Small Business Economics

, Volume 44, Issue 2, pp 231–253 | Cite as

The heterogeneous dynamics between growth and profits: the case of young firms

Article

Abstract

While there is an increasing interest in the literature about the relationship between profits and business growth, the empirical evidence is mixed and inconclusive. This can be explained by the difficulty of fully addressing the complex nature of this relationship. Building on resource-based and evolutionary considerations, the present study investigates the dynamics between growth and profits of young firms by explicitly considering the endogeneity and heterogeneity aspects of the relationship. Data are based on a cohort of Spanish manufacturing firms tracked during the period 1996–2010. The results indicate that young firm growth has a positive impact on profits. In contrast, the effect of profits on growth is not significant. Neither is there a significant correlation between past and current growth. Importantly, we find that the results are strongly influenced by inter-firm heterogeneity. Implications from these findings are discussed.

Keywords

Young firms Firm growth Profits System GMM Endogeneity Heterogeneity 

JEL Classifications

L25 L26 M13 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We want to express our gratitude to Luis Trajtenberg, Gabriel Montes-Rojas and Walter Sosa Escudero for their useful comments on the econometric analysis. Also, we want to thank Christophe Hurlin, Erkan Erdil and Irwin Morris for sharing their routines and commands, and the attendees at the SIDPA Seminar—Faculty of Economics, University of Buenos Aires for their valuable comments. We appreciate the support from Associate Editor Alexander Kritikos and the valuable comments from two anonymous referees. Support from the Spanish Ministry of Science and Technology is also acknowledged (Project ECO2010-21242-C03-01). The authors are jointly responsible for the work. The usual disclaimer applies.

References

  1. Achtenhagen, L., Naldi, L., & Melin, L. (2010). “Business Growth”—Do practitioners and scholars really talk about the same thing? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34(2), 289–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alessi, L., Barigozzi, M., & Capasso, M. (2013). The common component of firm growth. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 26, 73–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arellano, M., & Bond, S. (1991). Some tests of specification for panel data: Monte Carlo evidence and an application to employment equations. Review of Economic Studies, 58(2), 277–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arellano, M., & Bover, O. (1995). Another look at the instrumental variable estimation of error-components models. Journal of Econometrics, 68(1), 29–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Atukeren, E. (2008). Christmas cards, Easter bunnies, and Granger-causality. Quality & Quantity, 42(6), 835–844.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Audretsch, D., Klomp, L., Santarelli, E., & Thurik, R. (2004). Gibrat’s law: Are the services different? Review of Industrial Organization, 24(3), 301–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Barney, J. (1997). Gaining and sustaining competitive advantage. Menlo Park: Addison Wesley.Google Scholar
  9. Blundell, R., & Bond, S. (1998). Initial conditions and moment restrictions in dynamic panel data models. Journal of Econometrics, 87(1), 115–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Blundell, R., & Bond, S. (2000). GMM estimation with persistent panel data: An application to production functions. Econometric Reviews, 19(3), 321–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bond, S. (2002). Dynamic panel data models: A guide to micro data methods and practice. Portuguese Economic Journal, 1(February), 141–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bottazzi, G., Coad, A., Jacoby, N., & Secchi, A. (2011). Corporate growth and industrial dynamics: Evidence from French manufacturing. Applied Economics, 43(1), 103–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bottazzi, G., Dosi, G., Jacoby, N., Secchi, A., & Tamagni, F. (2010). Corporate performances and market selection: Some comparative evidence. Industrial and Corporate Change, 19(6), 1953–1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bottazzi, G., Secchi, A., & Tamagni, F. (2006). Financial fragility and growth dynamics of Italian business firms. LEM papers series, 2006/07. http://www.lem.sssup.it.
  15. Bottazzi, G., Secchi, A., & Tamagni, F. (2007). Productivity, profitability and financial fragility: Empirical evidence from Italian business firms (No. 08). LEM working paper series (Vol. 08, p. 35). http://www.lem.sssup.it.
  16. Brännback, M., Carsrud, A., Renko, M., Ostermark, R., Aaltonen, J., & Kiviluoto, N. (2009). Growth and profitability in small privately held biotech firms: Preliminary findings. New Biotechnology, 25(5), 369–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Brännback, M., Kiviluoto, N., Carsrud, A., & Östermark, R. (2010). Much ado about nearly nothing? An explorative study on the myth of high growth technology start-up entrepreneurship. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, 30(12), 1–14.Google Scholar
  18. Brush, C. G., Bromiley, P., & Hendrickx, M. (2000). The free cash flow hypothesis for sales growth and firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 21(4), 455–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Capelleras, J. L., & Rabetino, R. (2008). Individual, organizational and environmental determinants of new firm employment growth: Evidence from Latin America. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 4(1), 79–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Capon, N., Farley, J., & Hoenig, S. (1990). Determinants of financial performance: A meta-analysis. Management Science, 36(10), 1143–1159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Cho, H., & Pucik, V. (2005). Relationship between innovativeness, quality, growth, profitability, and market value. Strategic Management Journal, 26(6), 555–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Coad, A. (2007). Testing the principle of “growth of the fitter”: The relationship between profits and firm growth. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 18(3), 370–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Coad, A., & Broekel, T. (2012). Firm growth and productivity growth: Evidence from a panel VAR. Applied Economics, 44(10), 1251–1269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Coad, A., Frankish, J., Roberts, R., & Storey, D. (2013). Growth paths and survival chances: An application of Gambler’s Ruin theory. Journal of Business Venturing, 28(5), 615–632.Google Scholar
  25. Coad, A., Rao, R., & Tamagni, F. (2011). Growth processes of Italian manufacturing firms. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 22(1), 54–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Cowling, M. (2004). The growth–profit nexus. Small Business Economics, 22(1), 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Davidsson, P., Delmar, F., & Wiklund, J. (2006). Entrepreneurship and the growth of firms (p. 240). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Davidsson, P., Steffens, P., & Fitzsimmons, J. (2009). Growing profitable or growing from profits: Putting the horse in front of the cart? Journal of Business Venturing, 24(4), 388–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Delmar, F., Davidsson, P., & Gartner, W. B. (2003). Arriving at the high-growth firm. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(2), 189–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Delmar, F., McKelvie, A., & Wennberg, K. (2013). Untangling the relationships among growth, profitability and survival in new firms. Technovation, 33(8–9), 276–291.Google Scholar
  31. Dierickx, I., & Cool, K. (1989). Asset stock accumulation and sustainability of competitive advantage. Management Science, 35(12), 1504–1512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Dosi, G. (2005). Statistical regularities in the evolution of industries. A guide through some evidence and challenges for the theory. LEM working paper series, 17. http://www.lem.sssup.it/.
  33. Dumitrescu, E., & Hurlin, C. (2012). Testing for Granger non-causality in heterogeneous panels. Economic Modelling, 29(4), 1450–1460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Erdil, E., & Yetkiner, I. H. (2009). The Granger-causality between health care expenditure and output: A panel data approach. Applied Economics, 41(4), 511–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Garnsey, E. (1998). A theory of the early growth of the firm. Industrial and Corporate Change, 7(3), 523–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Garnsey, E., Stam, E., & Heffernan, P. (2006). New firm growth: Exploring processes and paths. Industry & Innovation, 13(1), 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Geroski, P. (1998). An applied econometrician’s view of large company performance. Review of Industrial Organization, 13(3), 271–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Geroski, P. (2005). Understanding the implications of empirical work on corporate growth rates. Managerial and Decision Economics, 26(2), 129–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Gilbert, B. A., McDougall, P. P., & Audretsch, D. B. (2006). New venture growth: A review and extension. Journal of Management, 32(6), 926–950.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Goddard, J., Tavakoli, M., & Wilson, J. O. S. (2009). Sources of variation in firm profitability and growth. Journal of Business Research, 62(4), 495–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Granger, C. W. J. (2003). Some aspects of causal relationships. Journal of Econometrics, 112(1), 69–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Hernández-Cánovas, G., & Martínez-Solano, P. (2008). Relationship lending and SME financing in the continental European bank-based system. Small Business Economics, 34(4), 465–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Hölzl, W. (2014). Persistence, survival, and growth: A closer look at 20 years of fast-growing firms in Austria. Industrial and Corporate Change, 23(1), 199–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Hood, M. V, I. I. I., Kidd, Q., & Morris, I. (2008). Two sides of the same coin? Employing Granger causality tests in a time series cross-section framework. Political Analysis, 16(3), 324–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Hurlin, C. (2007). Testing Granger causality in heterogeneous panel data models with fixed coefficients. LEO Documents de Recherche, 10. http://www.univ-orleans.fr/leo/.
  46. Hurlin, C., & Venet, B. (2008). Financial development and growth: A re-examination using a panel granger causality test. LEO Documents de Recherche, 9. http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/.
  47. Im, K. S., Pesaran, H. M., & Schin, Y. (2003). Testing for unit roots in heterogeneous panels. Journal of Econometrics, 115(1), 53–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Jang (Shawn), S., & Park, K. (2011). Inter-relationship between firm growth and profitability. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 30(4), 1027–1035.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Lee, S. (2014). The relationship between growth and profit: Evidence from firm-level panel data. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 28, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Lockett, A., Wiklund, J., Davidsson, P., & Girma, S. (2011). Organic and acquisitive growth: Re-examining, testing and extending Penrose’s growth theory. Journal of Management Studies, 48(1), 48–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. López-Gracia, J., & Sogorb-Mira, F. (2008). Testing trade-off and pecking order theories financing SMEs. Small Business Economics, 31(2), 117–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Mason, C., & Stark, M. (2004). What do investors look for in a business plan? A comparison of the investment criteria of bankers, venture capitalists and business angels. International Small Business Journal, 22(3), 227–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Nakano, A., & Kim, D. (2011). Dynamics of growth and profitability: The case of Japanese manufacturing firms. Global Economic Review, 40(1), 67–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Nelson, R. R. (1991). Why do firms differ, and how does it matter? Strategic Management Journal, 12(S2), 61–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Nelson, R. R. (1995). Recent evolutionary theorizing about economic change. Journal of Economic Literature, 33(1), 48–90.Google Scholar
  56. Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (1982). An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge: Belknap Press.Google Scholar
  57. Nickell, S. (1981). Biases in dynamic models with fixed effects. Econometrica, 49(6), 1417–1426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Nunes, P. M., Gonçalves, M., & Serrasqueiro, Z. (2013). The influence of age on SMEs’ growth determinants: Empirical evidence. Small Business Economics, 40(2), 249–272.Google Scholar
  59. Parker, S. C., Storey, D. J., & Witteloostuijn, A. (2010). What happens to gazelles? The importance of dynamic management strategy. Small Business Economics, 35(2), 203–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Pearl, J. (2009). Causal inference in statistics: An overview. Statistics Surveys, 3, 96–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Peneder, M. R. (2007). Firm entry and turnover: The nexus with profitability and growth. Small Business Economics, 30(4), 327–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Penrose, E. (1959). The theory of the growth of the firm. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  63. Peteraf, M. (1993). The cornerstones of competitive advantage: A resource-based view. Strategic Management Journal, 14(3), 179–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Peteraf, M., & Barney, J. (2003). Unraveling the resource-based tangle. Managerial and Decision Economics, 24(4), 309–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Reid, G. C. (1995). Early life-cycle behaviour of micro-firms in Scotland. Small Business Economics, 7(2), 89–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Roodman, D. (2006). How to do xtabond2: An introduction to difference and system GMM in Stata. Center for global development working paper, (103). www.cgdev.org.
  67. Roodman, D. (2009). A note on the theme of too many instruments. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 71(1), 135–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Roper, S. (1999). Modelling small business growth and profitability. Small Business Economics, 13(3), 235–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Shepherd, D., & Wiklund, J. (2009). Are we comparing apples with apples or apples with oranges? Appropriateness of knowledge accumulation across growth studies. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(1), 105–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Short, J., Ketchen, D. J, Jr, Palmer, T., & Hult, T. (2007). Firm, strategic group, and industry influences on performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(2), 147–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Srholec, M., & Verspagen, B. (2012). The Voyage of the Beagle into innovation: Explorations on heterogeneity, selection, and sectors. Industrial and Corporate Change, 21(5), 1221–1253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Stam, E. (2010). Growth beyond Gibrat: Firm growth processes and strategies. Small Business Economics, 35(2), 129–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Steffens, P., Davidsson, P., & Fitzsimmons, J. (2009). Performance configurations over time: Implications for growth- and profit-oriented strategies. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(1), 125–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Storey, D. (2011). Optimism and chance: The elephants in the entrepreneurship room. International Small Business Journal, 29(4), 303–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Sutton, J. (1997). Gibrat’s legacy. Journal of Economic Literature, 35(1), 40–59.Google Scholar
  76. Teruel-Carrizosa, M. (2008). Gibrat’s law and the learning process. Small Business Economics, 34(4), 355–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Weinzimmer, L. G., Nystrom, P. C., & Freeman, S. J. (1998). Measuring organizational growth: Issues, consequences and guidelines. Journal of Management, 24(2), 235–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5(2), 171–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Westhead, P., & Wright, M. (2011). David Storey’s optimism and chance perspective: A case of the Emperor’s new clothes? International Small Business Journal, 29(6), 714–729.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Wiklund, J., Davidsson, P., & Delmar, F. (2003). What do they think and feel about growth? An expectancy-value approach to small business managers’ attitudes toward growth1. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 27(3), 247–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Wilcox, J. (1971). A Gambler’s ruin prediction of business failure using accounting data. Sloan Management Review, 12(3), 1–10.Google Scholar
  82. Windmeijer, F. (2005). A finite sample correction for the variance of linear efficient two-step GMM estimators. Journal of Econometrics, 126(1), 25–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Entrepreneurial Development Programme (PRODEM), Institute of IndustryUniversidad Nacional de General SarmientoLos PolvorinesArgentina
  2. 2.Department of BusinessUniversitat Autònoma de BarcelonaBellaterraSpain

Personalised recommendations