Research And Development Productivity And Spillovers: Empirical Evidence At The Firm Level

Abstract

A variety of methods have been used to investigate the empirical relationship between research and development (R&D) spending and the productivity of firms. The most widely employed frameworks are the production function and the associated productivity framework. In these settings, productivity growth is related to expenditures on R&D, and an attempt is made to estimate statistically the part of productivity growth that can be attributed to R&D activities. This article surveys the expansive body of empirical literature on this subject and finds a large and significant impact of R&D on firm performance on average. However, the estimated returns vary considerably between the different studies due to differences across data samples and econometric models, as well as methodological and conceptual issues. A meta-analysis on the studies surveyed reveals that the estimated rates of return do not significantly differ between countries, whereas the estimated elasticities do. Furthermore, the estimated elasticities are significantly higher in the 1980s and consistently higher in the 1990s compared with the 1970s. Hence, contrary to a widely held belief, we find no convincing evidence of an exhaustion of R&D opportunities in the last two decades.

Do the effects of R&D tax credits vary across industries? A meta-regression analysis

“…Besides, the additional R&D carried out in industry j will also lead to economic and productivity gains in other industries of the economy through a set of inter-industry knowledge spillover effects (Wieser, 2005). These can be defined as:…”

Innovation and Firms’ Productivity Growth in Slovenia: Sensitivity of Results to Sectoral Heterogeneity and to Estimation Method

“…5 Early models developed by economists affiliated with the NBER incorporate a variable that captured the 'economically valuable technological knowledge', or what Griliches (1979) termed 'knowledge capital' and said very little regarding what knowledge is, or regarding how it becomes important for innovation and growth. These models focused 5 Relevant reviews of the literature include Nadiri (1991), Griliches (1992), Mairesse and Mohnen, (1995), Cincera (1998), and Wieser (2005). mainly on the relationship between R&D activity and productivity growth within a production function framework (Wieser, 2005) that includes 'knowledge capital' in addition to the traditional inputs.…”

“…6 These include Schankerman (1981) and Griliches (1980Griliches ( , 1986 on the value-added of U.S. firms in selected industries in 1963and 1972, respectively, Griliches and Mairesse (1984 on sales of U.S firms from 1966to 1977, Cuneo and Mairesse (1984 on French scientific firms from 1972 to 1977, Hall and Mairesse (1995) and Mairesse and Hall (1996) on sales and value-added in U.S. and French firms in the 1980s, Bartelsman, et al (1998) on value-added in Dutch firms in the late 1980s, Cincera (1998) with regard to the world from 1987 to 1994, O'Mahoney and Vecchi (2000) on sales of U.S., European, and Japanese firms in the mid-1990s. Wieser (2005) carries out a meta-analysis of these studies and provides five conclusions:…”

R versus D: estimating the differentiated effect of research and development on innovation results

“…In addition, policy initiatives towards fostering R&D have proliferated all around the world and at different levels of governance (local, regional, national and supranational). As a consequence, one of the main objectives of economists is to evaluate whether the returns to this investment justify the expenditure, and offer a guide to managers and policy makers on how to choose their investments and evaluate the success of different strategies (Wieser, 2005;Hall et al, 2010).…”

“…Following this model, a huge stream of literature has been developed. The abundance of this literature can be seen in the large number of surveys that have already been carried out on this topic: Griliches (1995), Hall (1996), Mairesse and Sassenou (1991); Mairesse and Mohnen (1995), Nadiri (1993) and, more recently, Wieser (2005) and Hall et al (2010).…”