Advances in Spatial Science - Editorial Board Manfred M. Fischer Geoffrey J.D. Hewings Phần 6

Đổi mới và Các công ty "Năng suất tăng trưởng ở SloveniaNgược lại với các kết quả tiếp theo, ở đây chúng tôi không phân biệt đối xử giữa sản phẩm và quá trình đổi mới và xem xét bất kỳ hình thức của yếu tố quyết định của tăng trưởng năng suất.
Nội dung trích xuất từ tài liệu:
Advances in Spatial Science - Editorial Board Manfred M. Fischer Geoffrey J.D. Hewings Phần 68 Innovation and Firms’ Productivity Growth in Slovenia 187where VA is value added and Emp is employment. In contrast to the subsequentresults, here we do not discriminate between product and process innovation andconsider any form of determinant of productivity growth. Contrary to our expectations, no significant positive effects of innovation onlabor productivity growth are revealed in the top panel of Table 8.6. Moreover,small manufacturing firms (between 10 and 50 employees) even experienced asignificant negative “treatment” effect of innovation on labor productivity growth(significant at 10% only). It remains to be seen in the later specification whether thisresult is robust. One possible explanation for failure to find more conclusive results may be thatwe are not capturing the relevant growth period. It may take longer than 2 yearsafter the initial innovation for firms to internalize all the benefits of it. To control forthis we redefined productivity growth so that we explore the growth in laborproductivity between the second and fourth year after the innovation: VA VA À ln growth½ðt þ 4Þ À ðt þ 2ފ ¼ ln (8.10) Emp tþ4 Emp tþ2 The bottom panel of Table 8.6 presents estimates of the average treatment effectof innovation on labor productivity growth between the second and fourth yearsafter the innovation was initially made. By changing the period of observation wehope to capture the effects of innovation on productivity that were not apparent inthe first 2 years after the time of innovation. As before, we find that innovating firmsdid not grow significantly faster (in terms of productivity) than comparable non-innovating firms. We no longer find negative impacts of innovation on productivitygrowth in small manufacturing firms. Interestingly, while a non-significant impactof innovation on productivity growth of manufacturing firms has been expectedwith respect to our previous OLS results, finding non-significant results for servicesfirms is a little more surprising. Matching innovating and non-innovating servicesfirms and comparing their relative performance fails to uncover significant differ-ences in post-treatment (i.e. post-innovation) performance between both groups. To further disentangle the cause of this lack of evidence on the effects ofinnovation on productivity growth, we opt for a more specific definition of innova-tion by explicitly discriminating between product and process innovations inTable 8.7. This is based on the findings that process innovations have labordisplacement effects and are expected to result in significant productivity growth,while, due to the demand effect, product innovations may likely cause employmentgrowth and, thus, may not result in significant productivity growth (Harrison et al2005; Parisi et al 2006; Hall et al 2007). Evidence on changes in employment after a firm has conducted some innova-tion, however, do not confirm these differentiated expectations (see Table B1 inAppendix B). Notwithstanding what kind of innovation a firm has conducted, bothprocess and product innovating firms seem on average to decrease their employ-ment levels. This is true for virtually all size classes with only a few exceptions.188 J.P. Damijan et al.Decreases in employment levels should therefore result in positive changes inproductivity growth in both groups of innovating firms. Table 8.7 presents estimates of the average treatment effect separately forprocess and product innovation on labor productivity growth.12 In line with theevidence on employment changes, results for separate sets of process and productinnovating firms do not differ substantially from those presented for aggregateinnovations. Again, little evidence is found in favor of innovations positivelyaffecting productivity growth. As was the case before, most of the estimates arenot significantly different than zero, whereby small manufacturing firms (between10 and 50 employees) in the case of process innovations and medium sized servicesfirms (between 50 and 250 employees) in the case of product innovations, are foundto experience a significant negative “treatment” effect of innovation on laborproductivity growth. These negative effects disappear when taking into accountproductivity growth between the second and fourth years after the innovation(see Tables A1 and A2 in the Appendix A). Possibly, the reason for the insignificance of the results may be that the effects ofinnovation are not adequately captured by labor productivity and that total factorproductivity should have been used instead. Additionally, our productivity proxymay fail to control for contemporaneous growth in inputs, which may conceal theactual productivity dynamics. In order to control for this we use a TFP measure ofproductivity estimated by the Levinsohn and Petrin (2003) method. For obviousreasons this is done for manufacturing firms only. The results shown in Table 8.8again indicate that there is no significant relationship between innovation activityand subsequent increases in productivity after 2 or 4 years. The only exception aremicro firms (less than 10 employees) in the period of 4 years after innovation,where a negative relationship is found, but this result is not repeated in any otheralternative specification.ConclusionsThe paper examines the implications of endogenous growth theory on the relation-ship between firm productivity, innovation and productivity growth usi ...