A note on testing for complementarity and substitutability in the case of multiple practices

Carree, Martin; Lokshin, Boris; Belderbos, René

doi:10.1007/s11123-010-0189-8

Cited by 60 publications

(82 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Therefore, we place a caveat on these results. Finally, as an additional check, we checked and found that the outcomes of the test according to Carree, Lokshin, and Belderbos (2011) testing procedure (not tabulated) are consistent with our reported results.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 59%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Complementarity in alliance portfolios and firm innovation

Sabidussi

Lokshin

Duijsters

2017

Industry and Innovation

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper assesses the impact on firm innovation of combining alliance-specific and partner-specific attributes within a firm's alliance portfolio. In a panel data analysis of the innovation performance of 119 firms operating in the pharmaceutical industry during 1985-2007, we test whether firm's alliance portfolio displays complementarities across four dimensions. The results suggest that specific combinations of attributes may diminish innovation by decreasing the efficiency of diversity management or by generating redundancies. On the other hand, other alliance portfolio practices are mutually reinforcing and thus foster innovation.

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 59%

“…Carree, Lokshin, and Belderbos (2011) show equivalence between the exclusive binary variable approach and non-exclusive binary variable approach (see Equation (9), 265.We use exclusive dummy variable approach in our tests.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

Complementarity in alliance portfolios and firm innovation

Sabidussi

Lokshin

Duijsters

2017

Industry and Innovation

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Since we have multiple components of intangible assets which are quantitative in nature, we follow a recent methodology by Carree et al (2011) for all values (x 1 , x 2 , x 3 , x 4 , x 5 , x 6 , x 7 ) with the inequality being strictly positive for at least one value. The denition for substitutability applies accordingly; the cross derivatives have to be non-positive with at least one strictly negative.…”

Section: Complementarity Between Intangible Assetsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In order to detect complementary or substitutive relationships we follow a recent test approach proposed by Carree et al (2011). The empirical analysis is based on the Mannheim Innovation Panel (MIP), the German contribution to the European-wide Community Innovation Surveys (CIS).…”

Section: Introduction Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intangible Assets and Firm-Level Productivity

Crass

Peters

2014

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Die Dis cus si on Pape rs die nen einer mög lichst schnel len Ver brei tung von neue ren For schungs arbei ten des ZEW. Die Bei trä ge lie gen in allei ni ger Ver ant wor tung der Auto ren und stel len nicht not wen di ger wei se die Mei nung des ZEW dar.Dis cus si on Papers are inten ded to make results of ZEW research prompt ly avai la ble to other eco no mists in order to encou ra ge dis cus si on and sug gesti ons for revi si ons. The aut hors are sole ly respon si ble for the con tents which do not neces sa ri ly repre sent the opi ni on of the ZEW. The studies mentioned above have analysed the effect of intangible assets at the national or highly aggregated industry level. Our study, in contrast, takes a micro perspective and investigates how intangible assets affect productivity at the firmlevel. It is common knowledge that there is an extremely large heterogeneity in (labour) productivity at the firm level -even within the same industry. Productivity differences seem furthermore to be a persistent phenomenon (Doms and Bartelsman, 2000). These characteristics of firm-level productivity variation and persistence has aroused research into the underlying factors (Syverson, 2011). One argument that is put forward to explain these large productivity differences is the heterogeneity of firms' investments in intangible assets, which have been insufficiently taken into account in traditional productivity estimations. There is a substantial literature studying productivity effects of R&D, ICT and human capital in isolation (for recent surveys see Hall et al., 2010;de la Fuente, 2011; Abramovsky and Griffith, 2009). Less is known, however, about productivity effects of other types of intangible assets. We contribute to the literature by simultaneously investigating productivity effects of a comprehensive set of intangible assets following the conceptual framework of Corrado et al. (2009) and by asking whether different kinds of intangible assets are complements or substitutes. In particular, our econometric approach accounts for Innovative Capital (measured by current R&D expenditure, design & licenses expenditure, and patent stock), Human Capital (proxied by training expenditure and share of high skilled labour), Branding Capital (measured by marketing expenditure and trademark stocks), and Organizational Capital (proxied by the introduction of an organizational innovation). Using panel data for German companies covering the period 2006-2010, we can draw the following conclusions. First, even when controlling for a comprehensive set of intangible assets, we find strong positive productivity effects for R&D, brand capital and firm-specific human capital. However, due to collinearity the single effects turn out to be smaller compared to studies that use one type of intangible assets only. Second, we also find positive long-term productivity effects for firms investing in innovative capital and branding capital. That is both a firm's accumulated stock of granted patents and trademarks are conducive to current produc...

show abstract

“…Several studies have examined possible complementarity between technologies using the sign and significance of the effect of technology interactions on productivity (Dorfman, 1996;Stoneman, 2002;Caswell and Zilberman, 1985;Ichniowski, Shaw and Prennushi, 1997;Poppo and Zenger, 2002;and Carree,Lokshin and Belderbos, 2011). All past empirical strategies have suffered the curse of dimensionality which forces the consideration of only a small number of possible technologies.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A test for complementarities among multiple technologies that avoids the curse of dimensionality

Hurley

Kliebenstein

et al. 2012

Economics Letters

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We propose a strategy to identify the complementarity or substitutability among technology bundles. Differences between the observed distribution of technology choices can be subjected to statistical tests. Combinations of technologies that occur with greater frequency than would occur under independence are complementary technologies.Combinations that occur with less frequency are substitute technologies. We use the strategy to evaluate multiple technology adoptions on U.S. hog farms. As the number of bundled technologies increases, they are increasingly likely to be complementary with one another, even if subsets are substitutes when viewed in isolation.JEL: O33; L25; C12

show abstract

A note on testing for complementarity and substitutability in the case of multiple practices

Cited by 60 publications

References 28 publications

Complementarity in alliance portfolios and firm innovation

Complementarity in alliance portfolios and firm innovation

Intangible Assets and Firm-Level Productivity

A test for complementarities among multiple technologies that avoids the curse of dimensionality

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About