Is the R&D behaviour of fast-growing SMEs different? Evidence from CIS III data for 16 countries

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 EconStor may AbstractThis paper studies the R&D behaviour of fast growing SMEs using CIS III data for 16 countries. We group the countries into three groups of countries that roughly have the same position in technological development. The first finding of the research is that that R&D is more important to high growth SMEs in countries that are closer to the technological frontier. The second finding is that high growth SMEs are more innovative than non-high-growth SMEs only for countries close to the technological frontier. This suggests that gazelles derive much of their drive from the exploitation of comparative advantages. From a policy perspective this suggest that there are important limits to centralise policies that aim at fostering high growth SMEs.

Are high-growth firms overrepresented in high-tech industries?

“…Schreyer (2000: 25), in a study covering six European countries, notes that "all the existing evidence points in the same direction: high-growth firms are more technology intensive than the average firm." Hölzl (2009), moreover, finds that in countries closer to the technological frontier, HGFs have a higher R&D intensity than non-HGFs. Further, in a least squares regression framework, Stam and Wennberg (2009) demonstrate that R&D has a positive effect on growth for the top 10 percent of fastest growing startups, but this is not the case for the overall population of firms.…”

“…Therefore, it is perhaps not surprising that previous empirical studies on the industry distribution of HGFs paint a rather ambiguous picture. Early research found evidence of a link between technology and firm growth (Storey 1991(Storey , 1994Kirchoff 1994), and a number of more recent studies have found indications of a positive association between high-tech status or R&D intensity and HGFs (Schreyer 2000;Delmar et al 2003;Hölzl 2009;Wennberg 2009). Schreyer (2000: 25), in a study covering six European countries, notes that "all the existing evidence points in the same direction: high-growth firms are more technology intensive than the average firm."…”

“…Furthermore, because their industry distribution is only one of many aspects of the HGFs under examination, little space is generally devoted to this issue; however, in recent years, some studies (Almus, 2002;de Wit and Timmermans 2008;Hölzl 2009;Wyrwich 2010;Stam and Wennberg 2009;Segarra and Teruel 2014) employ econometric methods to examine it directly.…”

High-growth firms and technological knowledge: do gazelles follow exploration or exploitation strategies?

“…This is largely motivated by the fact that the literature on gazelles emphasizes that the bulk of their economic contribution is due to the process of creative destruction that they are able to engender. Within this line of reasoning, the net job creation ascribed to high growth firms stems from an endless dynamics process in which new opportunities emerge and are likely to replace obsolete activities (Hölzl, 2009(Hölzl, , 2010Henrekson and Johansson, 2010;Daunfelt et al, 2010).…”

Gyors növekedésű vállalatok Magyarországon. Az innovatív, a rejtélyes és a virtuális gazellák

“…elképzelhető, hogy bizonyos iparágakban gyorsabb növekedés jellemző, de az is lehetséges, hogy egyes cégek kiugróan magas növekedésre képesek átlagos vagy alacsony növekedéssel jellemzett iparágakban (Hölzl [2009], Falkenhall-Junkka [2009], Bastesen-Vatne [2009], Henrekson-Johansson [2010]). egyes eredmények alátámaszt-ják a hálózatosodás és az együttműködések jótékony hatását, míg mások ezt megcáfol-ják (Brüderl-Preisendörfer [1998], Havnes-Senneseth [2001], Lechner-Dowling [2003], Schoonjans és szerzőtársai [2013]).…”