Firm Size and Innovation in European Manufacturing

Abstract

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in AbstractThe paper investigates the differences between small, medium-sized and large firms regarding their performance in the introduction of new products and processes. After a review of the relevant literature, two models are proposed and tested in search for different business strategies and innovation inputs connected to product and process innovations. The empirical analysis uses innovation survey (CIS 2) data at the industry level for 22 manufacturing sectors, broken down in three firm size classes, for eight European countries. Special attention is devoted to tackling the issues of possible endogeneity of the regressors and of unobserved sectoral heterogeneity. The results -strengthening the findings of previous studies -show that product and process innovations, though having some complementarities, are associated to different innovative inputs and strategies pursued by firms. Systematic differences also emerge between the behaviour of large firms and SMEs. JEL codes: L11, O31, O33Keywords: Product innovation; Process innovation; Firm size; Determinants of innovation; European industries 1 The authors would like to thank Marco Vivarelli, Martin Carree and an anonymous referee for their helpful comments. The usual disclaimer applies.

R&D in SMEs: a paradox?

“…Finally, a different management structure (Rothwell 1989) and a less bureaucratic environment (Link and Bozeman 1991) allow a higher responsiveness to innovative opportunities by small firms and new entrants into the industry, through activities that are not at all related to accounted-for formal R&D expenditures. For example, process innovation in small firms is much more related to the ''embodied technological change'' incorporated in the physical capital formation rather than in intangible investment in R&D (Santarelli and Sterlacchini 1990;Conte and Vivarelli 2005;Vaona and Pianta 2008). Hence, official R&D statistics may underestimate innovation in small firms (Kleinknecht 1987;Kleinknecht and Reijnen 1991).…”

Contextual Factors Affecting the Innovation Performance of Manufacturing SMEs in Korea: A Structural Equation Modeling Approach

“…Many Schumpeterian studies also tested this hypothesis by examining the relationships between firm size and innovation performance at the firm level [80]. Thus, these general characteristics affect both product and process innovation [8,[81][82][83]. Table 2 reports the descriptive statistics for the variables.…”

Young innovative companies: Are they high performers in transition economies? Evidence for Vietnam

“…According to Bell (2009) Although the idea of R&D cost spreading supports the advantage of large firms in R&D (Cohen and Klepper, 1996), new technology-based firms (NTBFs) 2 using highly skilled workers may show a propensity to perform R&D not less significant than that of large firms (Audretsch, 1995 (Licht and Nerlinger, 1998). NTBFs gained research attention because of their high growth potential, innovative nature, low failure rate, and ability to increase the science base of a country by successfully commercializing radically innovative products and services and by favoring technological diffusion (Licht and Nerlinger, 1998;Rickne and Jacobsson, 1999;Vaona and Pianta, 2008). For their ability to achieve higher levels of innovation performance in relation to other firms, especially new-to-market innovations, NTBFs have been the recipients of specialized government support in a number of countries, including the United States, the United Kingdom, and several European Union countries (Licht and Nerlinger, 1998;Ferguson and Olofsson, 2004;Schneider and Veugelers, 2010).…”