study. International Journal of Sociology, 30(3), 45–70.

Capasso, M., Cefis, E., & Frenken, K. (2009). Do some firms persistently outperform?. Utrecht University discussion paper series, no. 09–28.

Chesher, A. (1979). Testing the law of proportionate effect. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 27(4), 403–411.CrossRef

Coad, A. (2007). A closer look at serial growth rate correlation. Review of Industrial Organization, 31(1), 69–82. doi:10.1007/s11151-007-9135-y.CrossRef

Coad, A. (2009). The growth of firms: A survey of theories and empirical evidence. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Coad, A., & Hölzl, W. (2009). On the autocorrelation of growth rates. Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, 9(2), 139–166. doi:10.1007/s10842-009-0048-3.CrossRef

Coad, A., Daunfeldt, S., Johansson, D., & Wennberg, K. (2014). Whom do high-growth firms hire? Industrial and Corporate Change, 23(4), 293–327. doi:10.1093/icc/dtt051.CrossRef

Coad, A. J. L., Frankish, J., Roberts, R., & Storey, D. (2013). Growth paths and survival chances: An application of gambler’s ruin theory. Journal of Business Venturing, 28(5), 615–632. doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2012.06.002.CrossRef

Contini, B., & Revelli, R. (1989). The relationship between firm growth and labor demand. Small Business Economics, 1(4), 309–314. doi:10.1007/BF00393810.CrossRef

Daunfeldt, S., Halvarsson, D., & Johansson, D. (2013). A cautionary note on using the eurostat-oecd definition of high-growth firms. HUI Working Paper 65, Stockholm: HUI Research.Journal of Entrepreneurship and Public Policy (forthcoming).

Daunfeldt, S., Elert, N., & Johansson, D. (2014). Economic contribution of high-growth firms: Do policy implications depend on the choice of growth indicator? Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, 14(3), 337-365.

Davidsson, P., & Henrekson, M. (2002). Determinants of the prevalance of start-ups and high-growth firms. Small Business Economics, 19(2), 81–104. doi:10.1023/A:1016264116508.CrossRef

De Haan, J., Scholtens, B., & Shehzad, C. (2009). Growth and earnings persistence in banking firms: A dynamic panel investigation. cESifo working paper series, no. 2772.

Delmar, F., & Wiklund, J. (2008). The effect of small business managers’ growth motivation on firm growth: A longitudinal study. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32(3), 437–457. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6520.2008.00235.x.CrossRef

Delmar, F., Davidsson, P., & Gartner, W. (2003). Arriving at the high-growth firm. Journal of business venturing, 18(2), 189–216. doi:10.1016/S0883-9026(02)00080-0.CrossRef

Dosi, G., & Nelson, R. R. (2010). Technical change and industrial dynamics as evolutionary processes. In: B. H. Hall, N. Rosenberg (Eds) Handbook of The Economics of Innovation, Vol. 1 (pp. 51–127), North-Holland, Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, vol 1.

Dunne, J., & Hughes, A. (1994). Age, size, growth and survival: UK companies in the 1980s. Journal of Industrial Economics, 42(2), 115–40. doi:10.2307/2950485.CrossRef

European-Commission. (2010). Europe 2020: A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth: Communication from the commission. European-Commission: Research report.

Eurostat-OECD. (2007). Eurostat-oecd manual on business demography statistics. Research report KS-RA-07-010-EN-NN, OECD.

Fotopoulos, G., & Giotopoulos, I. (2010). Gibrat’s law and persistence of growth in greek manufacturing. Small Business Economics, 35(2), 191–202. doi:10.1007/s11187-008-9163-5.CrossRef

Garnsey, E., & Heffernan, P. (2005). Growth setbacks in new firms. Futures, 37(7), 675–697. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2004.11.011.CrossRef

Garnsey, E., Stam, E., & Heffernan, P. (2006). New firm growth: Exploring processes and paths. Industry and Innovation, 13(1), 1–20. doi:10.1080/13662710500513367.CrossRef

Geroski, P. (2002). The growth of firms in theory and in prattice. In: N. Foss, & V. Mahnke (Eds.), Competence, governance and entrepreneurship (Vol. 1, pp. 168–186). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Geroski, P., Van Reenen, J., & Walters, C. (1997). How persistently do firms innovate? Research Policy, 26(1), 33–48. doi:10.1016/S0048-7333(96)00903-1.CrossRef

Gibrat, R. (1931). Les inégalités économiques. Recueil Sirey.

Goddard, J., McKillop, D., & Wilson, J. (2002a). The growth of us credit unions. Journal of banking & finance, 26(12), 2327–2356. doi:10.1016/S0378-4266(01)00203-5.CrossRef

Goddard, J., Wilson, J., & Blandon, P. (2002b). Panel tests of Gibrat’s law for Japanese manufacturing. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 20(3), 415–433. doi:10.1016/S0167-7187(00)00085-0.CrossRef

Goddard, J., Molyneux, P., & Wilson, J. (2004). Dynamics of growth and profitability in banking. Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, 36(6), 1069–1090.CrossRef

Halabisky, D., Dreessen, E., & Parsley, C. (2006). Growth firms in Canada, 1985–1999. Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship, 19(3), 255. doi:10.1080/08276331.2006.10593370.CrossRef

Hall, B., & Mairesse, J. (2005). Testing for unit roots in panel data: An exploration using real and simulated data. In D. W. K. Andrews & J. H. Stock (Eds.), Identification and inference for econometric models: Essays in honor of Thomas Rothenberg (pp. 451–479). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef

Han, C., & Phillips, P. (2010). Gmm estimation for dynamic panels with fixed effects and strong instruments at unity. Econometric theory, 12(1), 119. doi:10.1017/S026646660909063X.CrossRef

Headd, B., & Kirchhoff, B. (2009). The growth, decline and survival of small businesses: An exploratory study of life cycles. Journal of Small Business Management, 47(4), 531–550. doi:10.1111/j.1540-627X.2009.00282.x.CrossRef

Henrekson, M., & Johansson, D. (2010). Gazelles as job creators: A survey and interpretation of the evidence. Small Business Economics, 35(2), 227–244. doi:10.1007/s11187-009-9172-z.CrossRef

Hoffman, A. N., & Junge, M. (2006). Documenting data on high-growth firms and entrepreneurs across 17 countries. Working paper Mimeo, Fora.

Hölzl, W. (2014). Persistence, survival and growth: A closer look at 20 years of high growth firms and firm dynamics in austria. Industrial and Corporate Change, 23(1), 199–231. doi:10.1093/icc/dtt054.CrossRef

Ijiri, Y., & Simon, H. (1967). A model of business firm growth. Econometrica, 35(2), 348–355. doi:10.2307/1909116.CrossRef

Koenker, R., & Bassett Jr, G. (1978). Regression quantiles. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 46(1), 33–50. doi:10.2307/1913643.

Kumar, M. (1985). Growth, acquisition activity and firm size: Evidence from the united kingdom. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 33(3), 327–338. doi:10.2307/2098540.CrossRef

Lee, N. (2014). What holds back high-growth firms? Evidence from UK SMEs. Small Business Economics, 43(1), 183–195. doi:10.1007/s11187-013-9525-5.CrossRef

Li, G., Li, Y., & Tsay, C. (2012). Quantile correlations and quantile autoregressive modeling. sSRN working paper. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2153697

Littunen, H., & Tohmo, T. (2003). The high growth in new metal-based manufacturing and business service firms in Finland. Small Business Economics, 21(2), 187–200. doi:10.1023/A:1025014427294.CrossRef

Lockett, A., Wiklund, J., Davidsson, P., & Girma, S. (2011). Organic and acquisitive growth: Re-examining, testing and extending penrose’s growth theory. Journal of Management Studies, 48(1), 48–74. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00879.x.CrossRef

Lopez-Garcia, P., & Puente, S. (2012). What makes a high-growth firm? A dynamic probit analysis using Spanish firm-level data. Small Business Economics, 39(4), 1029–1041. doi:10.1007/s11187-011-9321-z.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. doi:10.1007/s00191-003-0153-0.CrossRef

Lotti, F., Santarelli, E., & Vivarelli, M. (2009). Defending gibrat’s law as a long-run regularity. Small Business Economics, 32(1), 31–44. doi:10.1007/s11187-007-9071-0.CrossRef

Madsen, E. (2010). Unit root inference in panel data models where the time-series dimension is fixed: A comparison of different tests. Econometrics Journal, 13(1), 63–94. doi:10.1111/j.1368-423X.2009.00302.x.CrossRef

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

Oliveira, B., & Fortunato, A. (2006). Testing Gibrat’s law : Empirical evidence from a panel. International Journal of the Economics of Business, 13(1), 65–81. doi:10.1080/13571510500519996.CrossRef

Oliveira, B., & Fortunato, A. (2008). The dynamics of the growth of firms: Evidence from the services sector. Empirica, 35(3), 293–312. doi:10.1007/s10663-008-9065-4.CrossRef

Parker, S., Storey, D., & van Witteloostuijn, A. (2010). What happens to gazelles? the importance of dynamic management strategy. Small Business Economics, 35(2), 203–226. doi:10.1007/s11187-009-9250-2.CrossRef

Penrose, E. T. (1959). The theory of the growth ofthe firm. New York: Sharpe.

Reichstein, T., Dahl, M. S., Ebersberger, B., & Jensen, M. B. (2010). The devil dwells in the tails. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 20(2), 219–231. doi:10.1007/s00191-009-0152-x.CrossRef

Schreyer, P. (2000). High-growth firms and employment. Research report 72, OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers.

Segarra, A., & Teruel, M. (2014). High-growth firms and innovation: An empirical analysis for Spanish firms. Small Business Economics, forthcomming,. doi:10.1007/s11187-014-9563-7.

Singh, A., & Whittington, G. (1975). The size and growth of firms. Review of Economic Studies, 42(438), 15–26.CrossRef

Stanley, M., Amaral, L., Buldyrev, S., Havlin, S., Leschhorn, H., Maass, P., et al. (1996). Scaling behaviour in the growth of companies. Nature, 379(6568), 804–806. doi:10.1038/379804a0.CrossRef

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

Teruel-Carrizosa, M. (2006). Firm growth, persistence and multiplicity of equilibria: An analysis of spanish manufacturing and service industries. PhD thesis, Universitat Rovira i Virgili.

Tschoegl, A. (1983). Size, growth, and transnationality among the world’s largest banks. The Journal of Business, 56(2), 187–201.CrossRef

Vander Vennet, R. (2001). The law of proportionate effect and OECD bank sectors. Applied Economics, 33(4), 539–546. doi:10.1080/00036840122263.CrossRef

Wagner, J. (1992). Firm size, firm growth, and persistence of chance—Testing Gibrat’s law with establishment data from the lower Saxony, 1978–1989. Small Business Economics, 4(2), 125–131. doi:10.1007/BF00389853.CrossRef

Weiss, C. (1998). Size, growth, and survival in the upper austrian farm sector. Small Business Economics, 10(4), 305–312. doi:10.1023/A:1007972518380.CrossRef

Titel: Are high-growth firms one-hit wonders? Evidence from Sweden
verfasst von: Sven-Olov Daunfeldt
Daniel Halvarsson
Publikationsdatum: 01.02.2015
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: Small Business Economics / Ausgabe 2/2015
Print ISSN: 0921-898X
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-0913
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-014-9599-8

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 2/2015

Are entrepreneurship and cognitive skills related? Some international evidence

Infrastructure and entrepreneurship

The driving forces of venture capital investments

Transnational activities of immigrant-owned firms and their performances in the USA

Leverage and firm performance of small businesses: evidence from Japan

The role of demographics in small business loan pricing

Premium Partner